Jolyon Maugham is a lefty hypocrite!

surprised this has not appeared on Fox News™

Reply 21

Original post by LiberOfLondon

Opposing fox hunting on ”AnImAl WeLfArE” grounds and then being more cruel to foxes then any pack of hounds just proves your opposition to hunting is based on class warfare more than anything.

Quickly dispatching a trapped fox with a sharp blow to the head is not "more cruel" that chasing it across the countryside for hours until it is exhausted and then ripping it to shreds while it is still alive. Unless you are some kind of perverted weirdo.
Are you?

And he can get the **** out of our Party.

Didn't realise he was a member of the Labour Party.

Reply 22

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I agree. It just seems inconsistant. Like my first reaction would not be to beat a trapped animal to death with a baseball bat... I'm not sure I could actually do it unless provoked in self defense. I don;t know why a lawyer wouldn't think to maybe call the RSPCA to deal with it in some way. Lawyers are about civil society, he's not some Tory farmer in a shotgun that spikes decapitated grows heads on his barbed wire fence (or maybe he is, land owning seems to turn humans into pychopaths).

Indeed. My first reaction would have been to call the RSPCA, of the suchlike. However, I know that the first reaction of some of my rural cousins would have been to kill it.
Morality is subjective. We cannot always judge other by the nature of our own response.

Reply 23

So a fox has your infant child by the arm and is dragging it under a hedge. You call the RSPCA and hope for the best?

Chasing down a fox with twenty people and twenty dogs to rip it apart alive is barbaric and vile

Indeed, but somewhat unrelated to your first point.

Reply 24

Original post by the bear

surprised this has not appeared on Fox News™

It will Oscar, it will.

Reply 25

ColinDent

14

Just pointing out that what you said wasn't the only case that was acceptable as you suggested.

Reply 26

username4406682

OP

19

Original post by ColinDent

I don't agree, in this situation I would smash the ****ers head in without a moment's hesitation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251349

Btw, I'm not trying to defend the twat this post is about, just trying to point out that some things usurp principles.

Original post by QE2

Quickly dispatching a trapped fox with a sharp blow to the head is not "more cruel" that chasing it across the countryside for hours until it is exhausted and then ripping it to shreds while it is still alive. Unless you are some kind of perverted weirdo.
Are you?

An unskilled member of the public killing a fox by bludgeoning it to death is obviously more cruel than skilled dogs quickly killing it. Besides, one is a traditional countryside sport and the other is just some weirdo lawyer attacking a fox.

Reply 27

Original post by QE2

So a fox has your infant child by the arm and is dragging it under a hedge. You call the RSPCA and hope for the best?

Indeed, but somewhat unrelated to your first point.

See post to ColinDent; Fox attacks on humans are so rare as to almost not warrant consideration

Reply 28

Original post by LiberOfLondon

An unskilled member of the public killing a fox by bludgeoning it to death is obviously more cruel than skilled dogs quickly killing it. Besides, one is a traditional countryside sport and the other is just some weirdo lawyer attacking a fox.

You do think that a slow and agonising death over the space of an hour or more is preferable to a quick and severe blow to the head. You defend fox hunting.
So that's a "yes" to being a sadistic weirdo then.

Reply 29

So if that rare event did happen, you would not consider taking action yourself but would simply call the RSPCA and hope the child manages to fend the fox off until help arrives.

Also, you claim that the legitimacy of personally killing a fox depends on how financially dependent the individual is on chickens. So you would support Maughan's actions if he had given up law and sunk all his savings into a chicken farm, rather than farming chickens as a hobby.
Seems somewhat arbitrary.

Reply 30

Original post by QE2

So if that rare event did happen, you would not consider taking action yourself but would simply call the RSPCA and hope the child manages to fend the fox off until help arrives.

Also, you claim that the legitimacy of personally killing a fox depends on how financially dependent the individual is on chickens. So you would support Maughan's actions if he had given up law and sunk all his savings into a chicken farm, rather than farming chickens as a hobby.
Seems somewhat arbitrary.

See post 18 and 20; it's not that deep

Reply 31

But you are now straying into subjective opinion. You claim that quickly dispatching a trapped predator that is after your livestock is "mindless savagery". Others would claim it is a reasonable response to the situation. Neither is objectively right or wrong. It simply depends on the individuals experience and existing prejudices.

To some people a fox is a cute little red doggy. To others it is a dangerous predator capable of genuine "mindless savagery".

Reply 32

Original post by QE2

But you are now straying into subjective opinion. You claim that quickly dispatching a trapped predator that is after your livestock is "mindless savagery". Others would claim it is a reasonable response to the situation. Neither is objectively right or wrong. It simply depends on the individuals experience and existing prejudices.

To some people a fox is a cute little red doggy. To others it is a dangerous predator capable of genuine "mindless savagery".

No I didn’t

Stop twisting my words

Reply 33

You said...
"It should be apparent to most people that there’s a difference between defending your family and mindless savagery."
What was the "mindless savagery" reference to, if not Maugham's actions?

Reply 34

Original post by QE2

You said...
"It should be apparent to most people that there’s a difference between defending your family and mindless savagery."
What was the "mindless savagery" reference to, if not Maugham's actions?

Fox hunting and all other unnecessary killing of foxes in case that wasn’t apparent enough from the original post. Let me repeat my opinion again clearly because I do know you like to argue for no reason

It is okay to kill a fox in defence of your family or your livelihood; it is not okay to kill a fox by having it ripped apart alive by 20 dogs for sport for otherwise no good reason

Hopefully that’s clearer

/endthread

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 35

username4406682

OP

19

Original post by QE2

sadistic weirdo

Reply 36

If you don't think Maugham's actions were "mindless savagery", why did you bring it up in the context of his actions?
So, to sum up, you think his actions were acceptable in the context of protecting his livestock animals, but not if he was doing it just for fun. I would have to agree.

Also, I don't like to argue "for no reason". In this instance I am simply attempting to clarify your apparently confused and contradictory position.

Reply 37