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 Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:40 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then the problem of cruelty will have been solved. I don't care what you think - I feel strongly about it and have done for a long time. You will not change my mind.

you wont win Thorin...ragga would be quite happy to destroy the entire eco system in order to "not be "cruel""
I remember an argument some time back about the use of artificial fiber v's fur where she as much as said so......

lol its bonkers mate.

How can someone claim to care for animals and then be happy to see all animals suffer and die rather than a small few?

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:41 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If there are no animals and no humans, no humans can be cruel to animals can they?

But you would have failed to save all animals.

The point you glaringly miss

If you care for all animals, you would rather they all suffer and die, as they would through a vastly heated environment through global warming. Just to feel happy about some animals not suffering.

Again that is simply and utterly absurd.

It's not just about saving animals, it's about people thinking they have the right to abuse them for fun. Hunters don't even catch a fox half the time, which makes a nonsense of their claim that they're "controlling" the fox population.

I'd like to know what hares ever did to them. They shipped them in so they could let dogs loose on them. Strangely enough, when the hares scream, a lot of those people turn away because they don't want to see anything "unpleasant".

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But you would have failed to save all animals.

The point you glaringly miss

If you care for all animals, you would rather they all suffer and die, as they would through a vastly heated environment through global warming. Just to feel happy about some animals not suffering.

Again that is simply and utterly absurd.

It's not just about saving animals, it's about people thinking they have the right to abuse them for fun. Hunters don't even catch a fox half the time, which makes a nonsense of their claim that they're "controlling" the fox population.

I'd like to know what hares ever did to them. They shipped them in so they could let dogs loose on them. Strangely enough, when the hares scream, a lot of those people turn away because they don't want to see anything "unpleasant".

No this is about you contradicting yourself and claiming that this matters more than climate change. Which as seen would create the mass suffering of all animals to extinction.

I am not for fox hunting methods and think its wrong, but to claim this matters more than climate change shows the worst double standards I have ever seen.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 10:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
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.....

Well how can you claim that someone who approves of or takes part in animal abuse is a right-thinking person?

I didnt...as you well know.....what I said WAS...that "the "right thinking person" is a poor argument..in fact its nonsense.....the right thinking person depends ENTIRELY on which pov you happen to suport, it is a false argument...and a dangerous one.

I do have the right to tell someone that they should not be legally allowed to torture wild animals for fun.
in which case i have the right to tell someone that the abrahamic religion they follow...whichever one of the three you choose....that it should be banned and its followers imprisoned, considering the amount of death and misery they cause, which of course NO RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TOLERATE

If the Tories try to bring it back, I hope they have a big fight on their hands.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 10:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If there are no animals and no humans, no humans can be cruel to animals can they?

But you would have failed to save all animals.

The point you glaringly miss

If you care for all animals, you would rather they all suffer and die, as they would through a vastly heated environment through global warming. Just to feel happy about some animals not suffering.

Again that is simply and utterly absurd.

It's not just about saving animals, it's about people thinking they have the right to abuse them for fun. Hunters don't even catch a fox half the time, which makes a nonsense of their claim that they're "controlling" the fox population.

I'd like to know what hares ever did to them. They shipped them in so they could let dogs loose on them. Strangely enough, when the hares scream, a lot of those people turn away because they don't want to see anything "unpleasant".

explain???

hares are native to britain?????

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:46 pm

So if the Tories do try to bring it back, will Foul and Didge be campaigning against it on the grounds that it's not an important enough issue when there are more important things that need addressing?

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:46 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not just about saving animals, it's about people thinking they have the right to abuse them for fun. Hunters don't even catch a fox half the time, which makes a nonsense of their claim that they're "controlling" the fox population.

I'd like to know what hares ever did to them. They shipped them in so they could let dogs loose on them. Strangely enough, when the hares scream, a lot of those people turn away because they don't want to see anything "unpleasant".

explain???

hares are native to britain?????

Not from abroad, from other areas. Do you think they just hang around and wait for a random hare to appear?

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So if the Tories do try to bring it back, will Foul and Didge be campaigning against it on the grounds that it's not an important enough issue when there are more important things that need addressing?

The above contradicts again ha ha ha

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:49 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So if the Tories do try to bring it back, will Foul and Didge be campaigning against it on the grounds that it's not an important enough issue when there are more important things that need addressing?

The above contradicts again ha ha ha

So you won't object to them wasting Parliament time when there are so many other pressing issues to deal with - according to you.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

The above contradicts again ha ha ha

So you won't object to them wasting Parliament time when there are so many other pressing issues to deal with - according to you.

I am not even going to vote for them, for many reasons

Not going to vote for anyone

So not voting for them is objecting to the Tory party itself.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 10:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So if the Tories do try to bring it back, will Foul and Didge be campaigning against it on the grounds that it's not an important enough issue when there are more important things that need addressing?

I have said here ..in this thread

I'm ambivalent about it....

not something I would do...or even particularly approve of; as said its inefficient and thus unnecessary

but so are many many things, some of which are responsible for much worse and far more widespread suffering of PEOPLE

I may, next time I write to my MP suggest in passing that its not a good idea, but I'm not going to get in a lather about it...

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:53 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you won't object to them wasting Parliament time when there are so many other pressing issues to deal with - according to you.

I am not even going to vote for them, for many reasons

Not going to vote for anyone

So not voting for them is objecting to the Tory party itself.

That's not what I asked. Once they're in, and they will get in, will you be objecting to the Government wasting time on an issue which you think is unimportant?

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I am not even going to vote for them, for many reasons

Not going to vote for anyone

So not voting for them is objecting to the Tory party itself.

That's not what I asked. Once they're in, and they will get in, will you be objecting to the Government wasting time on an issue which you think is unimportant?

Bastard May want to reintroduce fox hunting. - Page 2 3489511464

I will be objecting to the Tories full stop by not voting for them, because I do not back many of their policies or the fact that they are not doing enough for things like the NHS.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:55 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So if the Tories do try to bring it back, will Foul and Didge be campaigning against it on the grounds that it's not an important enough issue when there are more important things that need addressing?

I have said here ..in this thread

I'm ambivalent about it....

not something I would do...or even particularly approve of; as said its inefficient and thus unnecessary

but so are many many things, some of which are responsible for much worse and far more widespread suffering of PEOPLE

I may, next time I write to my MP suggest in passing that its not a good idea, but I'm not going to get in a lather about it...

People always say that - that there are things which are much worse. Well you could say that about anything. Is murder worse than rape? If so, why bother about rape? Is assault worse than robbery? If so, why bother arresting burglars?

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 10:56 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what I asked. Once they're in, and they will get in, will you be objecting to the Government wasting time on an issue which you think is unimportant?

I will be objecting to the Tories full stop by not voting for them, because I do not back many of their policies or the fact that they are not doing enough for things like the NHS.

It won't make a difference - they will get in anyway.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I will be objecting to the Tories full stop by not voting for them, because I do not back many of their policies or the fact that they are not doing enough for things like the NHS.

It won't make a difference - they will get in anyway.

I know they will because the opposition is non-existant

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 10:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

I have said here ..in this thread

I'm ambivalent about it....

not something I would do...or even particularly approve of; as said its inefficient and thus unnecessary

but so are many many things, some of which are responsible for much worse and far more widespread suffering of PEOPLE

I may, next time I write to my MP suggest in passing that its not a good idea, but I'm not going to get in a lather about it...

People always say that - that there are things which are much worse. Well you could say that about anything. Is murder worse than rape? If so, why bother about rape? Is assault worse than robbery? If so, why bother arresting burglars?

Nope, that has to be the worst argument yet I have seen.

Two in one night

Murder is worse than rape and is reflected as such by sentencing.

Can you not grasp or understand how with one, the right to life has been taken from the person?

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:00 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

People always say that - that there are things which are much worse. Well you could say that about anything. Is murder worse than rape? If so, why bother about rape? Is assault worse than robbery? If so, why bother arresting burglars?

Nope, that has to be the worst argument yet I have seen.

Two in one night

Murder is worse than rape and is reflected as such by sentencing.

Can you not grasp or understand how with one, the right to life has been taken from the person?

So you agree that hunting with dogs isn't necessarily unimportant then.

It's interesting who the two people are on this thread who support it, or who at least condone it. Far right nut jobs?

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Nope, that has to be the worst argument yet I have seen.

Two in one night

Murder is worse than rape and is reflected as such by sentencing.

Can you not grasp or understand how with one, the right to life has been taken from the person?

So you agree that hunting with dogs isn't necessarily unimportant then.

It's interesting who the two people are on this thread who support it, or who at least condone it. Far right nut jobs?

On the grand scale of things that matter.

It matters very little

I have condemned the method, so why are you now lying?

Just because some people do not see it as important, does not mean you can then start being abusive and lie.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 11:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So if the Tories do try to bring it back, will Foul and Didge be campaigning against it on the grounds that it's not an important enough issue when there are more important things that need addressing?

I have said here ..in this thread

I'm ambivalent about it....

not something I would do...or even particularly approve of; as said its inefficient and thus unnecessary

but so are many many things, some of which are responsible for much worse and far more widespread suffering of PEOPLE

I may, next time I write to my MP suggest in passing that its not a good idea, but I'm not going to get in a lather about it...

People always say that - that there are things which are much worse. Well you could say that about anything. Is murder worse than rape? If so, why bother about rape? Is assault worse than robbery? If so, why bother arresting burglars?

and THAT folks, has to be about the worst "reductio ad absurdum" argument I have EVER heard.....not to mention being the biggest load of hysterical threshing arround I've seen on here for a long time

hint for the dumb...its a question of scale

as in

0----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100
fox hunting------littering--parking-----------------------------------------------------------------------drink driving----------------robbery, assault, rape murder

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:03 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

People always say that - that there are things which are much worse. Well you could say that about anything. Is murder worse than rape? If so, why bother about rape? Is assault worse than robbery? If so, why bother arresting burglars?

and THAT folks, has to be about the worst "reductio ad absurdum" argument I have EVER heard.....not to mention being the biggest load of hysterical threshing arround I've seen on here for a long time

hint for the dumb...its a question of scale

as in

0----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100
fox hunting------littering--parking----------------------------------------------------------------------------drink driving----------------robbery, assault, rape murder

It's you who completely dismissed the issue of hunting with dogs on the grounds that there are more important things to worry about, so you're the dumb one if you can't understand my post.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:04 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you agree that hunting with dogs isn't necessarily unimportant then.

It's interesting who the two people are on this thread who support it, or who at least condone it. Far right nut jobs?

On the grand scale of things that matter.

It matters very little

I have condemned the method, so why are you now lying?

Just because some people do not see it as important, does not mean you can then start being abusive and lie.

You'll find it was you who started disrespecting my views on it. You will not change my mind, so don't bother to try.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:06 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

On the grand scale of things that matter.

It matters very little

I have condemned the method, so why are you now lying?

Just because some people do not see it as important, does not mean you can then start being abusive and lie.

You'll find it was you who started disrespecting my views on it. You will not change my mind, so don't bother to try.

So now its against the rules to disrespect some really absurd and contradictory views points?

Razz

Maybe you should not post really silly points then, if you do not like people reasoning how poor they are.

wow

Your last point though around murder and rape, was about as ridiculous as it gets.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

People always say that - that there are things which are much worse. Well you could say that about anything. Is murder worse than rape? If so, why bother about rape? Is assault worse than robbery? If so, why bother arresting burglars?

and THAT folks, has to be about the worst "reductio ad absurdum" argument I have EVER heard.....not to mention being the biggest load of hysterical threshing arround I've seen on here for a long time

hint for the dumb...its a question of scale

as in

0----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100
fox hunting------littering--parking-----------------------------------------------------------------------drink driving----------------robbery, assault, rape murder

+1

Said it way better than I.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 11:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you agree that hunting with dogs isn't necessarily unimportant then.

It's interesting who the two people are on this thread who support it, or who at least condone it. Far right nut jobs?

On the grand scale of things that matter.

It matters very little

I have condemned the method, so why are you now lying?

Just because some people do not see it as important, does not mean you can then start being abusive and lie.

You'll find it was you who started disrespecting my views on it. You will not change my mind, so don't bother to try.

ahh...so differing from your POV is "disrespecting" is it....
I see...very telling

and

ragga...I wouldnt try to change your mind...the only spare one I have is out of your league...and my gerbil still needs it.....................................

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:11 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You'll find it was you who started disrespecting my views on it. You will not change my mind, so don't bother to try.

So now its against the rules to disrespect some really absurd and contradictory views points?

Maybe you should not post really silly points then, if you do not like people reasoning how poor they are.

wow

Your last point though around murder and rape, was about as ridiculous as it gets.

I didn't mention the rules. My point was valid. You and Foul have been saying that it's not an important issue, or that there are other more important issues. Foul is basically saying that it doesn't matter because there are worse things, hence my point.

It's awful that you find the issue of hunting to be so amusing. HA got it wrong this time - unless you really are a right wing nut job.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:12 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You'll find it was you who started disrespecting my views on it. You will not change my mind, so don't bother to try.

ahh...so differing from your POV is "disrespecting" is it....
I see...very telling

and

ragga...I wouldnt try to change your mind...the only spare one I have is out of your league...and my gerbil still needs it.....................................

I was talking to Didge, not you.

You support hunting, I get that. I don't support it, and hopefully not many people think the way you do.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Angry Andy wrote:In what way?
Protecting wildlife against merciless cruelty for "sport". Or accusing May of lying. Lying is becoming her default position.
I have seen it first hand, and close up. It was fucking horrible. You have seen platoon mates blown to bits Nicko. It was not much different.
If 84% of the electorate want to retain the hunting ban, do you agree that MP's should overturn the will of the people?

I've seen hare coursing close up, and yes, it was fucking horrible. How people can do that is beyond me. They must be sick in the head.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So now its against the rules to disrespect some really absurd and contradictory views points?

Maybe you should not post really silly points then, if you do not like people reasoning how poor they are.

wow

Your last point though around murder and rape, was about as ridiculous as it gets.

I didn't mention the rules. My point was valid. You and Foul have been saying that it's not an important issue, or that there are other more important issues. Foul is basically saying that it doesn't matter because there are worse things, hence my point.

It's awful that you find the issue of hunting to be so amusing. HA got it wrong this time - unless you really are a right wing nut job.

Its not an important issue compared to many others, of which has been reasoned.
The fact you place climate change as of less importance which would see all animals suffer to the point of extinction. Easily proved that.

Anyway, do you think if the Tories won, this would get voted through?

There are Tories against this.

I very much doubt it would get voted in.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 11:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You'll find it was you who started disrespecting my views on it. You will not change my mind, so don't bother to try.

ahh...so differing from your POV is "disrespecting" is it....
I see...very telling

and

ragga...I wouldnt try to change your mind...the only spare one I have is out of your league...and my gerbil still needs it.....................................

I was talking to Didge, not you.

You support hunting, I get that. I don't support it, and hopefully not many people think the way you do.

so you have turned into Goebbels now have you???

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:22 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I was talking to Didge, not you.

You support hunting, I get that. I don't support it, and hopefully not many people think the way you do.

so you have turned into Goebbels now have you???

Trust you to bring Nazis into it.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:23 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't mention the rules. My point was valid. You and Foul have been saying that it's not an important issue, or that there are other more important issues. Foul is basically saying that it doesn't matter because there are worse things, hence my point.

It's awful that you find the issue of hunting to be so amusing. HA got it wrong this time - unless you really are a right wing nut job.

Its not an important issue compared to many others, of which has been reasoned.
The fact you place climate change as of less importance which would see all animals suffer to the point of extinction. Easily proved that.

Anyway, do you think if the Tories won, this would get voted through?

There are Tories against this.

I very much doubt it would get voted in.

People have different ideas about what's important though. You often say that you get "passionate" about some things, so you should understand. I don't tend to do that, but hunting with dogs is something I feel very strongly about.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 11:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I was talking to Didge, not you.

You support hunting, I get that. I don't support it, and hopefully not many people think the way you do.

so you have turned into Goebbels now have you???

Trust you to bring Nazis into it.

well stop repeating lies in the hope they become truth by repitition then....

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:27 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Trust you to bring Nazis into it.

well stop repeating lies in the hope they become truth by repitition then....

Oh come off it. All your posts on this subject indicate that you support hunting with dogs, and I don't just mean in this thread.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its not an important issue compared to many others, of which has been reasoned.
The fact you place climate change as of less importance which would see all animals suffer to the point of extinction. Easily proved that.

Anyway, do you think if the Tories won, this would get voted through?

There are Tories against this.

I very much doubt it would get voted in.

People have different ideas about what's important though. You often say that you get "passionate" about some things, so you should understand. I don't tend to do that, but hunting with dogs is something I feel very strongly about.

Well as yours contradict and would bring about the total suffering of all animals, I would say you have proved your level of importance is clearly flawed.

I know you are passionate about this, but you would think you would be more passionate about the future of all animals, not just whilst you live on this earth.

Can you not even see that. As otherwise it will come across as actually selfish

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

People have different ideas about what's important though. You often say that you get "passionate" about some things, so you should understand. I don't tend to do that, but hunting with dogs is something I feel very strongly about.

Well as yours contradict and would bring about the total suffering of all animals, I would say you have proved your level of importance is clearly flawed.

I know you are passionate about this, but you would think you would be more passionate about the future of all animals, not just whilst you live on this earth.

Can you not even see that. As otherwise it will come across as actually selfish

You didn't understand a word of my posts Didge. I have nothing further to say to you.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Well as yours contradict and would bring about the total suffering of all animals, I would say you have proved your level of importance is clearly flawed.

I know you are passionate about this, but you would think you would be more passionate about the future of all animals, not just whilst you live on this earth.

Can you not even see that. As otherwise it will come across as actually selfish

You didn't understand a word of my posts Didge. I have nothing further to say to you.

Copout

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:32 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes it is, and let's not forget hare coursing and stag hunting, which is also carried out by nasty people.

Sadly, all this stuff goes on underground. Badger baiting, cock fighting, not exactly blood sports one associates with the upper classes but just as bad as fox hunting, if not worse.

At least those people have to look over their shoulder all the time to make sure they're not caught. The people who hunt illegally have to do that too now. There haven't been many prosecutions, but at least they don't sleep so soundly at night if they're being investigated.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:33 pm

stardesk wrote:I agree with Andy 100%. What right have we got, to go round the countryside killing animals just for our pleasure? It is sick and shows a lack of humility and care for life, whether animal or human.

I think I've told this tale a long time ago but here it is again: I had a shotgun when a young man and one day I wounded a Pheasant. I found it in the grass by some bushes and when I looked down at the poor writhing thing an overwhelming thought filled my mind: "What right have I got, to go round the countryside killing for pleasure?" I sold my gun and never ever shot again and respect all life.

Good for you stardesk!

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 11:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Trust you to bring Nazis into it.

well stop repeating lies in the hope they become truth by repitition then....

Oh come off it. All your posts on this subject indicate that you support hunting with dogs, and I don't just mean in this thread.

bull shit . more lies , and absolute stupidity....

I DONT "approve of it" in the same way and to the same level as I dont "approve" of inconsiderate /dangerous parking....

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:39 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh come off it. All your posts on this subject indicate that you support hunting with dogs, and I don't just mean in this thread.

bull shit . more lies , and absolute stupidity....

I DONT "approve of it" in the same way and to the same level as I dont "approve" of inconsiderate /dangerous parking....

Yes you do ...

I've seen you ranting about inconsiderate parking, but you always defend hunting.

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:42 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh come off it. All your posts on this subject indicate that you support hunting with dogs, and I don't just mean in this thread.

bull shit . more lies , and absolute stupidity....

I DONT "approve of it" in the same way and to the same level as I dont "approve" of inconsiderate /dangerous parking....

She lost the debate on reasons around importance. So Rags is desperately trying poorly to deflect this about you.

That says it all to me.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:44 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

bull shit . more lies , and absolute stupidity....

I DONT "approve of it" in the same way and to the same level as I dont "approve" of inconsiderate /dangerous parking....

She lost the debate on reasons around importance. So Rags is desperately trying poorly to deflect this about you.

That says it all to me.

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.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 09, 2017 11:46 pm

Anyway, it's lovely to see so many people on here opposed to hunting with dogs. cheers

by Guest Tue May 09, 2017 11:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

She lost the debate on reasons around importance. So Rags is desperately trying poorly to deflect this about you.

That says it all to me.

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

by Tommy Monk Tue May 09, 2017 11:52 pm

Fox hunting is not about controlling numbers or pest control... as foxes were introduced into the isle of wight specifically for the fox hunters to pursue over there when there were none there before...!

It is even referred to as a 'sport'!

by Tommy Monk Tue May 09, 2017 11:54 pm

And i am against it.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 09, 2017 11:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh come off it. All your posts on this subject indicate that you support hunting with dogs, and I don't just mean in this thread.

bull shit . more lies , and absolute stupidity....

I DONT "approve of it" in the same way and to the same level as I dont "approve" of inconsiderate /dangerous parking....

Yes you do ...

I've seen you ranting about inconsiderate parking, but you always defend hunting.

disingenious....and a lie

just becasue I dont rant about it doesnt mean a thing...thats merely your limited mind at work

I dont support hunting (with a pack of dogs) as said its inefficient...
nor do I particularly condemn it....

I am...as said...ambivalent about it, and really its nowt to do with me.....
parking however directly affects me .......and DOES have something to do with me....

by Eilzel Wed May 10, 2017 1:38 am

It's abhorrent. As said it does not control numbers. It is equally as sadistic as the trophy hunters in Africa and should not be considered a sport.

Opposition on the grounds of not wanting to cause unwarranted harm to animals is not hard to understand.

And we can oppose hunting while also supporting climate change intiatives, they are not exclusive.

by nicko Wed May 10, 2017 4:58 am

I don't support hunting Foxes with dogs, but if anyone wants to get worked up about it, think about what goes on in Muslim slaughter houses with Halal killing. A thousand times worse. Lets have more objections to that ! [and "Kosher" killing] as well.

by Sponsored content