Turn on thread page Beta

Fox hunting is barbaric and should be banned. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    change because of the free economic market and basic human rights.
    no legitimate grounds have been brought against the continuation of hunting with hounds.
    Why do you not see animal rights issues as legitamate. In a country where as a whole we are trying to make the rights of animals important this is a genuin aregument. There are many people who feel that fox hunting is inhumane and therefore should not be allowed.
    Also evidence has been produced on this thread already which showed that the number of foxes did not drastically increase when there was no hunting due to foot and mouth disease. This suggests that fox hunting is a social activity and people do have other options.


    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.
    As I have just pointed out there are other options for the people who get their income and livelyhood from the hunt. Drag hunts have all the fun of the hunt without killing an animal at the end of it. So the majority of these jobs would be kept.

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

    "It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised"
    If we do not ban fox hunting then why ban any type of animal abuse? I mean surely the abuse and killing of domestic animals is something that is disapproved of but according to many of the arguments put forward on this thread this is not ground to have it as illegal. Because apparently cruelty isn't a valid enough reason.

    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.
    This "civil liberty" should be taken away from people as it allows them to brutally kill beautiful animals. In this country there are many minority groups who don't have rights that they deserve more than this group. I don't think that people should have the right to tourture and then kill these animals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    So you're saying that people choosing not to agree with the statment "cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties"
    "wanted it banned "because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties.

    NOT as a way of asking "do you agree with hunting yes or no?".
    thousands disagree with hunting, rural folk, politicians and farmers alike, but dont agree with this ban or a ban against hunting with hounds. that is essentially the point of the pro-Hunt community. we respect your right to not like it, but respect ours to take part in a pastime that we enjoy and benefit greatly from. faced with that trade-off, the majority submitted that civil liberties were of greater importance.

    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.
    that would be a matter of your intepretation of the questions at hand.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    "wanted it banned "because cruelty is more important to me than civil liberties.
    But what about people who don't think that cruelty shouldn't be places above all civil liberties but in this case want it banned. They would probably not have put themselves in the above group.


    thousands disagree with hunting, rural folk, politicians and farmers alike, but dont agree with this ban or a ban against hunting with hounds. that is essentially the point of the pro-Hunt community. we respect your right to not like it, but respect ours to take part in a pastime that we enjoy and benefit greatly from. faced with that trade-off, the majority submitted that civil liberties were of greater importance.
    Then ask them the question would you support a ban of fox hunting. Polls done by newspapers ect do suggest that the majority of people support a ban of fox hunting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Clearly not. Both sides of the argument have a duty to substantiate what they say. You can't get away with vague nonsense like:
    its hardly vague! they are clearly not substantial because the Butler report covers the impact of each, notably the cruelty and suffering to the animal and found their was no suitable suggestion to the House that hunting should be banned. you yourself found no legitimate reason to ban hunting when you described the bill as a popularist vote winner, "pure and simple". I have no need to substantiate reasons to preserve fox-hunting because no substantial reason has been provided to ban it.


    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.
    they are not legitimate in respect of the bill that is being passed or the advice the government was submitted. the entirely political motive and nature of the bill enhances that reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    But what about people who don't think that cruelty shouldn't be places above all civil liberties but in this case want it banned. They would probably not have put themselves in the above group.
    would it alter the majority balance? no. although, one has to hope the questions were posed in a comprehensive manner.

    Then ask them the question would you support a ban of fox hunting. Polls done by newspapers ect do suggest that the majority of people support a ban of fox hunting.
    im sure you can find such statistics yes. My belief is, when presented with a clear understanding of the problem, its context and consequences, those voting for an all-out ban are in the minority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the entirely political motive and nature of the bill enhances that reality.
    You seem to agree, then, that the bill has a populist motivation behind it, yet you also claim that the majority are not in favour. Hmm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    My belief is, when presented with a clear understanding of the problem, its context and consequences, those voting for an all-out ban are in the minority.
    You are entitled to your belief, however mistaken that may be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    You seem to agree, then, that the bill has a populist motivation behind it, yet you also claim that the majority are not in favour. Hmm.
    i have been clear that the majority would want fox hunting preserved in some form. the government may well believe that this is a populist motivation, i believe it is based on their vote base, the election promises they made and the impact such legislation and its enforcement may have.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    im sure you can find such statistics yes. My belief is, when presented with a clear understanding of the problem, its context and consequences, those voting for an all-out ban are in the minority.
    I will when I come back. I have seen a lot of information in newspapers and I am sure it won't be too hard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    You are entitled to your belief, however mistaken that may be.
    naturally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I will when I come back. I have seen a lot of information in newspapers and I am sure it won't be too hard.
    it will no doubt be of the variety, YES: 60% NO: 40%
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it will no doubt be of the variety, YES: 60% NO: 40%
    Very likely - a significant change from the 1997 poll which had a YES vote of 76% (IIRC)...but still a majority supporting a ban.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it will no doubt be of the variety, YES: 60% NO: 40%
    Yes, people are in favour of a ban?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    This "civil liberty" should be taken away from people as it allows them to brutally kill beautiful animals.
    substantiate brutal.
    "beautiful animal"? please, lets keep it sensible.

    In this country there are many minority groups who don't have rights that they deserve more than this group. I don't think that people should have the right to tourture and then kill these animals.
    torture?
    we dont have the rights to kill animals? at all?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Yes, people are in favour of a ban?
    depends on the host. personally i find them highly misleading myself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Yes, people are in favour of a ban?
    People are also in favor of reintroducing capital punishment. If government is so keen of pleasing the people why aren't they legislating in this area with the same vigour?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    we dont have the rights to kill animals? at all?
    Animals should only be killed under the strictest supervision and with the highest care taken to keep suffering to a minimum - I would also draw a certain distinction between domesticated/agricultural/lab animals and wild animals.

    Fox hunts are all about the social aspects, the enjoyment of the chase and giving the horses a good ride. The suffering and cruel death of a wild animal at the end seems to be of minor significance to those engaged in this activity. Killing for pleasure is acceptable to you? Animal welfare is not?

    The only legitimate reasons you seem to be able to come up with to defend retention of hunting with hounds is that livelihoods and the vague notion of 'civil liberties' may be at risk.

    Or do you think animals do not deserve to have any rights whatsoever? You believe we are entitled to do whatever we like with them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    The Fox Hunting Bill that MPs will vote on today, refers to Fox Hunting with hounds. If passed and enforced, incidents of fox hunting and culling with firearms and traps will increase. Surely incidents such as this will rise in response.
    Is that not a reason to ban fox hunting all together then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    none are reasons to ban an activity and sport that the majority wish to preserve.
    All are reasons which justify a banning. Also, I think you'll find, that those who wish to preserve are NOT in the majority.




    (Original post by vienna95)
    put in any relative context, these are very thin claims indeed.
    Facts, not claims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)


    why? thats exactly the point they are making.
    the point they are making by claiming this is all to do with class envy is that it is not a class based sport?
 
 
 
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.