Sorry, but there's no way it would be banned if this were the case.
Fox Hunting, for or against?
- Thread starter Dev
- Start date
Sorry, but there's no way it would be banned if this were the case.
julian2002
Muper Soderator
andy,
personally i don't think speeding is as big a deal as the police and govt make out. again there is an agenda - this time the collection of fines. hence the heavy investment in speed cameras.
so saab, you despise people who get together for a bit of a chinwag and drink to enjoy a common hobby. barrel of laughs you eh?
cheers
julian.
personally i don't think speeding is as big a deal as the police and govt make out. again there is an agenda - this time the collection of fines. hence the heavy investment in speed cameras.
so saab, you despise people who get together for a bit of a chinwag and drink to enjoy a common hobby. barrel of laughs you eh?
cheers
julian.
Saab said:
A) Speak for yourself - I would never vote for this shower as I despise New Labour (even more than old Labour) and everything they stand for.
B) If you are a Labour supporter but don't agree with the banning of fox hunting then what are you supposed to do? Vote for the Tories just because you don't agree with one tiny, insignificant part of their manifesto? Assuming the answer to that is 'no' then there must be a fair number of people who voted Labour but do not wish to see hunting with dogs banned.
The only true way to truly assess the opinion of the electorate would be to hold an independant referrendum on the matter.
Matt.
domfjbrown
live & breathe psy-trance
Matt F said:
Exactly. And humans kill ALL other species and themselves every day. I don't see people here bemoaning the loss of hundreds of different species of insects EVERY DAY. It's the hypocrisy that makes me laugh.
And while we're on the subject of eating meat and cruel methods of killing said meat (whatever it is), consider this. Plants have just as much right to live as animals. So starve to death or eat ALL of the earth's bounty.
Personally, I'm dead against hunting foxes. Let's GM them so THEY can hunt then eat the rich. Ha.
julian2002
Muper Soderator
dom,
given the first half of your post why are you against fox hunting in particular?
cheers
julian
given the first half of your post why are you against fox hunting in particular?
cheers
julian
michaelab
desafinado
I already gave you two examples of things that are allowed in other cultures that are banned in the UK. To take a less radical example, there are already moves afoot to ban kosher and halal slaughter in the UK:Robbo said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588405.stm
...it's not happened yet but I think it will eventually.
Michael.
Dev
Moderator
Michael, I don't know what other factory methods you are referring to but killing an animal with a single cut (not sawing) isn't always as humane as it seems. Sometimes, if the cut isn't deep enough, the animal can take some time to die.michaelab said:
I remember a few years ago, a diplomat caused a stir in Grays in Essex by killing a lamb on the pavement by slitting it's throat to celebrate a religious event. The locals were horrified obviously but nothing could be done about it because of diplomatic immunity.
The sooner, the better IMO.michaelab said:
Last edited by a moderator:
OTOH we do allow Jews (and others) to perform ritual genital mutilation on infant males.
Paul
It's a holy war, collateral damage is expected, but the innocent victims are misguided plebs and it's for their own moral well-being...
Paul
Paul
penance
Arrogant Cock
LoL
michaelab
desafinado
There are plenty of Christians and Muslims who also do this. It's not a cultural issue. It's not relevant as it's not an example of something that a cultural or religious groups is allowed to "get away with" because of their religion which would otherwise be banned.Paul Ranson said:
Michael.
michaelab
desafinado
Do you write speeches for G. W. Bush by any chance? You've nicely summed up the way he thinks about the Iraq warPaul Ranson said:
Michael.
A lack of activism against non-medically indicated ritual circumcision doesn't make it 'not an example'. There was a time when nobody cared much about genital mutilation of black women.
Curious that it appears to match the way you think about hunting. I actually had the thought processes of Comrade Stalin in mind...
Paul
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Paul,Paul Ranson said:
Of course you know that there is a substantial difference between circumcision in females, where the clitoris is removed, and in males, which involves cutting of the foreskin.
In the case of females, this procedure is performed to prevent the female ever experiencing any pleasure from the sexual act and is an oppression of females by males. In the case of males, no such loss is felt.
I have witnessed circumcision of my own sons (I'm Jewish) at 6 days old and from their reactions can confirm that very little, if any, pain is felt when the operation is performed at this age. Nor is there any noticeable discomfort during the healing process over the next few days. My wife, who is not Jewish, concurs with this. When a baby is in pain the parents know about it, believe me.
Worldwide, the chances are that the incidence of male circumcision will increase substantially over the next few years, as there is increasing evidence to show that the cutting of the foreskin offers significantly higher protection from the HIV virus.
Aids risk 'cut by circumcision'
Female circumcision is barbaric and illegal. To compare it to male circumcision is highly misleading, no matter how queasy the subject may make you feel. Male circumcision has no place on a discussion about cruelty to animals or to humans.
FWIW there are parts of the world where male circumcision is performed at maturity and it can be a very extreme process. But even in the mildest form it is the permanent removal of a very sensitive part of the body leaving an even more sensitive part exposed (therefore to become desensitised). There is no good reason for it. Yet we tolerate it without serious question.
(Obviously the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to not have unprotected sex with an infected person.)
Paul
(Obviously the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to not have unprotected sex with an infected person.)
Paul
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Paul,Paul Ranson said:
Religious Jews and Muslims practice circumcision because they believe that it is their religious duty so to do. That's a good reason to them. Who appointed you the judge of what has a good reason and what doesn't?
We tolerate it? Damn right. Society SHOULD tolerate any behaviour unless there are compelling reasons NOT to tolerate it. In our society, tolerance is the 'default option' for peoples' choices, not forbidding them. People in other societies are not so lucky.
Perhaps people in those areas most at risk from HIV don't have such easy access to condoms or maybe the people most at risk can't afford them.
I wonder what the incidence of HIV is in Sudan, as a result of the thousands of rapes taking place in the current tragedy.
Moreover, to quote from the USAID web site:
"Circumcision is already known to greatly reduce a man's risk of penile cancer, and it also apparently reduces risks of some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including chancroid, herpes, and syphilis. It eliminates problems such as phimosis (narrow foreskin opening) and balanitis (infected foreskin), and also appears to reduce the risk of cervical cancer among female partners of circumcised men."
Paul Ranson said:
Too right. Relying on circumcision as a last barrier to protect you against HIV is skating on thin ice if you ask me.
On male circumcision in general (agree that female circumcision is barbaric) I'd place it alongside the docking of dog's tails i.e. it's not particularly bad but there's no good reason for it really.
Matt.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Can I refer you to my reply above?Matt F said:
The issue I have is that perhaps it would be better if the person having the procedure carried out on themselves had a say in the matter.
