Turn on thread page Beta

Fox hunting is barbaric and should be banned. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    i think that does a major disservice to the majoriy of anti-fox hunting people
    not particuarly. it does a disservice to the minority of them.

    and is odd that this argument is often used by those who advocate hunting
    whilst at the same time they proclaim fox hunting is not a class based sport.
    why? thats exactly the point they are making.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    People always say that a reason for eating animals is to keep their population under control: FACT: There is now more farm animals living at this time than ever before in all history.
    wheres the contradiction?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherbert)
    i do not believe you need to breed hundreds of blood thirsty hounds and have upper class twits galloping about the countryside on horseback to cull foxes.
    fair enough, but then banning this sport for that reason would be scandalous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    In reguards to the pest control they wouldn't be a pest if the farmers did more to protect their animals.
    like controlling fox populations?
    or any other schemes that will cost the farming community and the taxpayer?
    or that bottomless pit of money?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    fair enough, but then banning this sport for that reason would be scandalous.

    Ban it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    none are reasons to ban an activity and sport that the majority wish to preserve.
    The majority does not wish to preserve this activity, which is why Labour are pressing ahead with the ban - regardless of the arguments for or against, the principal reason Labour are doing it is because they know it's a populist gesture and a sure vote winner. Plain and simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VixenIW)
    I have only just joined this thread and ive had a brief look at peoples responses but obviously not read the whole 38 pages or whatever. And I must say it saddens me that supposed intelliegent people support or are not against this terrible, terrible 'sport'. How anyone could support the trauma, cruelty and suffering of such a beautiful, sensitive, intelliegent creature is totally beyond me.
    life is full of mysteries.

    At the end of the day it is cruel
    substantiate.

    and pointless
    false.

    and barbaric
    substantiate.

    and is yet another thing that makes me ashamed to belong to the human race.
    i like to think the human race is both superior and an animal its own behavioural right. i rather proud of it.

    Anyone who puts a creature through such terror and pain and horror
    substantiate. substantiate. substantiate.

    deserves to be chased through the woods and ripped apart by dogs themselves.
    or see their livelihood disappear, the loss of their home and a lifetime of struggling to provide for themselves and/or their family. easy choice.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    none are reasons to ban an activity and sport that the majority wish to preserve.
    majority?

    You do know that the Countryside Alliance were forced to retract their 59% agree with hunting posters for fiddling the figures?

    http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/...cations_id=all
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    or see their livelihood disappear, the loss of their home and a lifetime of struggling to provide for themselves and/or their family. easy choice.
    The world moves on. Mines are closed down, quotas limit how much fisherman can catch, child chimney sweeps are prohibited - times change.

    The argument that fox hunting should be retained simply to provide those involved with this activty an income and home is sentimental rubbish.

    Communities will be affected, granted, there may well be increased unemployment levels in the short term but as with the mining villages in Wales and the North of England, new industries will spring up and people will get on their bikes and find new work elsewhere.

    Or perhaps you can dig up some numbers showing how fox hunting contributes billions to the country's economy and that banning this activity will send the nation nosediving into recession?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    The majority does not wish to preserve this activity,
    A survey taken by Countryside Alliance showed 18% of respondents agreed "hunting should be allowed to continue because it is essentially a matter of civil liberties".

    A further 41% said hunting should be allowed "under regulation", while 36% wanted it banned "because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties.

    Incidentally, the Burns report clearly dismissed grounds of cruelty.

    which is why Labour are pressing ahead with the ban
    interesting that you say pressing ahead with the ban, as opposed to pressing ahead with legislation or pressing ahead with a commons vote. The Parliament Act was designed for legislation of national importance and unique urgency, yet, as you point out, the second chamber will by overruled for a quick vote grab that will not be enforced for another 2 years. Not only have ones basic rights and liberties been quashed but their safeguarding by the 'check and balance' of the Lords has been completely ignored. an unprecedent overruling on a subject that the masses care or know little about.

    - regardless of the arguments for or against, the principal reason Labour are doing it is because they know it's a populist gesture and a sure vote winner. Plain and simple.
    and a crying shame that is.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    A survey taken by Countryside Alliance showed 18% of respondents agreed "hunting should be allowed to continue because it is essentially a matter of civil liberties".

    A further 41% said hunting should be allowed "under regulation", while 36% wanted it banned "because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties.
    (Original post by Advertising Standards Authority)
    Moreover, it took expert advice and understood that the survey's questions were phrased in broad terms and that respondents who had agreed with the third statement could have interpreted it in many ways and agreed with it for many different reasons.

    The Authority understood, therefore, that to assume that the group of respondents who agreed with the third statement held a similar opinion to the group who agreed with the first statement and to attribute the former group with support for the statement "keep hunting", was misleading.
    ie the questions/phrases given to agree or disagree with were leading making the opinion polls results misleading. There are very few people likely to vote that "cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties" even if they believe that fox hunting should be banned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    A survey taken by Countryside Alliance showed 18% of respondents agreed "hunting should be allowed to continue because it is essentially a matter of civil liberties".

    A further 41% said hunting should be allowed "under regulation", while 36% wanted it banned "because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties.
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    majority?

    You do know that the Countryside Alliance were forced to retract their 59% agree with hunting posters for fiddling the figures?

    http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/...cations_id=all
    Lies, damned lies, etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    The world moves on. Mines are closed down, quotas limit how much fisherman can catch, child chimney sweeps are prohibited - times change.
    change because of the free economic market and basic human rights.
    no legitimate grounds have been brought against the continuation of hunting with hounds.

    The argument that fox hunting should be retained simply to provide those involved with this activty an income and home is sentimental rubbish.
    retained? fox hunting is an activity that has to be prohibited not retained. and with grounds to that effect. The Burns report found that it contributed and provided an income and livelihood for many.

    Fox hunting should not be banned for a great number of reasons, not least since, there is simply no reason to ban it.

    "It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised"

    Communities will be affected, granted,

    Or perhaps you can dig up some numbers showing how fox hunting contributes billions to the country's economy and that banning this activity will send the nation nosediving into recession?
    i have no need or wish to. they dont exist. what does exist is the principle of common law, the respect of the minority against the majority and the principle of basic civil liberties. what doesnt exist is a reason to ban hunting.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i have no need or wish to. they dont exist. what does exist is the principle of common law, the respect of the minority against the majority and the principle of basic civil liberties. what doesnt exist is a reason to ban hunting.
    So are you in favour of the re-introduction of **** fighting - as a way of culling the excess of male chickens born but not needed in farming it would surely be effective (and no more cruel than electrocution/beheading without stunning), and most of the other pro-hunting arguements go in it's favour...

    Or how about badger baiting - they're a pest according to most farmers and given their habits the only real way to get rid of them is to dig up their homes and batter them to death with blunt instruments and/or train dogs to kill them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    ie the questions/phrases given to agree or disagree with were leading making the opinion polls results misleading. There are very few people likely to vote that "cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties" even if they believe that fox hunting should be banned.
    the phrase/slogan adopted by the Countryside Alliance was subsequently misleading. not the figures i quoted. the majority wanted the activity preserved for a number of reasons.

    The majority does not wish to preserve this activity
    the figures suggest the majority does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no legitimate grounds have been brought against the continuation of hunting with hounds.
    Substantiate, substantiate, substantiate.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    "It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised"
    It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may approve of with what must be permitted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    So are you in favour of the re-introduction of **** fighting - as a way of culling the excess of male chickens born but not needed in farming it would surely be effective (and no more cruel than electrocution/beheading without stunning), and most of the other pro-hunting arguements go in it's favour...
    i can find no reasons to submit it for RE-INTRODUCTION, no. although, I would permit it under regulation if the opportunity arose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Substantiate, substantiate, substantiate.
    thats for you to do, clearly.

    It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may approve of with what must be permitted.
    which is why we rely on common law and an effective parlimentary system. this safeguard has been removed.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the phrase/slogan adopted by the Countryside Alliance was subsequently misleading. not the figures i quoted. the majority wanted the activity preserved for a number of reasons.
    So you're saying that people choosing not to agree with the statment "cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties" automatically agree with keeping hunting? Because as far as I can see you're using the figures to back up your assertion in the same way as the Countryside Alliance used them to back up it's statement.

    The question was posed to query peoples opinions on the balance between civil liberties and government intervention - NOT as a way of asking "do you agree with hunting yes or no?".

    The additional phrases with regard to civil liberties cloud the issue and make the question (and therefore the answers) not straight forward and not robust. The most recent 2000 poll asking a straight question showed a 63% support for a ban http://www.countryside-alliance.org/...001019poll.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    thats for you to do, clearly.
    Clearly not. Both sides of the argument have a duty to substantiate what they say. You can't get away with vague nonsense like:

    no legitimate grounds have been brought against the continuation of hunting with hounds.
    Of course all manner of legitimate grounds have been brought against the continuation of hunting with hounds. There are also arguments for retaining it. The cruelty issue is hardly as clear cut as you seem to make out, for example.

    The fox has no natural predators except man, and is therefore not accustomed to being chased.

    Fox hunting imposes physical stress to the extent that the animal suffers unduly. In other words, fox hunting is cruel.

    Pro-hunt campaigners often say that a fox is always killed by hounds with a quick nip on the back of the neck, thus severing the spinal chord. It may finally die this way, but the fox is likely to have suffered multiple agonising injuries before the final 'nip' is given. Many foxes have been recovered with their innards torn out, but no sign of that fatal nip.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.