Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Fox hunting to be legalised if Tories win 2015 General Election Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Wouldn't that make is carnivores guilty?

    What about when the fox harms a lamb. It rips the lambs hind legs off while it it still alive and then leaves the lamb alive. Is it fox still innocent then? What about when the crows come and peck out the lambs eyes while it is still alive? Are the crows still innocent?

    Or is it just destruction to land?

    Such as dear destroying woodland? Are they guilty?

    How does the farmer destroy land by protecting his chickens? Last time I checked foxes weren't land.
    Well, I'm vegan, so using your argument, I'm innocent.

    Read between the lines. Stop attacking my perfectly sound point because you have nothing else to say. Of course destroying land and killing a lamb and chickens make the perpetrator guilty. I was actually having a sound debate until you starting being ridiculous and pedantic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It is, as you would see if you read the thread, it's not being killed for our entertainment, our entertainment is being derived from the necessity of killing it; similarly, you do not need to derive entertainment from you own exercise, or the exercise of others, yet you still do by making structured sports, participating in them or watching others participate in them at a professional level.
    I'm struggling not to use expletives here, I really really am. It is not necessary to kill a fox in the context of a hunting party. Ever. The only time (unfortunately) it is necessary to kill a fox is when it is destroying land and livestock.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainshadow)
    Well, I'm vegan, so using your argument, I'm innocent.

    Read between the lines. Stop attacking my perfectly sound point because you have nothing else to say. Of course destroying land and killing a lamb and chickens make the perpetrator guilty. I was actually having a sound debate until you starting being ridiculous and pedantic.
    I never accused you of being guilty of anything.

    I'm merely pointing out the holes in your argument. It is not perfectly sound because to have innocent and guilty one would need laws. And to have laws one would need morality. And animals do not have morality. Therefore there is not innocent or guilty in nature. Just as there is no such thing as murder with animals, because it is called instinct and survival.

    I'm not being pedantic, you were just wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainshadow)
    I'm struggling not to use expletives here, I really really am. It is not necessary to kill a fox in the context of a hunting party. Ever. The only time (unfortunately) it is necessary to kill a fox is when it is destroying land and livestock.
    The whole point of hunting is pest control, the fox being the pest. The foxes kill the lambs and chickens as we know. So the hunt kills the foxes. Which you say is OK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The whole point of hunting is pest control, the fox being the pest. The foxes kill the lambs and chickens as we know. So the hunt kills the foxes. Which you say is OK.
    I don't say it's ok. It's just, unfortunately, an alleviation of the problem.

    The thing I have a problem with is the hunt. When humans (who lack humanity) hunt a fox and almost ceremonially murder it, that, THAT is what I have a problem.

    (Original post by DiddyDec)

    I'm merely pointing out the holes in your argument. It is not perfectly sound because to have innocent and guilty one would need laws. And to have laws one would need morality. And animals do not have morality. Therefore there is not innocent or guilty in nature. Just as there is no such thing as murder with animals, because it is called instinct and survival.

    I'm not being pedantic, you were just wrong.
    It's a figure of speech: innocent or guilty. By the reasons I exemplified, a fox can be innocent or guilty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainshadow)
    I don't say it's ok. It's just, unfortunately, an alleviation of the problem.

    The thing I have a problem with is the hunt. When humans (who lack humanity) hunt a fox and almost ceremonially murder it, that, THAT is what I have a problem.

    It's a figure of speech: innocent or guilty. By the reasons I exemplified, a fox can be innocent or guilty.
    Murder is only applicable to humans killing humans.

    Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    By your logic then all foxes are guilty because all foxes have killed other animals. Which by extension makes all carnivores guilty so we should kill all carnivores. Have I got that right or am I missing something?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainshadow)
    I'm struggling not to use expletives here, I really really am. It is not necessary to kill a fox in the context of a hunting party. Ever. The only time (unfortunately) it is necessary to kill a fox is when it is destroying land and livestock.
    You have time and again failed to understand the argument behind it. Additionally, it' too late to kill it when it's already done the damage, or do you expect farmers to look over their livestock 24/7? It's a mere issue of practicality, it's also a lot easier to deal with the problem if you get their numbers down, then let them breed and then later pull the numbers down than let the numbers go up an up and up because you're only killing a few here and there and then suddenly you need a massive cull anyway. What you suggest is not too different to not preparing for an exam and then revising after it because then you know what to revise.

    And as I said, there are a hell of a lot of things that are not ever necessary, still doesn't stop you, or anybody else, from doing it. Are you a vegan (particularly of the pretentious variety)?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Saying whether something is elite has nothing to do with whether the participants are elite.....

    I wouldnt class Polo as "elite".....
    Exclusively played by the rich and not the average joe or even above average joe so I would suggest it is an elitist sport. Saying something is elite has everything to do with whether the participants are because the activity is elite due to only being played by elite people. They are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12;52753061[B)
    ]Exclusively played by the rich and not the average joe or even above average joe [/B]so I would suggest it is an elitist sport. Saying something is elite has everything to do with whether the participants are because the activity is elite due to only being played by elite people. They are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive.
    Now that's where you're wrong
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Good most against it are rich townies who no nothing of the country or its traditions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    Good most against it are rich townies who no nothing of the country or its traditions.
    Burning people at the stake was once a tradition, should we do that too?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Burning people at the stake was once a tradition, should we do that too?
    A fox is a useless pest and their population needs to be kept low. I know you and your liberal friends love to look at cute cuddly pictures of foxes on the internet and discuss how evil fox hunting is in coffee shops along with the evils of western society while on your macbooks but the truth is foxes are ginger rats who can completely destroy peoples livelihoods

    Everyone ignores the ban anyway so the current law just allows the hunts to be unregulated and most locals don't tend to care about a few foxes dying.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Burning people at the stake was once a tradition, should we do that too?
    Ridiculous. Burning people at the stake was never a "tradition".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    A fox is a useless pest and their population needs to be kept low. I know you and your liberal friends love to look at cute cuddly pictures of foxes on the internet and discuss how evil fox hunting is in coffee shops along with the evils of western society while on your macbooks but the truth is foxes are ginger rats who can completely destroy peoples livelihoods

    Everyone ignores the ban anyway so the current law just allows the hunts to be unregulated and most locals don't tend to care about a few foxes dying.
    Pest control requires a red tunic and horn?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Pest control requires a red tunic and horn?
    No but it makes it so much more fun. It really brings the community together.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Pest control requires a red tunic and horn?
    No, nor does it require guns, gas or traps.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    No but it makes it so much more fun. It really brings the community together.
    So its not pest control then?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    No, nor does it require guns, gas or traps.
    You just said it doesn't require red tunic or horns- so why do they have them if its only pest control?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    You just said it doesn't require red tunic or horns- so why do they have them if its only pest control?
    Because it's not only pest control you petulant twit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    Because it's not only pest control you petulant twit.
    Its not pest control.....

    If its pest control- use a gun.

    ps wouldn't call somebody who has achieved more than you a petulant twit..... otherwise what on earth are you?!
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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