Fox Hunting, for or against?

quote - 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

There can be very good medical reasons that necessitate having the procedure.

 

wow, leave the forum for a few days and all hell breaks loose.
Ok I'll retract my EU comment, I just assumed as they spend most of their time telling counties what to do they where behind this.
Hiding behind "historic" and "religous" excuses for harming animils does not make it any better, I thought as a human race we had evolved beyound this.
Motor racing causeing ashma, I think you have to look closer to home for that answer, like the metal box on wheels you use to drive 200 yards down the road to get your paper, but that is a topic for another debate!

 

Religious Muslims oppress women. Why is that different?

People hunt, it is being banned because intellectually limited people dislike 'toffs'. So is that OK?

(BTW re the unsupported penile cancer myth, http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gellis1/ I suppose it's not surprising to find US governmental organisations spreading untruths...)

Paul

 

If you mean that some religious Muslims oppress women, I'd be against them. If you mean that the religion itself is oppressive to women, I'd be surprised. I'm no great fan of Islam but I don't think that oppression of women is a religious duty. Of course certain Islamic regimes, eg. Afghanistan under the Taliban, were very oppressive toward women but there are many different interpretations of the religion. I'm not an expert on any of them.

Not in my book. If it is to be banned it should only be for reasons of cruelty.

If you type "cancer penis circumcision" into Google you will find 21,100 links. Although I haven't checked them all (or indeed many of them) it does seem like there are as many pros as antis. It hardly matters to the male circumcision question, anyway. For the record, I did actually check some of the other claims on that particular US governmental site and found that they were pretty well supported.

 

There's an interesting letter in the BMJ http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/312/7033/779/c regarding the 'penile cancer' myth. It probably all comes down to a paranoia about masturbation.

Paul

 

That's both incorrect and ignorant. It's also an insult to the vast majority of muslims - not to mention breaking the Forum AUP.

I've lived in two Islamic countries (Turkey and Iran) and the level of ignorance about Islam in the "west" is quite staggering. Exemplified only yesterday by the quite ridiculous events surrounding Cat Stevens being refused entry to the USA. btw, before any smartass tries to tell me that Turkey isn't an Islamic country, yes, it is a secular state but the vast majority of it's population is muslim.

Only you could seriously belief that rubbish. Anyway, why the assumption that people who dislike "toffs" are intellectually limited? Are all people who disagree with you also intellectually limited?

There's no real evidence that circumcised men become desensitised. That's one of the many myths about circumcision.

Michael.

 

quote from the bmj letter,

All subsequent repetitions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation.

:rds2: Maybe there is no real medical reason for circumcision. However, under pressure to look for evidence and reason to carry out a human tradition people do look for imperfect rational. That is to me the soft reasons given by supporters of hunting. In this day and age there is no real reason other then because it is fun. However, since the hobby is under attack they have to provide some sort of sensible reason. People who object to hunting on the other hand are no better. All they could provide is they just think it looks like a cruel way to kill an appearantly cute furry animal.

Maybe we should go back to debate some thing more important to us like whether some common cables should cost £100 per meter.

 

Jews and Muslims do not choose to circumcize their children for medical reasons but for religious reasons. Nevertheless, there are medical benefits of the procedure that have now been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. As I said, such benefits have never been the reason that circumcision has been chosen by Jews or Muslims. Similarly, banning circumcision has never been done for medical reasons or because it is considered cruel or unnecessary. Where circumcision has been banned, it has been banned purely for reasons of anti-semitism.

I think that there has to be a compelling reason for banning an activity that is enjoyed (or chosen) by people in our society. I would like to believe that the country has decided to ban fox hunting on the grounds of cruelty but the truth is that there are other activities that could have been banned first on these grounds. Modern farming and animal slaughter methods are the obvious example. After all, would you prefer to to live a life of freedom and then die in a hunt or would you prefer a life in captivity and discomfort?

There are economic reasons that make a review of farming unattractive just as there are issues of class envy that make it attractive (to some people) to ban fox hunting.

Of course we should go back to arguing about cables. I suspect though that, even in the relatively enlightened world of Zero Gain, there are those who would see the selling of expensive cables banned.

 

Many of those religious reasons are of course often based on historic grounds such as cleanliness/ diet so could arguably be on medical reasons but agreed that might be stretching matters a bit

 

No it's not. Check almost any web site that defends Islam. Here for example.

Because discrimination for reason of culture, ethnicity, gender, whatever can be politely described as being a consequence of intellectual limitation. In the case of hunting it's even more apposite since most hunters aren't 'toff's and the people you're really going to hurt are very much 'working class'.

It's rather hard to test. However it's unarguable that a sensitive piece of skin is permanently removed, and that there are serious issues of medical ethics surrounding the routine practice (at least outside a religious context).

Paul

 

Matt

"we" in the sense I used it,clearly refers to the electorate as a whole.So I didn't speak for myself,I spoke for the Uk electorate who vote this government in on their manifesto which included a clear intent to ban hunting.
You have made a wild guess at my political persuasion,at no point did I express it,I simply expressed my deeply ingrained class bias,you have assumed by this I vote Labour.I politely suggest such extrapolations are dangerous,and I disagree re the a referendum.
Our democracy is based on the elected executive making decisions on our behalf whether we like it or not.Using a referendum for a minority issue such as fox hunting is ridiculous-the number of people affected by this ban is way under 5% of the population.The Euro on the other hand,affects 100% of the population.

 

You really scraped the bottom of the barrel for that link didn't you? There are a few fundamentalists muslims who oppress women, but then there are fundamentalist Catholics and Jews who also do so. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of muslims believe in equal rights for women.

The whole myth about muslims oppressing women is just something perpetuated by the West in order to further demonize them as "the enemy" in the so called "war on terror" (which has been going on long before 9/11).

So your discrimination against muslims makes you intellectually limited?

Michael.

 

islam is actually one of the more tolerant and enlightened religons. previous muslem empires have allowed christians and jews to live under their aegis in peace without persecution and womens rights may be different but just a valid in their social and religous context. it is fundamentalist islam that can have all the problems mentioned above, just like fundamentalist christians like gorge dubya have their problems.
cheers


julian

 

The problem I have with the first bit is that, on this issue, the elected executive are not necessarily making decisions on behalf of the electorate as they have been told to 'vote with their consciences'.

On the referrendum side - if this ban only affects 5% of the population then what business is it of the 95% who are unaffected and shouldn't the elected executive be representing the wishes of the people who will actually be affected should a ban come into force.

Personally, I think public opinion on a variety of matters should be obtained each time a cencus is carried out (as it would cost little extra to do this). You could then ask the public about things like fox hunting, immigration, Europe, Clause 28, crime and punishment and so on (with questions worded by an independant body) - there would then be no argument over what the public think/want.

Of course I'm sure the government wouldn't do this because they wouldn't like the answers to a lot of those questions and then we'd run up against the old argument that if public correlates with what the goverment want it's "the democratic will of the people" but if public opinion is at odds with the government it's a case of "just because it's the publics' opinion, it doesn't mean it's right" - funny how that latter argument hasn't been used in the fox hunting debate!

Matt.

 

Steve - we were typing/posting at the same time there.

Incidentally, and excuse my ignorance, but is there a reason given in the Jewish faith as to why circumcision is necessary?

Just curious as to whether that reason still carries water today.

Matt.

 

Im reminded of a comedy sketch... I forget who.. Bill Hicks I think..

He meets a deer... its beautiful.. has big brown eyes, it grazes the grass, says hello, aaah cant kill such a beautiful creature...

A cow comes along, rolls its big brown eyes and shuffles along.

''Get in the back of the van, you're A F**KING BURGER!''

Like I said, if it was a bunch of people in red coats on horses chasing down rats absolutely nobody would give a shit.

Its a fluffy wuffy foxykins.

 

Purely and simply because it's 'commanded' in Genesis as a covenant between God and Abraham on the occasion of His testing Abraham by ordering him to sacrifice his son Isaac and then, at the last minute, saying "Stop. I was just testing you". Muslims have circumcision for precisely the same reason.

Similarly, the Jewish dietary laws are spelt out in Leviticus. No reasons given, no reasons necessary - if you are a religious Jew.

(I'm not by the way.)

 

Not really. I assume you didn't read it properly.

What's your source for that? Where does this 'vast majority' live?

You don't half manage to plumb the depths of absurdity. Oppression doesn't imply Talibanesque actions, it can be a much more subtle thing.

I don't discriminate against Muslims. I criticise an aspect of their culture that appears to be supported by their religion. The original statement referred to 'religious Muslims', there's a difference.

I'm critical of the Indian Hindu occasional practice of suttee. Is that discriminatory? Perhaps widow burning is OK if you're not white?

Paul

 

Julian, your defense seems to be that it's no worse than other things.

That doesn't make it ok though.

It's cruel. It's bollox.

It's a start.

 

sorry,but I agree with Paul,that statement is absurd.No doubt there has has been an element of demonisation by some in the media,after all,9/11 was supposedly part of a jihad.However,that has nothing to do with the position of women in a Muslim family.Many Muslims still believe they should not have the vote,wear a burka and their position is at home.Many western muslims,however,have moderated their position on such things as the burka.But I think its still accurate to state that Muslim women in some countries are oppressed when compared to western culture.

In fact,just typing Burka into Google brings up some interesting comments,here is one from Poly Toynbee

Something horrible flits across the background in scenes from Afghanistan, scuttling out of sight. There it is, a brief blue or black flash, a grotesque Scream 1, 2 and 3 personified - a woman. The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual suggestiveness: what rampant desire and desirability lurks and leers beneath its dark mysteries? In its objectifying of women, it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting violence and victimisation. Forget cultural sensibilities.