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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    Yes, they just want to kill innocent animals for no reason - where's the harm :rolleyes:
    As do meat eaters. I can buy an argument that this is harmful - but then be consistent. If you want to ban fox hunting but not meat eating i suggest you don't really give a damn about animals, you just hate (what you perceive as) rich people.

    It's hardly a "weak minority group".
    If it were strong it would be able to stop this sort of petty persecution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    As do meat eaters. I can buy an argument that this is harmful - but then be consistent. If you want to ban fox hunting but not meat eating i suggest you don't really give a damn about animals, you just hate (what you perceive as) rich people.


    If it were strong it would be able to stop this sort of petty persecution.
    I don't eat meat, but that's a different debate. Killing an animal for food is different from literally scaring it to death for no good reason.

    It really isn't a class thing for me. I think fox hunting is barbaric in the same way as **** or dog fighting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Glad to see the Tories have their finger on the pulse and are tackling the real issues the people are facing.

    If you're a Tory voter, you're associating with some very questionable sorts: people whose hobby is ripping apart tiny defenceless animals for ****s and giggles.

    Naked psychopathy dressed up in a veneer of concern for "tradition". They deserve to be torn apart by starving dogs themselves. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

    (Just waiting for the first idiot right-winger to bring up North Korea )

    Of course, it's hardly surprising given the way the Tories have been victimising the poor. Wasn't it a UKIP fellow the other week who, supposedly hopped up on painkillers, suggested shooting peasants?
    Oh. A sensitive type.

    Are you a labour voter by any chance?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    I don't eat meat, but that's a different debate. Killing an animal for food is different from literally scaring it to death for no good reason.

    It really isn't a class thing for me. I think fox hunting is barbaric in the same way as **** or dog fighting.
    It isn't really.

    It's all a class think. I've never met an anti fox hunting activist who doesn't act like a left wing cliche.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    I don't eat meat, but that's a different debate. Killing an animal for food is different from literally scaring it to death for no good reason.
    For fun, the same as eating meat.

    Now if you don't eat meat personally that's fine; I don't go fox hunting. But if you want to ban one you should want to also ban the other.

    It really isn't a class thing for me. I think fox hunting is barbaric in the same way as **** or dog fighting.
    How about fishing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It isn't really.

    It's all a class think. I've never met an anti fox hunting activist who doesn't act like a left wing cliche.
    That's a pretty lame argument. Not a very mature one either...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I personally don't care. Metropolitan city dwellers feel the need to force their views on people who are affected by foxes. Not a single person who votes to ban fox hunting has ever had a fox **** up their chicken coop and destroy eggs. This is why they deserve no say on the matter - because it doesn't affect them. This should be treated akin to Scottish MPs overstepping their authority and voting on laws in England.

    Also I'm sick to death of seeing foxes everywhere, especially in towns now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    That's a pretty lame argument. Not a very mature one either...
    Attire or not. They're walking cliche's

    What about the animal rights activist that used to attack the horses aNd the dogs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    This should be treated akin to Scottish MPs overstepping their authority and voting on laws in England.
    More or less true; almost the entire countryside votes Tory:



    The fox hunting ban is one party using a temporary landslide to punish the other party's supporters
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is a move in the right direction for once.

    As city dwellers may not understand, the countryside is not a "natural" area of land. It is farmed and it is managed. I can't think of a single piece of land that is not owned or managed by someone. These big open fields and neat little hedgerows are all man made.

    Let the people who actually understand the countryside run the countryside, not the blithering idiots in London who don't even understand the very basics.

    Countryfile is not accurate representation of the countryside.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Opposition to it is like vegetarianism, it ignores the vastness of the gulf between humans and animals, in fact a human bases his will to live and understanding of his purpose on the fact that he can contemplate his own existence, when he cannot he commits suicide. The reason animals don't is because they cannot think reflectively in the first place, they are merely subjects to their fate, which cannot understand as having any other significance than death, which to them is something they instinctively want to avoid rather than see as a loss as such, for example if a human where to think on this level, the equivalent would be accepting that he had no reason to live but knows he does not want to die. The empathy for the animals, this engenders is understandable but pretends that the animals feelings on knowing it will die are something more than the instinctive fear which characterises it's level of existence
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    For fun, the same as eating meat.

    Now if you don't eat meat personally that's fine; I don't go fox hunting. But if you want to ban one you should want to also ban the other.


    How about fishing?
    In an ideal world, the meat industry would be closed down and fox-hunting would be banned. In this world, the public are fine with banning fox-hunting; they're not so fine with banning meat (yet!). Just because we can't ban one, doesn't mean we can't or ought not to ban the other.

    It's not a class thing, at least not for me: it's simply about reducing the suffering of sentient beings.


    (Original post by Gott)
    Opposition to it is like vegetarianism, it ignores the vastness of the gulf between humans and animals, in fact a human bases his will to live and understanding of his purpose on the fact that he can contemplate his own existence, when he cannot he commits suicide. The reason animals don't is because they cannot think reflectively in the first place, they are merely subjects to their fate, which cannot understand as having any other significance than death, which to them is something they instinctively want to avoid rather than see as a loss as such, for example if a human where to think on this level, the equivalent would be accepting that he had no reason to live but knows he does not want to die. The empathy for the animals, this engenders is understandable but pretends that the animals feelings on knowing it will die are something more than the instinctive fear which characterises it's level of existence
    Some nonhuman animals are, however, self-aware, so some probably can think reflectively. Your argument, also, ignores the point that most vegetarians and those who oppose fox-hunting make - the foxes, when being chased, are often highly stressed and when they're killed, they often take a long time to die, making it a highly painful death. This is simply unnecessary.

    Also, your point is moot for human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans. They can't contemplate their existence over a time continuum either and any feelings they have are merely fleeting. So, would you have any rational moral objection to inducing suffering on these groups of human beings? If you would object simply because they're human, it demonstrates that your support of fox-hunting is not based on intellectual capacity, but rather on the irrational discrimination against other species - speciesism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    In an ideal world, the meat industry would be closed down and fox-hunting would be banned. In this world, the public are fine with banning fox-hunting; they're not so fine with banning meat (yet!). Just because we can't ban one, doesn't mean we can't or ought not to ban the other.

    It's not a class thing, at least not for me: it's simply about reducing the suffering of sentient beings.




    Some nonhuman animals are, however, self-aware, so some probably can think reflectively. Your argument, also, ignores the point that most vegetarians and those who oppose fox-hunting make - the foxes, when being chased, are often highly stressed and when they're killed, they often take a long time to die, making it a highly painful death. This is simply unnecessary.

    Also, your point is moot for human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans. They can't contemplate their existence over a time continuum either and any feelings they have are merely fleeting. So, would you have any rational moral objection to inducing suffering on these groups of human beings? If you would object simply because they're human, it demonstrates that your support of fox-hunting is not based on intellectual capacity, but rather on the irrational discrimination against other species - speciesism.
    Their pain is merely physical and is a natural part of their lives. Their lives are not reflective in a comparable way to humans and their purpose is therefore not to live further than their fate dictates to be of any use of experience anything worth preserving, as they cannot contemplate their own purpose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Have any of the city dwelling anti-fox hunting posters in here bothered to read peoples posts on the lack of barbarism there is in killing a fox with dogs? As previously mentioned, catching a fox in a trap or shooting it (fox normally runs away after being shot in the side or something, so you can't just shoot it dead instantly) is far more likely to result in it suffering for hours before dying. Dogs are trained to kill the fox as quickly as possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Their pain is merely physical and is a natural part of their lives. Their lives are not reflective in a comparable way to humans and their purpose is therefore not to live further than their fate dictates to be of any use of experience anything worth preserving, as they cannot contemplate their own purpose.
    With respect, you didn't really address what I was saying at all. Would it be permissible to inflict suffering on human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans whose lives are not reflective and who cannot contemplate their own purpose?

    I don't see how you can say that their pain and suffering is "merely physical". It's still suffering and they still have an interest in not suffering - they would prefer not to suffer. And, getting chased by human beings isn't a natural part of their lives, and appealing to nature is fallacious in any case.

    And, bear in mind that we're just talking about foxes here. Pigs, for example, are extremely intelligent, have been studied playing simple video games that a three-year old human couldn't play, while chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants and various types of birds are almost certainly self-aware and reflective.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    Yes, they just want to kill innocent animals for no reason - where's the harm :rolleyes:
    Ever heard of fun/entertainment? Or, alternatively, pest control? Do you object to me swatting flies? After all, they're "innocent animals"? What about laying traps if I have a mouse/some mice scurrying about? I suppose you're also, despite not having had much say in the matter given how long ago it happened, theoretically against the domestication of cats?

    (Original post by KingStannis)
    I don't see the point. This doesn't appeal to any voters who aren't confirmed tories, and may alien the floating middle class vote. Pointless policy.
    Some of the kippers?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tupper_ware)
    Have any of the city dwelling anti-fox hunting posters in here bothered to read peoples posts on the lack of barbarism there is in killing a fox with dogs? As previously mentioned, catching a fox in a trap or shooting it (fox normally runs away after being shot in the side or something, so you can't just shoot it dead instantly) is far more likely to result in it suffering for hours before dying. Dogs are trained to kill the fox as quickly as possible.
    First of all, polls have indicated than even people living in rural areas are predominantly against fox-hunting. Secondly, foxes are hardly a pest for farmers so killing foxes in the first place is largely unnecessary, while food and resources keep the fox population in check. If, and only if, there is a need to kill foxes, hiring a trained marksman to shoot the foxes is more humane. In any case, the Tories want to allow hunting for sport to occur - that's completely different from therapeutic hunting. If hunters could provide evidence that there was a need for a hunt, then they'd have more of a case, but they just want to do it because they enjoy being cruel to animals, apparently.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ever heard of fun/entertainment? Or, alternatively, pest control? Do you object to me swatting flies? After all, they're "innocent animals"? What about laying traps if I have a mouse/some mice scurrying about? I suppose you're also, despite not having had much say in the matter given how long ago it happened, theoretically against the domestication of cats?


    Some of the kippers?
    There's little evidence that foxes are pests. As for flies, they lack pain receptors. I'd object to you laying traps seeing as there are often alternatives - I got a mouse out simply by leaving the garage door open.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    With respect, you didn't really address what I was saying at all. Would it be permissible to inflict suffering on human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans whose lives are not reflective and who cannot contemplate their own purpose?

    I don't see how you can say that their pain and suffering is "merely physical". It's still suffering and they still have an interest in not suffering - they would prefer not to suffer. And, getting chased by human beings isn't a natural part of their lives, and appealing to nature is fallacious in any case.

    And, bear in mind that we're just talking about foxes here. Pigs, for example, are extremely intelligent, have been studied playing simple video games that a three-year old human couldn't play, while chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants and various types of birds are almost certainly self-aware and reflective.
    The only purpose of human life is art, which isn't explained by ethics and you could say has transitory pain as meaningless in itself; perhaps people being killed so savagely is not justified by it but the art (in a general sense) of fox hunting is in it being a communal bond, and a display of the greatness of the gulf between humans and vermin. As far as I am concerned, there is little art if any is the vile treatment of pigs, which might explain the willing disregard of their ill treatment. This is not to say that they should not be slaughtered for meat as the span of their life is of no importance since they live the same instinctive essentially non reflective life and their deaf is retrospectively not much of a tragedy as their idea of death would be more in the line of instinctive acceptance, the main raison d'etre is to stay alive, which we as humans understand not to be an existence worth living. That they themselves have no concept of this is mute, as they do not have to measure the worth of their own existence for the judgment of humans to be valid. There is hence a visible emphasis is this school of thought on the dignity of the animals life, that the inevitability of its life is no reason to treat the animal with contempt as if it were an enemy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Simply keeping the population down I personally have no problem with it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    This is a move in the right direction for once.

    As city dwellers may not understand, the countryside is not a "natural" area of land. It is farmed and it is managed. I can't think of a single piece of land that is not owned or managed by someone. These big open fields and neat little hedgerows are all man made.

    Let the people who actually understand the countryside run the countryside, not the blithering idiots in London who don't even understand the very basics.

    Countryfile is not accurate representation of the countryside.
    Farmers can be some fo the most superstitious morons imaginable. They once thought (and some probably still do) that badgers came in their fields and sucked the milk out of their cows. They also have a good track record of ****ing up echo systems. Tearing down all forms of habitat for wildlife. Ecologists need a say since they use actual science. What happened when you kill all the foxes and the rabbit population explodes? Rabbits eat all your crops. What happens when you tear down all the thorn bushes? Birds populations fall. What happens when you kill off a load of plants? Bee populations fall. These all have consequences. You need someone looking at the bigger picture, not just relying on farmers with short term profit motives driving all the decision making.

    It also isn't true that there are no natural areas left. There are small areas that have been left relativity untouched and they need protecting.

    I'm not singling out farmers, we after all rely on them for our food etc. Which is why we can have say. Since it is all interconnected. :rolleyes: I also enjoy wildlife and have a moral dislike of unnecessary animal cruelty. If you only give a toss about economics, well wildlife helps tourism.
 
 
 
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.