Sledge Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 Never before have I been so moved to say "Word." Well said, old chap. Have a crumpet. Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy_Harry Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 why thank you old chap, don't mind if I do- pass the strawberry preserve, someone, I'm feeling a little fruity... Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 I disagree with the ban not because I hunt (I don't) but because of the Civil implications. A tiny percentage of Foxes are killed, so by banning it you're not making a difference. The British people have commited digusting acts in the empire, and the goverment is not afraid to join a war where people will be killed, and making more people anti-west. It often seems to me that the goverment care more about animals then human lives. People say that hunting is barbaric, watch the news, read a history book. The holocaust, Stalin, our own British history, we are just as Barbaric as an animal. Since 1925, there had been 23 minetes of peace. Banning a hunt will not elevate us to place where we are pure of unneedful violence. Note: I don't hunt, and I support our troop's actions. Just not the people who have put them thier. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Not quite seeing your point here. People are cruel and barbaric, so we shouldn't introduce legislation that will stop some of that cruelty and barbarism? Your argument essentially seems to say that we're never going to change, so why bother? I refuse to accept this. ANY movement away from senselees barbarism and cruelty is a good one, no matter how small. Link to post Share on other sites
aimpoint Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 haven't posted in this tread for a while well,i went to my first hunt (line hunting before anyone asks) since the ban today, i must say it doesn't work !! the hounds don't want to know about the fake scent, they just randomly went round the fields not following the scent path,the wipers had to drive the older dogs off of a real fox scent, i personaly don't think its going to work at all on another note (these figures were on a tv program the other night i have no way of verifying the amount killed by pest control guys) did you know that there are around 10,000 foxes killed each year in towns in the uk by privet pest control people payed buy home owners, as opposed to the 1000 or so killed buy the registered hunts,just something to think about anyways i'm off up to the pub Link to post Share on other sites
CoughSyrup Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 My God, I never realized how many liberal people there were out side of the bay area and I never thought they'd all play airsoft . I'm glad I live in the states, I wouldn't give up hunting for anything. I don't believe in trophy hunting, but I do believe in the conservation of the environment by thinning out the numbers of certain animals which if left unchecked would exponentially increase the populations and potentially starve the species out in regards to the rate of human expansion into unincorporated areas. I have been hunting for 10 years, and I'll continue to hunt. As for your government banning firearms and now hunting.. I feel pity for you all. Your civil liberties are running right out the door, and your freedoms right along behind it. Love your country but hate your government. If America said turn in all your guns, I'd give them back one round at a time. Oh, and by the way, if you want to knock on hunters from the states and call them all rednecks, maybe you should come over here and see for yourself instead of basing your assumptions on what you see on TV. I can't speak for every American, but I have respect for what I hunt, I kill the animal as quickly as possible to conserve its dignity, and I respectfully field dress it without dismembering it. And I'm thankful that I was raised with the ability and compassion to do so. And as a side note, I'd like to share a joke. Vegetarian is Native American for Bad Hunter. Cough. Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Um... we VOTED to ban fox hunting with hounds. Hardly "civil liberties running out the door." More, "government finally listens to will of the people." Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy_Harry Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 "vegetarian is native american for bad hunter"? no, its a word to describe someone who, by exercising self-discipline, refuses to eat meat in a meat-eating orientated society, and who shapes their diet and lifestyle to suit this decision. HUNGRY is native american for bad hunter. and, not meaning to make you paranoid or anything coughsyrup, but I live in the US now, I'm a liberal goddamn treehugging pinko lefty airsofter, and I'm a vegetarian. The world has many of us outside the bay area, and we are growing in number...(mostly cos we outlive you meateaters, ahaha )...you'd best go barricade yourself in the cellar wih a supply of coldcuts and your rifle, and await that glorious day when all those bleeding-heart liberals you hate so much are finally sent to hell and the Conservatives get to die happy, surrounded by their piles of horded wealth, amongst their own destruction and pollution, with no-one left to point a finger and say "No. You are wrong". won't that be a great day? Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Not quite seeing your point here. People are cruel and barbaric, so we shouldn't introduce legislation that will stop some of that cruelty and barbarism? Your argument essentially seems to say that we're never going to change, so why bother? I refuse to accept this. ANY movement away from senselees barbarism and cruelty is a good one, no matter how small. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People will just use guns, no nicer. The fox is killed instantly anyway, the dogs are trained to go for the throat, and will kill it extremly quickly. Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy_Harry Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 the dogs maybe trained to go for the throat, but this isn't where they always end up latching on. I've been witness to too many foxhunts where the fox lives for minutes after the dogs have caught it. Even seen one fox with one of its legs torn off, bleeding to death. yeah, respect that noble beast. pay a professional marksman if you want to have foxes killed. Don't leave it to rank amateurs on horseback and their over-excited, barely controlled pack of hounds. and now, thankfully, this is what has to happen in the eyes of the law- a happy day for humanity, a sad day for foxhunters. boo. hoo. Link to post Share on other sites
Helbore Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Roman tradition involved both Gladiatorial fights and throwing people to the lions. This was their tradition. It was considered sport. A lot of people enjoyed watching it. Both could be considered quite natural for animal behaviour. Should these things be allowed in our society because of this? Should they be made legal because people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to do them? No, of course not. Because killing humans is a terrible thing. Killing a human for pleasure is reprehensible. Killing a fox for pleasure, however, is ok. I've yet to actually read a solid reason for this. The topic is actually sidestepped with issues about civil liberties and economic problems to the local communities. If fox hunting is ok, then why is a gladiatorial arena wrong? If you can hunt foxes, then why not every other type of animal. As someone said, why no hunting small dogs, or cats even? Why can't we take out the local convicted criminals and hunt them? That would be a good way to reduce the number of offenders in the country and keep prison numbers down. It would also offer a nice new business in the community. But would we consider that right? Can we say the government has no right to ban such behaviour? The whole point of government is to instigate laws governing right and wrong. That is why we have them. If you don't like the laws they pass, then vote against them. If they get reelected then the majority of the voting public must like what they are doing. Its not a perfect system, but give us a better one. On a slightly separate note, as it came up, I love my airsoft guns, but I'm totally against public ownership of real pistols. They have only one purpose; to kill and I see no reason why the public should need them. I don't consider it a civil liberty to own a handgun, but rather a public danger. Link to post Share on other sites
Jow Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 If you're willing to kill for your own pleasure, I think you should be willing to be killed for the pleasure of someone else. Link to post Share on other sites
Hissing_Sid Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 I've yet to actually read a solid reason for this. The topic is actually sidestepped with issues about civil liberties and economic problems to the local communities. If fox hunting is ok, then why is a gladiatorial arena wrong? If you can hunt foxes, then why not every other type of animal. As someone said, why no hunting small dogs, or cats even? Why can't we take out the local convicted criminals and hunt them? That would be a good way to reduce the number of offenders in the country and keep prison numbers down. It would also offer a nice new business in the community. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it's you who's missing the point. Don't mean to sound smug and smarmy by saying that. The simple fact is that foxes ARE vermin, like rats or rabbits. They give farmers a hard time and carry disease. Cute and fluffy as they are, their numbers DO need to be controlled. My own personal viewpoint is that it, basically, doesn't matter too much if a couple of hundred foxes get torn apart by dogs instead of getting a .223 between the ears each year. Please, don't say that it's "inhumane" to allow foxes to be killed that way. It's a natural occurance. I'm sure a fox isn't worried about killing a chicken painlessly when it's tossing it up in the air and mauling it. Basically, I don't consider myself a supporter of fox-hunting. However, in the grand scheme of things, I just don't see that it's a big deal if a bunch of hooray henries want to spend a day charging about on horses. Especially so since their guilt-ridden self image is forcing them to regularly do stuff like hold auctions and concerts with the proceeds going to charity as an attempt to legitimise their sport. I, personally, have friends who make money from fox hunting. One repairs fences after the hunt has been through. Another is a saddlemaker. I'd rather my friends had a decent life rather than some mangy old disease ridden fox. Oh and civilised or not I'd be quite happy to see kiddy-fiddlers, rapists, murderers and terrorists being used for target practise by RMs on TV. Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy_Harry Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Ah, but the bigger issue is- what happens if those people the RMs are shooting at are innocent? afterall, the courts mess up occasionally, the police mess up occasionally, and every now and then the legal system conspires with every element within it to throw a patsy on the fire as soon as possible just to get the damn Sun off its back (see birmingham 6 and the Gilford Four- all ten of these men were and remain innocent, yet under either hissing sids or helbore's governance, they'd all be so much mincemeat.) When it comes to hunting, I am prepared to admit that some people out there consider foxes to be vermin and a threat to their livestock. As I have said before, these same people frequently find it easier to invest in the talents of a hunter rather than to invest more time and money in better defences for the livestock they care so deeply about, and so are within their rights, to protect their livelihood by any means they are prepared to pay for, to hunt and kill these animals. Even I, a vegetarian and supporter of animal rights causes the world over, am prepared to accept this. However, there is a BIG difference between the more efficient, faster and more effective method of hunting with a gun, and the largely inefficient, slow, painful, out-dated and ultimately ritualistic methods of hunting with a pack of hounds and a pile of chaps in red on horseback. What I think helbore is getting at is that the method is deeply connected to the means. In the case of condemning convicted criminals to death, or indeed ANY punishment, there has developed a body of law designed to afford the prisoner a degree of dignity by granting him rights- hence the electric chair is favoured as (bizarrely, in my opinion), being considered more dignified than a public lynching. Essentially, by taking upon itself a responsibility such as legislating for the treatment of prisoners, a government must be seen (or should at least try to be seen) as not sinking to the level of the person or thing it condemns. We, thankfully, do not operate by the biblical "eye for an eye" doctrine anymore- a truely stupid way, in my opinion, of dealing with business, as it leaves no room for forgiveness or redemption, and ultimately, no room for reconciliation- Therefore, the Blair government, having pledged in its election manifesto (meaningless, I know, but humour me here) to take responsibility for the means by which animals are treated vis-a-vis foxhunting, imposed a ban on the hunting of foxes with dogs not because they do not understand that a fox can cause huge, wanton amounts of damage and loss of valuable livestock, but because they, as the legislature, had a responsibility not to sink to the fox's level. obviously, if people want to make foxes suffer, they still can- poisoning, capturing and torturing, deliberately missing shots to cause high levels of stress and bodily wounds etc, but they can no longer hunt with dogs as it is considered the behaviour of people no longer connected to our supposedly modern society. We have moved on. 50 years ago, the death penalty was acceptable in the UK. It no longer is, thankfully, following one too many foul-ups and deliberate cover-ups by police. We no longer allow badger-baiting (though it continues in certain areas), and we no longer allow cock or dog fighting. All these are banned for the public good, as they teach us the benefits of being fair and just to our fellow creatures. Whether they behave in this manner is a moot point- if we believe ourselves to be superior, then we must behave in a superior manner. fox-hunting does not fit that manner any more. Its had plenty of time to enjoy itself, and all those who've wanted to take part have had ample time to do so. But its time is over, at least until the damn tories get in again. Link to post Share on other sites
Helbore Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 ...yet under either hissing sids or helbore's governance, they'd all be so much mincemeat.) Crazy Harry, did you misunderstand me? I wasn't saying that is something I think should be done. Quite the opposite. I was saying if you believe fox hunting is ok, then why don't you think hunting humans for fun is ok. I am against fox hunting. I am also against bringing back the Gladiators. I am totally against all forms of capital punishment. I just wanted to make that clear. Didn't want you to think me a bloodthirsty maniac!! Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I'm ONLY in favour of hunting humans. Where's the fun in hunting something that can't hurt you? The pleasure surely comes in facing an equally armed and intelligent opponent and pwning them. Foxes? Pah. Link to post Share on other sites
Samm Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Pwning? That's leet speak Would be good being Predator yeah... Or the Hirogen off Star Trek. Link to post Share on other sites
aimpoint Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 ok just got these today on saturday there were 93 foxes killed by the organised hunts in the uk,all legally aswell i mite add so that the hounds don't catch them up,or when they are flushed out for a drag hunt just to make sure the hounds don't get them then.i reckon there would be 80 more foxes alive in the uk today if it wasn't for the new rules i think you guys have shot yourselves in the foot with this ban Link to post Share on other sites
Jow Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Pwning? That's leet speak Would be good being Predator yeah... Or the Hirogen off Star Trek. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://www.ypc.co.uk/pages/monsters.htm Link to post Share on other sites
CountDoom Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well, i am realy glad most of us are against it . It would probably suprise mother against organisations that we are against brutal sports... us murdering children with our weapons of death and all. They will probably just shrug it off by saying we take it out on people with out guns... ahh well At least i know all the ppl here are nice ok just got these today on saturday there were 93 foxes killed by the organised hunts in the uk,all legally aswell i mite add so that the hounds don't catch them up,or when they are flushed out for a drag hunt just to make sure the hounds don't get them then.i reckon there would be 80 more foxes alive in the uk today if it wasn't for the new rules i think you guys have shot yourselves in the foot with this ban Right... well you do realise it is a means to an end? If airsoft was going to be banned in 2 weeks, would you not go and play it solid for as long as possible? Then afterwards i would probably play with large tubes + bb bullets and use them simply to make a point. Like i said before, shooting them painlessley is OK for me. I would never do it, but it does not matter to me. I also believe shooting animals to eat is OK, as long as they are not endangered... so rabbits. And because it gets people outdoors and appreciating the world around them and the art of hunting (understanding your prey, not ripping it apart and mocking it) i think it is fine. Not eating it is unfair and wasteful. Link to post Share on other sites
aimpoint Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Right... well you do realise it is a means to an end? If airsoft was going to be banned in 2 weeks, would you not go and play it solid for as long as possible? Then afterwards i would probably play with large tubes + bb bullets and use them simply to make a point. Like i said before, shooting them painlessley is OK for me. I would never do it, but it does not matter to me. I also believe shooting animals to eat is OK, as long as they are not endangered... so rabbits. And because it gets people outdoors and appreciating the world around them and the art of hunting (understanding your prey, not ripping it apart and mocking it) i think it is fine. Not eating it is unfair and wasteful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yea i know its a means to an ends,compairing it to airsoft doesnt realy work tho because noone gets killed in airsoft (not in our games anyways ) im just pointing out that a lot more animals were killed and that they werent the old or sick ones you have to be a hell of a shot to hit a fox first time and kill it while its runnig at top speed at a distance followed by hounds,thats not even taking into consideration the relivent weather and bullet drift and dip Link to post Share on other sites
Helbore Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well if the hunts have increased so they can get in more sport before the ban comes into effect, I'd blame that on the hunters, not on those who instigated the ban. Link to post Share on other sites
aimpoint Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well if the hunts have increased so they can get in more sport before the ban comes into effect, I'd blame that on the hunters, not on those who instigated the ban. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> it is banned,this is now the legal way to do it,there not trying to get more foxes they have to,to be within the law so that the hounds dont stumble onto any and kill them there selfs Link to post Share on other sites
Helbore Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 As I'm a little unsure, can you explain what the legal way to do it is, now. Link to post Share on other sites
Hissing_Sid Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 Ah, but the bigger issue is- what happens if those people the RMs are shooting at are innocent? afterall, the courts mess up occasionally, the police mess up occasionally, and every now and then the legal system conspires with every element within it to throw a patsy on the fire as soon as possible just to get the damn Sun off its back (see birmingham 6 and the Gilford Four- all ten of these men were and remain innocent, yet under either hissing sids or helbore's governance, they'd all be so much mincemeat.) Erm, I don't think we need to go to unrealistic extremes. Any "normal" criminal is worthy of sympathy and rehabilitation. However, when a guy like Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe or Harold Shipman shows up, I don't think anybody would shed a tear for their loss. I don't suppose many members of the public would be keen to watch them killed but, if it served a purpose, I'd be happy to allow the army to use them for target practice or something similar. When it comes to hunting, I am prepared to admit that some people out there consider foxes to be vermin and a threat to their livestock... Even I, a vegetarian and supporter of animal rights causes the world over, am prepared to accept this. However, there is a BIG difference between the more efficient, faster and more effective method of hunting with a gun, and the largely inefficient, slow, painful, out-dated and ultimately ritualistic methods of hunting with a pack of hounds and a pile of chaps in red on horseback. So it's simply the method of killing that you're opposed to rather than the actual outcome? Therefore, the Blair government, having pledged in its election manifesto (meaningless, I know, but humour me here) to take responsibility for the means by which animals are treated vis-a-vis foxhunting, imposed a ban on the hunting of foxes with dogs not because they do not understand that a fox can cause huge, wanton amounts of damage and loss of valuable livestock, but because they, as the legislature, had a responsibility not to sink to the fox's level. I think you mean the fox hunters level. What level is that exactly? As I've already said, personally I find fox hunting distasteful but I start to worry when a government inflicts its POV on a hostile minority. What's happening here is that a precident is being set for controlling things from central government. How much do you think the general public are going to care when Blair decides to try to ban those weirdo's who dress up like soldiers and run around in the woods with dangerous looking guns? Though you may not think it, it's the same issue, the issue of a remote, uninformed government attacking a minority in the assumption that it'll win them more votes from the general populace than it'll lose them from the segment of society which they attack. We have moved on. 50 years ago, the death penalty was acceptable in the UK. It no longer is, thankfully, following one too many foul-ups and deliberate cover-ups by police. We no longer allow badger-baiting (though it continues in certain areas), and we no longer allow cock or dog fighting. All these are banned for the public good, as they teach us the benefits of being fair and just to our fellow creatures. Whether they behave in this manner is a moot point- if we believe ourselves to be superior, then we must behave in a superior manner. fox-hunting does not fit that manner any more. Its had plenty of time to enjoy itself, and all those who've wanted to take part have had ample time to do so. No offence but the very fact that these acts DO carry on would imply that they aren't actually as unacceptable as you suggest. But its time is over, at least until the damn tories get in again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used to feel the same. I'm a socialist, at heart, but I resent the way the current government tries to interfere with our daily lives. At least the tories will probably leave most of us alone while they help the rich get richer. Unfortunately, that will, once again, be at the cost of thousands of less well off people falling back into outright poverty. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.