Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Tho I think it was the 'uneatable', lest I help perpetuate a misquote...
Posted: 12:09 Mar 23 2002
Foxes ...
So this week, the Commons voted overwhelmingly for a total ban on fox hunting.
The Lords bashed it back as always.
The government has said it is now going to consult for 6 months, but if necessary will allow the use of the Parliament Act to force it through.
The Government wants a compromise such that hunting will be allowed in cirumstances where it can be shown to be a more humane and practical option than trapping or shooting.
So two questions really...
1) Banning hunting ... a good thing?
2) Are we being somewhat hypocritical to ban hunting whilst ignoring the cruel treatment of domestic animals like chickens etc?
The Lords bashed it back as always.
The government has said it is now going to consult for 6 months, but if necessary will allow the use of the Parliament Act to force it through.
The Government wants a compromise such that hunting will be allowed in cirumstances where it can be shown to be a more humane and practical option than trapping or shooting.
So two questions really...
1) Banning hunting ... a good thing?
2) Are we being somewhat hypocritical to ban hunting whilst ignoring the cruel treatment of domestic animals like chickens etc?
An individual may aspire to impartiality but will at some level be influenced by personal value judgements.
by Maffrew
There is no such thing as complete impartiality.
The same is not necessarily true of a document prepared by committee (5 people in this instance) with a brief involving not qualitative recommendations but quantitative data gathering.
In the absence of categorical truths (do you know any?), any statement is open to question. The lengthy detailing of the methods used in reaching a conclusion, and transparent citing of all sources for information drawn upon does at least ensure the reader can decide for themselves whether the statements made are valid or not.
The report makes no recommendation on banning hunting. It provides a source of information for those whose responsibility it is to make that decision. I suggest that in this capacity it is impartial or at least such a close approximation of impartiality as to render the distinction irrelevant.
Oscar Wilde I think.
by Alibi
I wish I could remember where this quote comes from:
Posted: 12:09 Mar 23 2002 That is where it becomes problematic though, certainly I think from the perspective Jayjay was expressing.
by BettyBoop
I totally agree, the class of participants is not the problem in question-their apparent belief system that cruelty to animals is what is in question.
Beliefs are not objective truth they are personal and subjective.
You believe it is wrong, they don't. As Jayjay pointed out, simply imposing your value system on someone else is akin to fascism.
Many vegetarians believe that eating meat is cruel and unnecessary. To date, they have not forced that view on the vast majority who enjoy steak.
Again, I reiterate that this is not and should not be about judging the participants, more it is about appraising the nature of the act in which they participate.
Society deems that there is sufficient benefit to be gained from milk, beef, leather etc to keep cows (lets not think about how they are kept producing milk) and when necessary slaughter them.
Personally, I don't *need* to eat steak but I enjoy it enough to not worry too much about where it comes from and to put that pleasure above the killing of animals.
There is an argument in favour of fox hunting. Whether it is a good one or not is a matter of personal perception.
Posted: 12:22 Mar 23 2002 
Actually, I wouldn't say it is akin to fascism, I would say it is fascism. Unfortunately, fascism doesn't always come in jackboots and an obsession with occult lore. Sometimes it turns up in ex-army combats and Che Guevara t-shirts.
I don't disagree with anyone here that is opposed to foxhunting (although I do wonder about some of the validity of the data used to support the argument). I want to see an end to foxhunting. Where I differ is the methodology, not the goal.
It is not our 'superiority' as a species that I invoke. In fact, it is those who say that we know better than animals and don't have to be cruel (and a fox is cruel) who wish to use that argument. What I argue is that as a society we enter into a social contract - I receive protection from invasive acts (rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc) in return for not committing invasive acts against other members of society. You cannot extend that social contract to other animals as they cannot comprehend or reciprocate.
As Incandenza suggests, where do you draw the line? There is just as good an argument against the wearing and eating of animal products as there is against foxhunting. The difference is personal choice. If the majority wanted to ban meat, would that be OK? Or leather? What if the majority went in the opposite direction and said that we HAD to eat meat, because it was healthier and for our own good? Or even further back the other way and outlawed pets, as it's a form of slavery?
At the end of the day, who made you the absolute arbitrator of right and wrong, good and evil? Who made you god so that you could forbid foxhunting like some eleventh commandment?
Why not drop the campaign for banning and demonising fox-hunters, and instead tried accepting that they are fellow humans and entering into a debate with them as to why you feel it is wrong and why they should stop?
I don't disagree with anyone here that is opposed to foxhunting (although I do wonder about some of the validity of the data used to support the argument). I want to see an end to foxhunting. Where I differ is the methodology, not the goal.
It is not our 'superiority' as a species that I invoke. In fact, it is those who say that we know better than animals and don't have to be cruel (and a fox is cruel) who wish to use that argument. What I argue is that as a society we enter into a social contract - I receive protection from invasive acts (rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc) in return for not committing invasive acts against other members of society. You cannot extend that social contract to other animals as they cannot comprehend or reciprocate.
As Incandenza suggests, where do you draw the line? There is just as good an argument against the wearing and eating of animal products as there is against foxhunting. The difference is personal choice. If the majority wanted to ban meat, would that be OK? Or leather? What if the majority went in the opposite direction and said that we HAD to eat meat, because it was healthier and for our own good? Or even further back the other way and outlawed pets, as it's a form of slavery?
At the end of the day, who made you the absolute arbitrator of right and wrong, good and evil? Who made you god so that you could forbid foxhunting like some eleventh commandment?
Why not drop the campaign for banning and demonising fox-hunters, and instead tried accepting that they are fellow humans and entering into a debate with them as to why you feel it is wrong and why they should stop?
Posted: 20:00 Mar 23 2002
Hard to know which group annoys me more, the crypto-fascists who want to ban pleasurable persuits which (arguably) harm no sentient creatures (that is, creatures capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or kindness and cruelty, and acting accordingly), or the uber-libertarians who cry "fascist!", Alan Parker style, when anyone complains about "cruel and ineffectual" behaviour, and proposes a legislative solution.
There have been posts that seem to suggest that some animals may kill for pleasure. This is utter tripe. No creature on land approaches the human capacity for recreational violence. If it were otherwise, that would imply a facility for discerning thought that would make it extremely difficult to argue against according such creatures basic rights.
Any creature with a rudimentary nervous system is of course motivated by pleasure (positive feedback) to do the things that ensure it's survival and, more importantly, the survival/replication of it's genes, but that's a far cry from cruel intentions. A domesticated cat may not kill a mouse that it's caught because a domesticated cat isn't hungry enough to eat the mouse, even though it can't quite bear to let the mouse go (that's against it's instincts). That 'cat and mouse' phrase comes from anthromorphosising the cat and the mouse, assuming that the cat is enjoying the mouse's terror. Such an arrogant assumption.
A little less cod psychology is called for, and a little more evolutionary psychology
There have been posts that seem to suggest that some animals may kill for pleasure. This is utter tripe. No creature on land approaches the human capacity for recreational violence. If it were otherwise, that would imply a facility for discerning thought that would make it extremely difficult to argue against according such creatures basic rights.
Any creature with a rudimentary nervous system is of course motivated by pleasure (positive feedback) to do the things that ensure it's survival and, more importantly, the survival/replication of it's genes, but that's a far cry from cruel intentions. A domesticated cat may not kill a mouse that it's caught because a domesticated cat isn't hungry enough to eat the mouse, even though it can't quite bear to let the mouse go (that's against it's instincts). That 'cat and mouse' phrase comes from anthromorphosising the cat and the mouse, assuming that the cat is enjoying the mouse's terror. Such an arrogant assumption.
A little less cod psychology is called for, and a little more evolutionary psychology
Posted: 02:39 Mar 24 2002
Do animals enjoy hunting? There is clear evidence that many predators do. This isn't cod-psychology. If your argument is that the animal is working purely by instinct for pleasure, and has no real concept of the terror it causes, then, if your argument is transferred to a human sociopath, removes any sense of cruelty from their actions.
Such an interesting idea of cruelty...
Such an interesting idea of cruelty...
Posted: 02:47 Mar 24 2002
I don't see that in terms of animal behaviour there is necessarily a direct link between pleasure in hunting and cruelty.
Anecdotal evidence warning:
I had a cat. As a kitten the cat was 'playing' in the garden. It swatted a small bird out of the air. When the bird lay still, my cat started scooping it into the air and pawing at it.
I would not suggest foxes are cruel because they act on instinct.
I would suggest that those instincts may directly threaten farming practices.
Anecdotal evidence warning:
I had a cat. As a kitten the cat was 'playing' in the garden. It swatted a small bird out of the air. When the bird lay still, my cat started scooping it into the air and pawing at it.
I would not suggest foxes are cruel because they act on instinct.
I would suggest that those instincts may directly threaten farming practices.
Posted: 03:10 Mar 24 2002 Okay, I have to stick my two cents in because I'm a self-described crazy cat lady and I'm killing time while waiting to see what Inc. and Jayjay have to say on other forums.
by Incandenza
I don't see that in terms of animal behaviour there is necessarily a direct link between pleasure in hunting and cruelty.
Anecdotal evidence warning:
I had a cat. As a kitten the cat was 'playing' in the garden. It swatted a small bird out of the air. When the bird lay still, my cat started scooping it into the air and pawing at it.
Most kittens don't know how to kill prey unless they're taught by their mother. Their teeny little brains tell them that the movement of prey is darn interesting and should be addressed with the bat of a paw. However, unless they're taken from their mothers fairly late they won't know how to administer the killing blow. And thus don't.
Female cats will often bring back live prey to their kittens because they want to teach kittens how to catch and kill prey. Similarly, female cats in particular will often bring back live prey to their humans, in the confused state of thinking "Okay, I like these creatures. Do I like them because they are my offspring? Man, I just can't remember. Do they need to be taught how to kill prey? Maybe. Whatever. Everyone can benefit from a good killing lesson, whoever they are to me." I love most cats better than most people, but they're not the brightest crayons in the box.
That's my theory anyway. No proof whatsoever.
(Edited by Diandra 24/03/2002 03:26)
Posted: 03:25 Mar 24 2002 
Since the start of this thread Ive watched with great interest as to what people have to say. And to be honest I think we all agree that fox hunting should be banned, I do understand why some poeple see they have to defend our rights to do what we want to do in our socity but I do feel its a shame that in doing this they seem to have attacked many others peoples beliefs. But I'm also glad to see that it hasnt degenerated into a slanging match, which we all know on such an emotional topic can quiet easierly happen.
I have read now a lot of defferent reports on the subject and really find that they all still come to the conclusion that Fox hunting can cause suffering to the Fox. And the ones who don't I would really like to know why because Unless you are a Fox how can you possibly know what its like to be chased and caught and killed.
I have even now manged to explain a lot more about the subject to my children who are very interested in it after always seeing it coming up on the news etc. I still feel that it should be banned but at least I have now a greater understanding about it
I have read now a lot of defferent reports on the subject and really find that they all still come to the conclusion that Fox hunting can cause suffering to the Fox. And the ones who don't I would really like to know why because Unless you are a Fox how can you possibly know what its like to be chased and caught and killed.
I have even now manged to explain a lot more about the subject to my children who are very interested in it after always seeing it coming up on the news etc. I still feel that it should be banned but at least I have now a greater understanding about it
Posted: 09:38 Mar 24 2002 
You cannot transfer 'normal' (please note I do not ascribe any real meaning to this term) human thoughts, feelings or emotions onto a 'sociopath' (again I do not agree with this layman's term) as they do not adhere to 'human'. Believe me I have worked with them, they see no wrong in what they do, to them it is only human to feel the way they do. To them their actions do not illicit, convey or propose any cruelty to their victim (much the same way that I would imagine a fox hunter does not see any cruel intention in their actions). What they feel they are doing is what they want to do, they are taking pleasure from something they enjoy (kinda like a trip to the cinema for most people) and they do not see why society should have a right to impose the majority view on them, gosh is it me or does this argument sound familiar?
by JayJay
Do animals enjoy hunting? There is clear evidence that many predators do. This isn't cod-psychology. If your argument is that the animal is working purely by instinct for pleasure, and has no real concept of the terror it causes, then, if your argument is transferred to a human sociopath, removes any sense of cruelty from their actions.
Such an interesting idea of cruelty...
The fact is that evolutionary biological and psychological evidence does converge to the conclusion that other animal species do not hunt for pleasure in the way humans do. Why do people go fox hunting? Is it for the necessity of survival-i.e. for food, no; is it to restrict this 'ever growing' fox population, well evidence suggests it is not really successful at doing that, so again no; is it for the survival of our species-well foxes are hardly going to take over our 'throne' are they, so again I would say no; so why do they do it? It would be nice to have the view of someone who does fox hunt, so that I could try and understand their own introspection on why they do it.
Posted: 10:31 Mar 24 2002 Can you?
by Sweet-Sange
the ones who don't I would really like to know why because Unless you are a Fox how can you possibly know what its like to be chased and caught and killed.
Taking it from the fox's point of view doesn't strengthen your argument on this point.
Posted: 22:58 Mar 24 2002 Why not?
by Demona
(quotes)
Can you?
Taking it from the fox's point of view doesn't strengthen your argument on this point.
Posted: 23:03 Mar 24 2002 Why not?
by Demona
(quotes)
Can you?
Taking it from the fox's point of view doesn't strengthen your argument on this point.
Posted: 23:04 Mar 24 2002 No I can't but then neither can they ..... what I'm pointing out is that "they" do say the fox doesn't suffer from the chase and the hunt and the kill.
by Demona
(quotes)
Can you?
Taking it from the fox's point of view doesn't strengthen your argument on this point.
Posted: 23:23 Mar 24 2002 And you're saying that the fox *does* suffer. Presumably your assertion of this is not based on being a fox yourself and having been hunted and killed.
by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)
No I can't but then neither can they ..... what I'm pointing out is that "they" do say the fox doesn't suffer from the chase and the hunt and the kill.
They may say the fox doesn't suffer, I doubt they use knowing how the fox feels as a justification, which was how you expressed it.
Anywho, barely a point worth arguing about.
Posted: 00:29 Mar 25 2002 Since when was that likely to stop us?
by Demona
(quotes)
Anywho, barely a point worth arguing about.
Posted: 01:22 Mar 25 2002
by Demona
(quotes)
And you're saying that the fox *does* suffer. Presumably your assertion of this is not based on being a fox yourself and having been hunted and killed.
They may say the fox doesn't suffer, I doubt they use knowing how the fox feels as a justification, which was how you expressed it.
Anywho, barely a point worth arguing about.
Did you read my post ? where did I say that the fox suffered ?
The whole section of what you are quoting said
I have read now a lot of defferent reports on the subject and really find that they all still come to the conclusion that Fox hunting can cause suffering to the Fox. And the ones who don't I would really like to know why because Unless you are a Fox how can you possibly know what its like to be chased and caught and killed.
and then in answer to your first reply to that I said
No I can't but then neither can they ..... what I'm pointing out is that "they" do say the fox doesn't suffer from the chase and the hunt and the kill
I also said that I had found the whole discussion very interesting and had learned a lot more about the whole thing and was able now to explain it in greater detail to my children. I was expressing My opinion on the subject which you haven't, totaly your choice but if I'm going to be quoted I think it would be an idea to show the whole quote as I never said that the fox suffered which is the whole point to your posts.
and Random LMAO as if
Posted: 07:23 Mar 25 2002
by Sweet-Sange
.. 'I do understand why some poeple see they have to defend our rights to do what we want to do in our socity but I do feel its a shame that in doing this they seem to have attacked many others peoples beliefs.
I don't know if this includes/refers to me or not. If it does then I just want to say that it has not been my intention to attack anyone with seperate beliefs to my own. I certainly don't think I've said anything to belittle someone else's argument (except on one petulant occasion in response to a very insulting post). I've merely offered my own opinion (both foxhunting and banning are wrong), and accept that others (well, most) will disagree. My hope was this would stimulate depate on whether banning was the right, or most successful method of approaching the issue of foxhunting. I appear to have failed.
If I have offended anyone by saying that a majority forcing its morality on a minority is Fascism, then I apologize. I did not refer to fascism in some perjoritive sense, but because it is my understanding that the central feature of those political theories/governments labelled 'Fascist' is that they do exactly what I have just described. I see no reason why a majority wanting to outlaw homosexuality is any less fascistic than one wanting to outlaw foxhunting. That is, of course, just my opinion. Please feel free to disagree, but please don't be offended.
(Edited by Jayjay 25/03/2002 14:44)
Posted: 12:40 Mar 25 2002