Turn on thread page Beta

V1006 – Hunting Act Repeal Bill 2016 watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    45.83%
    On the contrary, No
    43.75%
    Abstain
    10.42%

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    V1006 – Hunting Act Repeal Bill 2016, Jammy Duel MP
    Hunting Act Repeal Bill 2016

    A
    B I L L
    TO
    Repeal the Hunting Act 2004.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
    1 Repeal
    (1) Hunting Act 2004 is hereby repealed.
    2 Short title and extent
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Hunting Act Repeal Act 2016.
    (2) This Act extends to England and Wales; and
    (3)Comes into effect immediately.

    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The Hunting Act 2004 is little more than an infringement of personal liberties based on class stereotypes under the guise of animal rights that is either ineffective in its purpose or not very strictly adhered to, more likely than not the former.

    While there has been, on average, a prosecution under the hunting act every 10 days or so very few of these prosecutions require the Hunting Act, and debatably many are incorrect to make use of the Hunting Act, as the vast majority are cases of Poaching. Further the cases that are seen are often a waste of Court time and the repeal could save millions a year on needless legal cases.

    The Act is primarily seen as the protection of animal rights, however it, at best, does very little to this end and is quite possibly, ultimately, damaging to some of the species 'protected' by the Act and potentially worsens the suffering of some of these species that are now killed by other means.

    Hunting Act 2004
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...notes/contents
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    theres no argument against this that isnt based on emotion
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Not this act won't improve anything besides the hobby of a few.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Not this act won't improve anything besides the hobby of a few.
    The definition of a liberal right there, oh wait...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Nah.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Not this act won't improve anything besides the hobby of a few.
    and no harm otherwise.

    logically equivalent counter argument:

    allowing chess to be non banned won't do any good except for the hobby of a few.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    and no harm otherwise.

    logically equivalent counter argument:

    allowing chess to be non banned won't do any good except for the hobby of a few.
    Except playing chess generally doesn't end in death for anyone involved.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Except playing chess generally doesn't end in death for anyone involved.
    lets amend the thought experiment to make the examples, as well as the reasoning, equivalent:

    suppose if by playing chess or not playing chess, both these would lead to x number of necessary animal deaths (and it is necessary, foxes are a pest and farmers have the right to protect their livelihoods, irrespective if you find them "cute" or not.)

    But by playing chess the pain of those deaths are painless, whereas banning it result in painful deaths like shooting and having legs broken, cut and allowed to bleed out for hours.

    Then, just like fox hunting, playing chess would be the less harmful option than it being banned.

    The two cases are identical in all the relevant respects. If you not would ban chess and therefore cause less suffering, then you simply MUST vote aye on this bill to be consistent. Otherwise, you're either basing you vote on feelings (but foxes are CUTE. Boo the ****ing toffs! etc) not logic. And that is the definition of irrationality.


    Now take these further two arguments:

    If you believe in eating meat, then you already believe that people's liberty overshadows the lives of animals. So if you vote no, you HAVE to become a vegan to be consistent.

    Furthermore, there's no reason to presume that foxes are conscious to a level that gives their lives independent value. So that further reduces the probability that harm is being caused by the ban.



    This is how to logic.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by banterboy)
    theres no argument against this that isnt based on emotion
    There isn't an argument for this that isn't based on emotion either though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    lets amend the thought experiment to make the examples, as well as the reasoning, equivalent:

    suppose if by playing chess or not playing chess, both these would lead to x number of necessary animal deaths (and it is necessary, foxes are a pest and farmers have the right to protect their livelihoods, irrespective if you find them "cute" or not.)

    But by playing chess the pain of those deaths are painless, whereas banning it result in painful deaths like shooting and having legs broken, cut and allowed to bleed out for hours.

    Then, just like fox hunting, playing chess would be the less harmful option than it being banned.

    The two cases are identical in all the relevant respects. If you not would ban chess and therefore cause less suffering, then you simply MUST vote aye on this bill to be consistent. Otherwise, you're either basing you vote on feelings (but foxes are CUTE. Boo the ****ing toffs! etc) not logic. And that is the definition of irrationality.


    Now take these further two arguments:

    If you believe in eating meat, then you already believe that people's liberty overshadows the lives of animals. So if you vote no, you HAVE to become a vegan to be consistent.

    Furthermore, there's no reason to presume that foxes are conscious to a level that gives their lives independent value. So that further reduces the probability that harm is being caused by the ban.



    This is how to logic.
    So you believe being chased by hounds for miles and then being killed is more humane than a swift bullet to the head? There are so many painless activities that can amuse people so legalising fox hunting is just unnecessary. Your logic is flawed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So you believe being chased by hounds for miles and then being killed is more humane than a swift bullet to the head? There are so many painless activities that can amuse people so legalising fox hunting is just unnecessary. Your logic is flawed.
    You once again are believing that pain is more humane than a lack of pain, and believe that everybody is a sharpshooter with a high powered scored rifle. Once again: which would you prefer happen to yourself, bleeding out or a broken neck? A broken neck or being trapped and left for dead? A broken neck or having your friend trapped and left for dead because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    You have even admitted that this is nothing to do with animal rights to you and simply because you don't like it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    There isn't an argument for this that isn't based on emotion either though.
    #aphthe'liberal'

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So you believe being chased by hounds for miles and then being killed is more humane than a swift bullet to the head? There are so many painless activities that can amuse people so legalising fox hunting is just unnecessary. Your logic is flawed.
    lol no.

    would you honestly prefer firing squad to hanging?

    Foxes have to die anyway. they're a pest species. yes, they might be cute to you. to the people they harm (farmers, people with babies attacked by foxes, etc) that subjective emotion doesn't apply.

    ffs rats are probs more intelligent than foxes and i don't see the calls to stop killing rats near your home.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    There isn't an argument for this that isn't based on emotion either though.
    even though i provided an irrefutable one
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    lol no.

    would you honestly prefer firing squad to hanging?

    Foxes have to die anyway. they're a pest species. yes, they might be cute to you. to the people they harm (farmers, people with babies attacked by foxes, etc) that subjective emotion doesn't apply.

    ffs rats are probs more intelligent than foxes and i don't see the calls to stop killing rats near your home.
    Rats aren't seen as cute, harmless, and fluffy though

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by banterboy)
    even though i provided an irrefutable one
    No you didn't...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No you didn't...
    yes i did.

    i study logic you don't.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    lol no.

    would you honestly prefer firing squad to hanging?

    Foxes have to die anyway. they're a pest species. yes, they might be cute to you. to the people they harm (farmers, people with babies attacked by foxes, etc) that subjective emotion doesn't apply.

    ffs rats are probs more intelligent than foxes and i don't see the calls to stop killing rats near your home.
    Once again, you are still using the justification of how painful the death is to say whether this should pass.

    In certain areas, foxes are considered a pest but unless they all contract rabies but that is not the case at the moment. Have you also considered that reducing the numbers of one pest (foxes) could increase the numbers of another (rabbits)? If you could give me a figure for the amount of babies that have been attacked by foxes, that would be great because I'm sure more have been attacked by dogs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Once again, you are still using the justification of how painful the death is to say whether this should pass.

    In certain areas, foxes are considered a pest but unless they all contract rabies but that is not the case at the moment. Have you also considered that reducing the numbers of one pest (foxes) could increase the numbers of another (rabbits)? If you could give me a figure for the amount of babies that have been attacked by foxes, that would be great because I'm sure more have been attacked by dogs.
    obviously, the argument against it one based on how much pain it causes ffs. so proving that this causes less pain is the counter argument to the argument you just made.

    why is this hard to understand.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You once again are believing that pain is more humane than a lack of pain, and believe that everybody is a sharpshooter with a high powered scored rifle. Once again: which would you prefer happen to yourself, bleeding out or a broken neck? A broken neck or being trapped and left for dead? A broken neck or having your friend trapped and left for dead because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    You have even admitted that this is nothing to do with animal rights to you and simply because you don't like it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How many times do I have to remind you this bill is purely to legalise a bloodthirsty pastime and nothing else? You couldnt care less how much pain the fox feels as long as you can legally hunt it down. Comparing the fox to a human like this is just nonsense. This bill is an insult to animal rights.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 20, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

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.