Bastard May want to reintroduce fox hunting.

by Andy Tue May 09, 2017 4:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

She along with some blood lusting conservatives want to reintroduce fox hunting, which was outlawed by Blair in 2004.
Will the MP's blindly follow her say so, or follow the electorate, 84% of who support the ban.
Bitch. And lying cow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fox-hunting-bring-back-ban-repeal-conservative-tories-general-election-rural-vote-a7726506.html

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 5:48 am

From all I've read halal slaughter is not much crueler than any other method. And even if it is, there is a purpose for those animals being killed- they will be eaten.

Foxes being torn to pieces by dogs after being chased and terrified to exhaustion is far crueler and serves no purpose.

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 6:20 am

Eilzel wrote:From all I've read halal slaughter is not much crueler than any other method. And even if it is, there is a purpose for those animals being killed- they will be eaten.

Foxes being torn to pieces by dogs after being chased and terrified to exhaustion is far crueler and serves no purpose.

Really?

The methods to farm and butcher animals for eating are at best appalling and as seen proves my point how people who do eat meat either down play the fact they are or remove the view point altogether from their mind when they eat meat.

I will point out one thing. So clearly people think any predator that chases down an animal, who are clearly terrified and rips them open to eat, must be cruel?

Again I am against the Fox hunting methods and why it should be banned, but I bet people are fascinated to watch many predators chase down and kill their prey.

Go figure.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 10, 2017 7:03 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Eh? How do you come to that conclusion?

Well the vast majority of the country clearly disagree with you.

This is all the Far Left can do, attempt to deligitimize people and never actually talk about the issue at hand.

Lets face fact, there is a problem with too many foxes.

Do I agree with the methods of actual Fox hunts?

No

But would I have an issue if they were culled through shooting them?

No

I shot one over the weekend Thorin....a right mangy manky old thing, been after lambs of the farmer who's land surrounds our wood. Result ...one very pleased farmer, and about 300+ acres of permission to shoot

Why do you want to shoot animals?

by Raggamuffin Wed May 10, 2017 7:05 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It affects me in the way it should affect everyone - every right-thinking person anyway. These hunters do not own the wildlife, and they have no right whatsoever to go around torturing foxes, hares, and stags for their own amusement. No, I don't think there are more important things, and clearly the Tories think it's important enough to bother with, so that argument doesn't wash.

by your very words you stand condemned "every right thinking person" is a statement that has been used many times, and usually by those whos argument lacks any substantive basis in fact....indeed the "right thinking person" has sent many to unjust deaths, and caused untold human misery throughout the ages, from the crusades to te russian pogroms, to the nazi death camps to american slavery, from the misery that isd north korea to the insanity that is ISIS....all done by "right thinking people"(at least in thier own opinion)

secondly your argument CAN be reversed...YOU do not "own" the wildlife either and have no "right" to tell others what to do in the matter of tghings which do not belong "in right" to you.....

Why do you care about any of that? After all, it didn't affect you did it?

by Raggamuffin Wed May 10, 2017 7:13 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You tag-teaming with Foul won't make me change my mind. You're always the same - trying to mock the opinions of others and trying to make them agree with you - along with introducing red herrings galore.

And now turning this onto me

Wow

The problem is Rags, normally you do debate with reason but have fallen foul to the same thing that happens to me sometimes and that your emotions through your passions. Have taken control of what is normally your better reasoning side. So that is what you need to take stock of here, that you are being ruled by emotions in your replies and this shows through, how you are poorly turning this onto posters.

I get this means loads to you, but cut the crap about Victor, as that really is pathetic

I don't know how you have the nerve, I really don't. You made this about me many posts ago. As for Victor, you and him have been tag-teaming about me.

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 7:15 am

It's cruel in the wild too didge. But that is the 'wild' where animals kill to eat. Not for reasons of sick pleasure. Watching animals get attacked in the wild is fascinating, but I don't see how a human with a pack of dogs doing the same can be considered 'fun'. It speaks of a sinister personality to me.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 10, 2017 7:20 am

Eilzel wrote:It's cruel in the wild too didge. But that is the 'wild' where animals kill to eat. Not for reasons of sick pleasure. Watching animals get attacked in the wild is fascinating, but I don't see how a human with a pack of dogs doing the same can be considered 'fun'. It speaks of a sinister personality to me.

I agree, although I don't like to watch animals being attacked in the wild. There is something sinister about people who enjoy fox hunting, or enjoy watching a hare coursing event.

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 7:21 am

Eilzel wrote:It's cruel in the wild too didge. But that is the 'wild' where animals kill to eat. Not for reasons of sick pleasure. Watching animals get attacked in the wild is fascinating, but I don't see how a human with a pack of dogs doing the same can be considered 'fun'. It speaks of a sinister personality to me.

How can it be cruel in the wild Eilzel?
What you are basically saying is that animals should have feelings for the prey they eat, which would render them extinct.

But that is the point, people are fascinated to watch predators take down their prey, where the prey is terrified.

The point you are missing, as how can people sit and watch this?

The indigenous American Indians bred and trained dogs to be hunting dogs for the purpose of hunting.

Do you consider them cruel, when they respect the animals they killed to hunt?

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 7:29 am

Animals suffering is always cruel didge. Of course that doesn't mean animals should think.about their prey- they are animals- a strange suggestion tbh.

My issue is with the reason.

Humans and animals kill other animals to eat. That us nature. I have no issues with this.

But for fun? Among highly evolved, conscious humam beings? That is my problem

by Andy Wed May 10, 2017 7:31 am

But the question is WHY cvilised and educated MEN ( seldon women) feel the need to wear £2000 clothes whilst riding horses to watch an animal maiming and butchering another animal?
Clearly not a poor man's sport. Yet we are told everyone can participate.
Only if you can afford it. And speak with a plum in your mouth. And enjoy cruelty.

Bloodlust?
Why wear red? To mask the blood splatter.
Why invariably wealthy and 'posh" folk.?
We are told it is for all and enjoyed by all. Utter bollocks.
Hooray Henrys running amok as if they own the countryside - often trespassing on land on which they are not permitted.

If the pleasure is in the ride and the hunt, then drag hunt.
It seems most of the thrill is watching the fox in it's death throes, hearing it's shreiks of agony, watching it's guts being torn from it and the dogs feasting .
These are the actions of sick individuals.

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 7:32 am

Eilzel wrote:Animals suffering is always cruel didge. Of course that doesn't mean animals should think.about their prey- they are animals- a strange suggestion tbh.

My issue is with the reason.

Humans and animals kill other animals to eat. That us nature. I have no issues with this.

But for fun? Among highly evolved, conscious humam beings? That is my problem

Its was your strange view to think predators doing what they need to do in order to survive is some how cruel.

So your issue is with the reason.

Well many hunters gain pleasure from the hunt and yet many respect the animals and often do not like to see any animals suffer.

Does that make them then cruel based on your reasoning?

This is the problem with arguments here.

What you should be saying is that its cruel to prolong the suffering of animals within a hunt.

To say people are cruel because they do enjoy hunting, when for thousands of years humans have enjoyed hunting and respected the animals they kill. Is poor to say the least.

by Andy Wed May 10, 2017 7:36 am

And for thousands of years, the human race has been wrong to enjoy hunting of live animals.
We have evolved to appreciate the beauty of animals. Or 84% of the populus have.
The remaining 16% are still neanderthal in their mindset .

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 7:39 am

Angry Andy wrote:And for thousands of years, the human race has been wrong to enjoy hunting of live animals.
We have evolved to appreciate the beauty of animals. Or 84% of the populus have.
The remaining 16% are still neanderthal in their mindset .

How has it been wrong?

We evolved and survived because of hunting, otherwise we would be extinct.

When humans turn to so called civilization, by forming towns and cities is when we first see genocide through wars.

Humans have not evolved to be classed as civilized yet, they are far from being so.

You just ant to make this some poor political point, but interesting to know and understand that you think any hunter gatherers today are neanderthals to you.

by Andy Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 am

Hunter gatherers gather for food. Fox hunters do it for bloodlust and pleasure.
Do you see the difference, Thor?

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 7:43 am

I would also add that civilization with urbanization and farming methods have so changed the eco system for the worst, we have seen countless animals become extinct and on the point of extinction.

At least hunter gatherers only hunted what they needed to eat. With civilization, this has brought the planet on the brink of destruction through climate change. And has seen a mass population explosion.

This shows again how out of touch people are with what they think is being civilized.

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 7:44 am

Angry Andy wrote:Hunter gatherers gather for food. Fox hunters do it for bloodlust and pleasure.
Do you see the difference, Thor?

And I have said the fox hunting methods are wrong.

Not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out.

My issues is the poor arguments being raised here and how some think this is more important than saving this planet from disaster.

by Andy Wed May 10, 2017 7:51 am

Why just go for the fox. What about wild boar, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 7:55 am

Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the foc. Whst about wild board, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

by Raggamuffin Wed May 10, 2017 8:15 am

Angry Andy wrote:But the question is WHY cvilised and educated MEN ( seldon women) feel the need to wear £2000 clothes whilst riding horses to watch an animal maiming and butchering another animal?
Clearly not a poor man's sport. Yet we are told everyone can participate.
Only if you can afford it. And speak with a plum in your mouth. And enjoy cruelty.

Bloodlust?
Why wear red? To mask the blood splatter.
Why invariably wealthy and 'posh" folk.?
We are told it is for all and enjoyed by all. Utter bollocks.
Hooray Henrys running amok as if they own the countryside - often trespassing on land on which they are not permitted.

If the pleasure is in the ride and the hunt, then drag hunt.
It seems most of the thrill is watching the fox in it's death throes, hearing it's shreiks of agony, watching it's guts being torn from it and the dogs feasting .
These are the actions of sick individuals.

Exactly. What's wrong with drag hunting? They can still go out on their horses and enjoy a ride.

It was bad enough for the Tories to support hunting with dogs when it was still legal, but it would be even worse to actually bring it back once it's been banned. They would be basically saying that animal abuse is perfectly OK and should be encouraged.

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 8:22 am

Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Animals suffering is always cruel didge. Of course that doesn't mean animals should think.about their prey- they are animals- a strange suggestion tbh.

My issue is with the reason.

Humans and animals kill other animals to eat. That us nature. I have no issues with this.

But for fun? Among highly evolved, conscious humam beings? That is my problem

Its was your strange view to think predators doing what they need to do in order to survive is some how cruel.

So your issue is with the reason.

Well many hunters gain pleasure from the hunt and yet many respect the animals and often do not like to see any animals suffer.

Does that make them then cruel based on your reasoning?

This is the problem with arguments here.

What you should be saying is that its cruel to prolong the suffering of animals within a hunt.

To say people are cruel because they do enjoy hunting, when for thousands of years humans have enjoyed hunting and respected the animals they kill. Is poor to say the least.

Animals suffering is cruel. Sometimes cruelty is unavoidable, if someone is carrying out a cruel act but that act has to be done then the person carrying it out is not cruel.

A hunter culling deer is not cruel.
A person working in a slaughterhouse is not cruel.
A lion killing a zebra is not cruel.

But the actions are cruel- unavoidably so. Murder by definition is cruel.

Huntimg foxes is not neccessary and completely avoidable. So in the case the one carrying out the act is very cruel indeed.

A pointing out humams have hunted throughout history means nothing. We had slavery, female subjegation to men, homophobia and many other things throughout history too. None of these are acceptable now and those who thought they were or think they are now squarely on the wrong side of history.

by Ben Reilly Wed May 10, 2017 8:51 am

We're seeing a lot of this in America now -- the right bringing back things that are stupid, harmful or cruel just because the left opposed it. It's almost as if they don't care about stuff that goes on in reality; they just want to make liberals angry.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/trump-administration-re-opens-federal-lands-to-toxic-lead-bullets#14944026550021&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 9:37 am

Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the fox. What about wild boar, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

on this we agree...
although hunting DID tend to weed out the manky mangy OLD ones who are the trouble makers as far as farmers are concerned...

as you correctly point out drag hunting is a much better thing, and moreover the trail can be adjusted in level of difficulty to cater for different standards of riders...

never been on one...I dont trust a mode of transport with a mind of its own......

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 9:43 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Eh? How do you come to that conclusion?

Well the vast majority of the country clearly disagree with you.

This is all the Far Left can do, attempt to deligitimize people and never actually talk about the issue at hand.

Lets face fact, there is a problem with too many foxes.

Do I agree with the methods of actual Fox hunts?

No

But would I have an issue if they were culled through shooting them?

No

I shot one over the weekend Thorin....a right mangy manky old thing, been after lambs of the farmer who's land surrounds our wood. Result ...one very pleased farmer, and about 300+ acres of permission to shoot

Why do you want to shoot animals?

2 reasons....

one pest control...crows and squirrels...in the main for again two main reasons, environmental protection, to reduce predators species to teh benefit of such as song birds etc and for removal of nuicence foxes raiding lambs etc
and

for high quality, better tasting, lower fat meat in the case of game and rabbits. (and pigeons)
in which case I only shoot whats going to be eaten.....

also FYI...rabbits cost farming over 300 million last year, in damage to land and crops, infrastructure and injury/loss of stock.

by 'Wolfie Wed May 10, 2017 9:43 am

Thorin wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the foc. Whst about wild board, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

A mixture of more environmentally-friendly "hunter gatherer" lifestyles and "subsistence" level basic farming systems could support a global population of 1.5 billion humans, at maximum...

I have no real problem with that concept, in principle, as there are far too many humans on this planet..

However, you might have a wee problem convincing a few people that mankind's overpopulation levels needs to be reduced by some 80% !

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 9:45 am

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Animals suffering is always cruel didge. Of course that doesn't mean animals should think.about their prey- they are animals- a strange suggestion tbh.

My issue is with the reason.

Humans and animals kill other animals to eat. That us nature. I have no issues with this.

But for fun? Among highly evolved, conscious humam beings? That is my problem

Its was your strange view to think predators doing what they need to do in order to survive is some how cruel.

So your issue is with the reason.

Well many hunters gain pleasure from the hunt and yet many respect the animals and often do not like to see any animals suffer.

Does that make them then cruel based on your reasoning?

This is the problem with arguments here.

What you should be saying is that its cruel to prolong the suffering of animals within a hunt.

To say people are cruel because they do enjoy hunting, when for thousands of years humans have enjoyed hunting and respected the animals they kill. Is poor to say the least.

Animals suffering is cruel. Sometimes cruelty is unavoidable, if someone is carrying out a cruel act but that act has to be done then the person carrying it out is not cruel.

A hunter culling deer is not cruel.
A person working in a slaughterhouse is not cruel.
A lion killing a zebra is not cruel.

But the actions are cruel- unavoidably so. Murder by definition is cruel.

at this point your argument loses ALL credibility....it becomes merely the emotive outburst of childish mawkishness. If I have to say it ....snowflake arguments.

Huntimg foxes is not neccessary and completely avoidable. So in the case the one carrying out the act is very cruel indeed.

A pointing out humams have hunted throughout history means nothing. We had slavery, female subjegation to men, homophobia and many other things throughout history too. None of these are acceptable now and those who thought they were or think they are now squarely on the wrong side of history.

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 9:46 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the foc. Whst about wild board, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

A mixed "hunter gatherere" and "subsistence" level basic farming systems could support a global population of 1.5 billion humans, at maximum...

I have no real problem wuth that concept, in principle..

However, you might have a wee problem convincing a few people that mankind's overpopultaion needs to be reduced by some 80% !

but then again...theres north korea...careful what you wish for.... affraid

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 9:49 am

Cruel = causing pain or suffering.

My argument doesn't lose credibility just because you disagree with the dictionary.

by HoratioTarr Wed May 10, 2017 9:56 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
agreed, its unnecessary, whats more its inefficient too.....BUT
firstly...how doest it affect YOU (personally.....)
secondly dont you think theres more important things for the wierdos of the left to concern themselves about.....like hunting down and murdering inconvenient people like climate change deniers.....

It affects me in the way it should affect everyone - every right-thinking person anyway. These hunters do not own the wildlife, and they have no right whatsoever to go around torturing foxes, hares, and stags for their own amusement. No, I don't think there are more important things, and clearly the Tories think it's important enough to bother with, so that argument doesn't wash.

I think it's very important not to treat animals badly. They have no voice. There's always this hoo hah about human rights and how we are a civilised society...but hunting any animal for sport is not civilised, it's downright cruel and backward. One can only imagine the terror a fox must feel being chased for miles by a baying pack, then cornered and ripped apart. It's fucking disgusting.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed May 10, 2017 10:02 am

Angry Andy wrote:But the question is WHY cvilised and educated MEN ( seldon women) (A lot of women and girls are hunt members - in my local hunt it is about 50-50) feel the need to wear £2000 clothes whilst riding horses to watch an animal maiming and butchering another animal? (They don't; they follow hunt tradition and etiquette by wearing individual hunt uniform or normal riding clothes, most of which cost nothing like £2,000. Anyway, many people wear far more costly clothing to go to horse races or social events to raise money for charities. You also mock those, do you? And "watching an animal maiming and butchering another animal" is illegal under the 2004 Act as you well know. The small number of successful prosecutions that result from the automatic observation of hunt activities by such organisations as the RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports indicate that the law is being complied with.)
Clearly not a poor man's sport. Yet we are told everyone can participate.
Only if you can afford it. And speak with a plum in your mouth. And enjoy cruelty. (Complete and utter Tosh. Have you never heard of the Banwen Miners' Hunt in Wales? Or the many Farmers' Hunts that provide some of the very sparse leisure opportunities, mainly point-to-point racing and gymkhanas in rural areas where there is hardly anything else, particularly for young people?)

Bloodlust?
Why wear red? To mask the blood splatter. (Does that include black, green or other colours of hunt uniform. Anyway, it's known as Hunting Pink after the old tailoring family who specialised in equestrian wear.)
Why invariably wealthy and 'posh" folk.? (It isn't - you only like to think it is because of your own Left wing prejudices.)
We are told it is for all and enjoyed by all. Utter bollocks. (Your entire post is utter bollocks.)
Hooray Henrys running amok as if they own the countryside - often trespassing on land on which they are not permitted.

(I own some land in an area covered by two hunts, and a member of the hunt staff always calls to warn me of forthcoming meets and to renew my permission. I have never known a single case of trespass on my land, or any other privately owned land in this area, in more than 50 years...or, indeed, any trespass on publicly owned land, of which there is a lot round here. I have no reason to believe that other hunts are less responsible; they have no with to alienate landowners and lose their members'riding opportunities

If you want to criticise real criminality and cruelty turn your sights on illegal hare-coursing. You won't, of course, because that is primarily the "sport" of Travellers, and as we all know any criticism of their activities is deemed to be "racist."

If the pleasure is in the ride and the hunt, then drag hunt. (That's what they do, plus point to point racing, gymkhanas and other equestrian and social events.)
It seems most of the thrill is watching the fox in it's death throes, hearing it's shreiks of agony, watching it's guts being torn from it and the dogs feasting .
These are the actions of sick individuals.

(Well, clearly from your vivid "description" you must have witnessed it. It would have been entirely illegal under the 2004 Act. Did you report it to the police?)

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 10:06 am

Eilzel wrote:Cruel = causing pain or suffering.

My argument doesn't lose credibility just because you disagree with the dictionary.

murder (in this context) Rolling Eyes

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 10:08 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Cruel = causing pain or suffering.

My argument doesn't lose credibility just because you disagree with the dictionary.

murder (in this context)

So your point is based on a choice of word. I could have said killing. They all involve the same act. You are being pedantic.

by HoratioTarr Wed May 10, 2017 10:08 am

And the act of 'blooding'? What the fuck is that all about? It actually just sums up the barbarity of the whole ethic of hunting.

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 10:11 am

Eilzel wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Cruel = causing pain or suffering.

My argument doesn't lose credibility just because you disagree with the dictionary.

murder (in this context)

So your point is based on a choice of word. I could have said killing. They all involve the same act. You are being pedantic.

not at all...the use of childish emotives is it seems the de rigure of the left....

AND its inacurate since you wish to abide by "definitions"....you can ONLY "murder" a fellow human....

by Andy Wed May 10, 2017 10:14 am

I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority.
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers.
That would be karma

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 10:16 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Cruel = causing pain or suffering.

My argument doesn't lose credibility just because you disagree with the dictionary.

murder (in this context)

So your point is based on a choice of word. I could have said killing. They all involve the same act. You are being pedantic.
not at all...the use of childish emotives is it seems the de rigure of the left....

AND its inacurate since you wish to abide by "definitions"....you can ONLY "murder" a fellow human....

Whatever. It should hardly be surprising that people use emotive language about something that disgusts them. It is surprising however that not only do some people not find killing for fun horrible, but cannot even comprehend why some people do...

by Andy Wed May 10, 2017 10:25 am

Proud hunt sabateur. . Its funny how so many of the hunt riders cars get flat tires whilst they are riding.

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 10:53 am

Angry Andy wrote:Proud hunt sabateur. . Its funny how so many of the hunt riders cars get flat tires whilst they are riding.

funny how the left condane criminality...no wonder crime goes up whan the left is in power

by Victorismyhero Wed May 10, 2017 10:58 am

Angry Andy wrote:I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority.
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers.
That would be karma

what a pig ignorant, vile thing to say...
presumably the suffering of the pet dog means nothing to you...thus showing what a lying hypocrite you are

clearly another lefty with no principles, "in it for the aggro" only.....

by The Devil, You Know Wed May 10, 2017 11:06 am

Angry Andy wrote:She along with some blood lusting conservatives want to reintroduce fox hunting, which was outlawed by Blair in 2004.
Will the MP's blindly follow her say so, or follow the electorate, 84% of who support the ban.
Bitch. And lying cow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fox-hunting-bring-back-ban-repeal-conservative-tories-general-election-rural-vote-a7726506.html

no she wants to repeal the hunting law that is not fit for purpose. deliberately made so by blair as a sop to the left

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 11:12 am

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its was your strange view to think predators doing what they need to do in order to survive is some how cruel.

So your issue is with the reason.

Well many hunters gain pleasure from the hunt and yet many respect the animals and often do not like to see any animals suffer.

Does that make them then cruel based on your reasoning?

This is the problem with arguments here.

What you should be saying is that its cruel to prolong the suffering of animals within a hunt.

To say people are cruel because they do enjoy hunting, when for thousands of years humans have enjoyed hunting and respected the animals they kill. Is poor to say the least.

Animals suffering is cruel. Sometimes cruelty is unavoidable, if someone is carrying out a cruel act but that act has to be done then the person carrying it out is not cruel.

A hunter culling deer is not cruel.
A person working in a slaughterhouse is not cruel.
A lion killing a zebra is not cruel.

But the actions are cruel- unavoidably so. Murder by definition is cruel.

Huntimg foxes is not neccessary and completely avoidable. So in the case the one carrying out the act is very cruel indeed.

A pointing out humams have hunted throughout history means nothing. We had slavery, female subjegation to men, homophobia and many other things throughout history too. None of these are acceptable now and those who thought they were or think they are now squarely on the wrong side of history.

eh?

You are now back tracking from before where you said predators hunting prey is cruel

Murder?

How do you define an animal needing to survive as murder based under what definition?

Sorry Eilzel you really are talking rubbish as murder is a concept to describe the human loss of life

You also contradict saying the actions are cruel based off a human perception.

To a lion its not cruel to act to kill in order that its cubs will survive.

And there is you being an advocate of evolution.

Culling foxes is necessary
Your whole premise is based on human thinking and hence why it falls apart

So now you are making hunting comparable to slavery?

Are you joking?

The point is here is that in reality hunters who lead a self sufficient life care more about animals and effect them far less than those who live within civilization.
As I pointed out those who claim to care including you and many others are nothing more than utter hypocrites.

If you actually cared about animals its as I said

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

by veya_victaous Wed May 10, 2017 11:13 am

foxes belong In Britain
there IS no need to hunt them Since you Cant eat them

hunting them with the wussy hounds they use is pathetic

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 11:16 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

A mixture of more environmentally-friendly "hunter gatherer" lifestyles and "subsistence" level basic farming systems could support a global population of 1.5 billion humans, at maximum...

I have no real problem with that concept, in principle, as there are far too many humans on this planet..

However, you might have a wee problem convincing a few people that mankind's overpopulation levels needs to be reduced by some 80% !

Indeed, but the point is lost here on where people claim to care for animals when in fact the reality is humans do not.

Those leading a self sufficient lifestyle would qualify as doing so.

Those living within civilization do not do so.

Now again I think the methods of fox hunting are wrong and cruel, but those claiming here they care for animals are being nothing more than hypocrites.

What makes me laugh is if there was a disaster tomorrow, all those on here would be desperate for Lord Foul, Nicko, yourself and Veya to help them in order top survive. They would need the trained hunters help.

by veya_victaous Wed May 10, 2017 11:19 am

Thorin wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the foc. Whst about wild board, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

False Comparison

Cull Shooting IS nothing like the Barbaric English Fox hunt

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 11:22 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

False Comparison

Cull Shooting IS nothing like the Barbaric English Fox hunt

Eh

and also WTF

Never claimed otherwise

Show where I made the above claim, you say I did

Then I expect you to eat humble pie

by veya_victaous Wed May 10, 2017 11:24 am

the problem is like Cage egg farms versus free Range there is a moral way and A cruel way

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 11:45 am

Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its was your strange view to think predators doing what they need to do in order to survive is some how cruel.

So your issue is with the reason.

Well many hunters gain pleasure from the hunt and yet many respect the animals and often do not like to see any animals suffer.

Does that make them then cruel based on your reasoning?

This is the problem with arguments here.

What you should be saying is that its cruel to prolong the suffering of animals within a hunt.

To say people are cruel because they do enjoy hunting, when for thousands of years humans have enjoyed hunting and respected the animals they kill. Is poor to say the least.

Animals suffering is cruel. Sometimes cruelty is unavoidable, if someone is carrying out a cruel act but that act has to be done then the person carrying it out is not cruel.

A hunter culling deer is not cruel.
A person working in a slaughterhouse is not cruel.
A lion killing a zebra is not cruel.

But the actions are cruel- unavoidably so. Murder by definition is cruel.

Huntimg foxes is not neccessary and completely avoidable. So in the case the one carrying out the act is very cruel indeed.

A pointing out humams have hunted throughout history means nothing. We had slavery, female subjegation to men, homophobia and many other things throughout history too. None of these are acceptable now and those who thought they were or think they are now squarely on the wrong side of history.

eh?

You are now back tracking from before where you said predators hunting prey is cruel

Murder?

How do you define an animal needing to survive as murder based under what definition?

Sorry Eilzel you really are talking rubbish as murder is a concept to describe the human loss of life

You also contradict saying the actions are cruel based off a human perception.

To a lion its not cruel to act to kill in order that its cubs will survive.

And there is you being an advocate of evolution.

Culling foxes is necessary
Your whole premise is based on human thinking and hence why it falls apart

So now you are making hunting comparable to slavery?

Are you joking?

The point is here is that in reality hunters who lead a self sufficient life care more about animals and effect them far less than those who live within civilization.
As I pointed out those who claim to care including you and many others are nothing more than utter hypocrites.

If you actually cared about animals its as I said

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

You get awfully wrapped up in small details and miss the main point.

The action of killing an animal is cruel.

That does not mean who or what kills the animal is cruel- sometimes they have to do it.

E.g. lying is bad. I lie sometimes. But that doesn't mean I'm a bad person.

I did not compare hunting to slavery. I said they both are things acceptable in the past but not today.

E.g. kings used to rule all European countries in the past. Smallpox used to be a widespread disease. That does not mean I am.comparing kings with smallpox.

Fox hunting on horseback with a pack of dogs is not culling. It is enjoying killing.

by nicko Wed May 10, 2017 11:51 am

i SHOT THOUSANDS of Wood PIGEONS AND Rabbits to save Farmers having their Crops devastated, am i a bad person?

by Guest Wed May 10, 2017 11:53 am

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

eh?

You are now back tracking from before where you said predators hunting prey is cruel

Murder?

How do you define an animal needing to survive as murder based under what definition?

Sorry Eilzel you really are talking rubbish as murder is a concept to describe the human loss of life

You also contradict saying the actions are cruel based off a human perception.

To a lion its not cruel to act to kill in order that its cubs will survive.

And there is you being an advocate of evolution.

Culling foxes is necessary
Your whole premise is based on human thinking and hence why it falls apart

So now you are making hunting comparable to slavery?

Are you joking?

The point is here is that in reality hunters who lead a self sufficient life care more about animals and effect them far less than those who live within civilization.
As I pointed out those who claim to care including you and many others are nothing more than utter hypocrites.

If you actually cared about animals its as I said

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

You get awfully wrapped up in small details and miss the main point.

The action of killing an animal is cruel.

That does not mean who or what kills the animal is cruel- sometimes they have to do it.

E.g. lying is bad. I lie sometimes. But that doesn't mean I'm a bad person.

I did not compare hunting to slavery. I said they both are things acceptable in the past but not today.

E.g. kings used to rule all European countries in the past. Smallpox used to be a widespread disease. That does not mean I am.comparing kings with smallpox.

Fox hunting on horseback with a pack of dogs is not culling. It is enjoying killing.

1) Because you say so? You are not stating as to why you think its cruel. A Predator animal would be acting cruel by not killing another animal in order to survive or its young survive. They would slowly starve. That would be cruel, as they would suffer.

2) So to claim its cruel is based on no reasoning you have given, you just keep declaring its cruel

That is not a reason but a view

3) So now you use lying as a comparable when you still have not defined why you think something is cruel

I mean when an animal or a hunter who kills in order to eat. Kills a prey its normally swift and without much suffering. So to lay claim its cruel, when the death is generally instantaneous especially with shooting an animal. Shows you really have the weirdest definition of what cruelty is. So now when we put an injured animal out of its misery, this is some how cruel to you? It proves your view on cruelty is in fact backwards because in this case the person doing so is caring about the animal. The hunter cares and tries to kill the animal it shoots instantaneously.

Hunting is acceptable today and it should be today, especially when a self sufficient lifestyle does not effect the eco system, compared to the lifestyle the majority of humans live in with urbanization, which has effected countless animals

At no point have I backed Fox hunting, but am showing you and countless others are hypocrites when you claim to care for animals. Anyone that lives within civilization does not care for animals, because the countless animals are effected and have been for thousands of years.

All you could at best claim is you do not like to see others suffering, but nobody can say with any conviction they care for animals fully

by Fred Moletrousers Wed May 10, 2017 11:55 am

Angry Andy wrote:I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority.
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers.
That would be karma

It comes no-where near to matching your Loony Left junk. And you can cut out the "wannabe"...I am where I am because of my own bloody hard work and expertise, and the inane babbling of some clearly underachieving clown doesn't even register among my considerations.

Again, if you have seen such breaches of the 2004 Act (which I happen to support, since my personal view on hunting with dogs is precisely in line with that of the official policy of the National Farmers' Union: One of strict neutrality) why did you not report it to the police?

Is it because they would simply have rolled their eyes heavenwards once you started spouting your stupid pathetic class warfare crap, or is it all something you learned second hand from an anti-hunting propaganda blog?

And isn't it nice to know that such a nauseatingly moralising representative of the Loony Left actually "hopes" that my own dog is killed by a breed of dog known for its aggressiveness, simply because I support the right of country people to enjoy such things as drag hunting, gymkhanas and point to point racing - all of which are the activities of legally-run hunts where I live?

You pathetic cretin.

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 11:58 am

It is quite obvious here didge that the fox hunting being discussed is horseback fox hunting with dogs. It is that I oppose. Not hunting for food or culling.

I totalky disagree with not caring for animals. I know my feelings on that matter and have no interest justifying them here.

If we both oppose fox hunting the 'sport' then there is nothing more to discuss.

by Sponsored content