It says it all to me

A very small number of people want to get rid of hunting. I wonder what rights they'll trample over next? Perhaps your right to own an unnecessarily powerful car?

It would be OK if there was a consistent approach to animal welfare, but until the same regard is shown for moles, rats and rabbits as for foxes the Labour Party will seem driven by outdated class resentment rather than reason.

Paul

 

why not post a poll, lets see ?

 

So it is our right to terrorise animals for fun?

 

By now most positions have been made clear, and I'll be able to add little. As for fox hunting, part of me says it keeps a little of the countryside managed and enjoyable (a bit like the fishermen keep an eye out for the waterways) as opposed to covered in crops we don't really need, and pesticides that are killing us all off. The other poiny of view as a countryside dweller is the bollody cheek of the gentry crashing through private land and letting their horses and dogs destroy property with no responsibility.

Ultimately my point would have to be that this law change is about politics not public opinion. Like animal testing, tax, class sizes, Iraq, Europe, Oil, alternative energy, health services, prisons, police, pensions.......miss the point and you might as well give up and take the Sun/mirror etc as gospel.

 

Quite. If you want to kill a burrowing animal you either have to use terriers to rip them apart or create a chemical weapon like mixamotisis to poison them to death.

Standing in a field with some sort of rifle/shotgun is a passtime of the enthusiast not a useful method of pest control.

Being chased by a pack of dogs with the chance of escaping is the one I would pick from the three if I was a fox.

 

What that means is a completely separate argument. Do you consider it right to control pests? What about wasps? Mosquitos? Do you consider that animals can be 'terrorised'? Which animals? Is it wrong to take job satisfaction from pest control?

Do you think michaelab should be allowed to eat meat? To cultivate animals for the sole purpose of eating them, kill them, and then derive pleasure from their consumption?

Paul

 

Which people are you referring to? It's my understanding that public opinion is largely in favour of banning fox hunting with hounds (and horses). That is more than "a very small number of people". What have powerful cars and fox-hunting got to do with each other?

Michael.

 

What are your sources on 'public opinion'?

People who like powerful cars and people who hunt are disliked by people who have power, influence and little respect for liberty. You're probably next. It'll be dressed up as an environmental or safety issue.

Paul

 

Its already being discussed. Our friend Mr Livingstone has already got designs on getting at drivers with big 4x4s.

 

yeah, anyone with a car that has an engine over 2 liters should have to watch it being turned into an arty side table by one of those compactor things. hey if i can't have one any more then no one else should be able to. plus they are cruel to all those asthma sufferers and likkle animals dying of pollution and that. innit.
of course all those specialist workshops and tuning places will be able to find jobs elsewhere and the 3 lane motorways won't be needed anymore as everyone will have smart cars so we can make them all single carriageway and add some bus lanes to them. what a good idea.
cheers


julian

 

Chris, Mixy is a biological agent, not chemical

Paul, you will see from my earlier comments that i agree eating meat is part of our makeup. But i do not agree with killing for fun.

 

I disagree with killing for fun. But that, to me, puts fishing and shooting much lower on the moral ladder than fox or stag hunting which put justifiable actions into a social context and which are being persecuted because of that social context.

Paul

 

Persoanly i would consider fishing/shooting/hunting all equaly as bad.
I have a good friend who lives mendip way, he hunts, rabbit, dear (best not ask about that one!) and fishes, although i probably wouldnt join him, he only hunts for food. So i would not dis agree with him as i see that being a natural way of things.
How he hunts is his choice, but at least he uses what he gets and doesnt just do it for fun.

 

Good idea! I'll start one.

 

Just what exactly would that social context be? The right of the aristocracy to subjugate the plebs?

Yes of course it's also a class issue. But it's about taking away the historical privaliges of the "ruling" classes and an attempt to stamp out old class abuses.

The problem with this country is that a lot of it's laws (and traditions) are founded in the old class system which was a system created to propagate inequalities amongst the citizens of this country. The ones with the power are free to do as they please yet severely restrict the rights of the masses. The british class system is no different from a dictatorship but instead of the rule of law to suit an individual it is to suit a group of individuals.

IMO, this country should be democratic republic where every citizen has equal rights and privilages. Instead it's ruling classes are still desparately trying to hang on to the last vestiges of power left to them by their duke feifdoms where the landowners owned the people that lived on their land.

How anyone can beleive there is any morally justifiable argument to continue this system in any way, shape or form is beyond me.


There is also the point that I like to sum up with the following statement.

You can judge a mans humanity by his treatment of "lower" life forms.


GTM

 

Obviously not. You can rant on as much as you like but even the lowest of the low such as you still have the right to go hunting.

Paul

 

I totally agree with this. However, we in this country are not even able to treat all our fellow people in the same manner and equality whatever colour of their skin, religious belief, gender or their country of origin economic status. When we manage to do this then we could try to extend our humanity.