It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,355,955
- Online Now:
- 2,959
- Msgs Sent:
- 154,951,557
- Photo Ads:
- 723,980
- User Pics:
- 562,927
- Video Chat:
- 790
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
I think Nola, you make a very fare point, there are many more in the rural areas who feel that hunting is an important issue for them.
I have to be honest, I have no real explanation for my emotional connection with hunting, but I do feel very passionate about it
If and it is a big IF this is put in the Tories manifesto, on that basis you know it will never happen.
At this time of the year, especially an election year, anyone of them will say anything to gather a few more votes.
Cameron is no different.
At this time of the year, especially an election year, anyone of them will say anything to gather a few more votes.
Cameron is no different.
Kaznkev wrote:
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
I can only speak for how I see it here in Dorset, and if you travel into Devon or Wales they are even more passionate
kentswingers777 wrote:
If and it is a big IF this is put in the Tories manifesto, on that basis you know it will never happen.
At this time of the year, especially an election year, anyone of them will say anything to gather a few more votes.
Cameron is no different.
If and it is a big IF this is put in the Tories manifesto, on that basis you know it will never happen.
At this time of the year, especially an election year, anyone of them will say anything to gather a few more votes.
Cameron is no different.
Of coarse Kenty is spot on with this, I believe he will however, be good to his word, and give a free vote on the issue, he is very safe in that the vote will go with the status quo
Bluefish2009 wrote:
I can only speak for how I see it here in Dorset, and if you travel into Devon or Wales they are even more passionate
Kaznkev wrote:
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
I can only speak for how I see it here in Dorset, and if you travel into Devon or Wales they are even more passionate
ohh im not saying there arent people passionate about it here,but it splits on party lines and unfortonatly distracts from the real problems facing us
Kaznkev wrote:
ohh im not saying there arent people passionate about it here,but it splits on party lines and unfortonatly distracts from the real problems facing us
Bluefish2009 wrote:
I can only speak for how I see it here in Dorset, and if you travel into Devon or Wales they are even more passionate
Kaznkev wrote:
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Blue is is think trying to claim this but as a rural northumbrian i know the hunt followers and hunters.Our local hunt is led by someone who travels up from kent,the hunt balls are populated by the inhabitants of darras hall,not corbridge(Ask a friend he ll explain)There are few foot followers these days,but a lot of people for whom supporting hunting has become a symbol of opposing the government.Very few of these live locally
And if the tories really cared about rural constuencies theyd do something about abattoirs,there costs and centralisation.
I can only speak for how I see it here in Dorset, and if you travel into Devon or Wales they are even more passionate
ohh im not saying there arent people passionate about it here,but it splits on party lines and unfortonatly distracts from the real problems facing us
I could not agree more Kaz.
One final note for me on this one, In my area, support for hunting has galvinised since the ban, so they seem to have benafitted in some strange way from all the publisity. On boxing Day the local hunt meets in the grounds of a local hotel, where they now draw a massive crowd, they then ride through the town before the hunt, they have done this for several hundred years and in my memory they now receive the most suport I can remember. Cheering crowds line the pavements.
Crumbs, this went somewhere yesterday 
Just wanted to take the opportunity to say - I agree with almost everything Kenty said here.
Eh? Seriously? Because I've been quite rude to people and gotten away with it recently. Maybe if you can't answer him, you can answer me:
1.
For me it has nothing to do with the toffs. It's the fact that we are deriving entertainment from harming animals, as described by awayman:
2.
Well yes, if I was keeping a tiger. But I'm not, I'm keeping a cat (metaphorically: I actually have no pets). A cat is not a wild animal. It is a domesticated animal. I'm certainly not in favour of people keeping wild animals, or even worse breeding animals to kill (like your hounds). If my cat kills anything it's going to be mice, but the key point is, it's not doing it for my entertainment. Now, if I was throwing live mice to my cat and watching it kill them, that would be sick. If I was just letting it go off and do it, that's nature.
3
You said,
Well... no, they criminalise themselves by breaking the law. Once they break the law, they are thereafter no longer law-abiding. In the same way that someone who enjoys a spliff in the privacy of their own home... cannot be considered a law-abiding citizen, nor can someone who takes your car because they want it, nor can someone who commits benefit fraud. Just because you disagree with a certain law, it doesn't mean you can break it and still call yourself "law-abiding".
[intermission].
Bluefish wrote a very good, well-argued post about halfway through page 2. It's the only reasoned defence of hunting that appears in this thread. I want to respond to some of your points though:
Surely, from a pest-control point of view, which is the only viable defence of hunting, it's not the old, weak and ailing foxes you're bothered about, it's the young, fit and hungry ones? Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
So this is an argument in favour of redrafting the bill, not abolishing it.
Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
kentswingers777 wrote:
For me I do not like the idea of a pack of dogs being bred to rip a fox to pieces, and then the fecking toff brigade classing it as fun...that's bollox.
I am not a lover of foxes, and believe me we have a few around here, and they shit in me garden too but....fox hunting is a blood sport, pure and simple.
I cannot see how a cat can be even discussed in the same manner. Cats are not bred to kill small mammals, which btw I presume rats and mice, which are vermin.
As for fish I used to fish and in my experience the only time I have seen any cruelty towards them, is by youngsters, not the adults that take it very seriously. Plus the regulations now involved when you go fishing, far outweighs what they used to be.
Fox hunting is a blood sport and as far as I am aware IS illegal, where the others are not.....simples.
For me I do not like the idea of a pack of dogs being bred to rip a fox to pieces, and then the fecking toff brigade classing it as fun...that's bollox.
I am not a lover of foxes, and believe me we have a few around here, and they shit in me garden too but....fox hunting is a blood sport, pure and simple.
I cannot see how a cat can be even discussed in the same manner. Cats are not bred to kill small mammals, which btw I presume rats and mice, which are vermin.
As for fish
I used to fish and in my experience the only time I have seen any cruelty towards them, is by youngsters, not the adults that take it very seriously. Plus the regulations now involved when you go fishing, far outweighs what they used to be.
Fox hunting is a blood sport and as far as I am aware IS illegal, where the others are not.....simples.
Just wanted to take the opportunity to say - I agree with almost everything Kenty said here.
flower411 wrote:
As I am unable to answer this for fear of being banned, could a mod kindly remove the comment from the thread ?
Thanks.
As I am unable to answer this for fear of being banned, could a mod kindly remove the comment from the thread ?
Thanks.
Eh? Seriously? Because I've been quite rude to people and gotten away with it recently. Maybe if you can't answer him, you can answer me:
1.
For me it has nothing to do with the toffs. It's the fact that we are deriving entertainment from harming animals, as described by awayman:
awayman wrote:
Do we sell spectator tickets for abbatoirs?
If I need to have my dog put down do we invite an audience?
If I need to get rid of vermin from my land do I turn it into an entertainment extravaganza?
I have no problem with people riding horses; I would make decent drag hunting courses a part of any rural leisure plan. I just don't understand why that respectable hobby of riding a horse over challenging terrain has to be linked to animal cruelty.
Do we sell spectator tickets for abbatoirs?
If I need to have my dog put down do we invite an audience?
If I need to get rid of vermin from my land do I turn it into an entertainment extravaganza?
I have no problem with people riding horses; I would make decent drag hunting courses a part of any rural leisure plan. I just don't understand why that respectable hobby of riding a horse over challenging terrain has to be linked to animal cruelty.
2.
flower411 wrote:
Hang on !!
Are you seriously saying that keeping a wild animal that roams around the neighbourhood torturing and killing other mammals while you are elsewhere is "morally" correct and that you have no responsibility because you can`t control it ???
Hang on !!
Are you seriously saying that keeping a wild animal that roams around the neighbourhood torturing and killing other mammals while you are elsewhere is "morally" correct and that you have no responsibility because you can`t control it ???
Well yes, if I was keeping a tiger. But I'm not, I'm keeping a cat (metaphorically: I actually have no pets). A cat is not a wild animal. It is a domesticated animal. I'm certainly not in favour of people keeping wild animals, or even worse breeding animals to kill (like your hounds). If my cat kills anything it's going to be mice, but the key point is, it's not doing it for my entertainment. Now, if I was throwing live mice to my cat and watching it kill them, that would be sick. If I was just letting it go off and do it, that's nature.
3
You said,
flower411 wrote:
The current law [...] criminalises law abiding citizens.
The current law [...] criminalises law abiding citizens.
Well... no, they criminalise themselves by breaking the law. Once they break the law, they are thereafter no longer law-abiding. In the same way that someone who enjoys a spliff in the privacy of their own home... cannot be considered a law-abiding citizen, nor can someone who takes your car because they want it, nor can someone who commits benefit fraud. Just because you disagree with a certain law, it doesn't mean you can break it and still call yourself "law-abiding".
[intermission].
Bluefish wrote a very good, well-argued post about halfway through page 2. It's the only reasoned defence of hunting that appears in this thread. I want to respond to some of your points though:
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Surely, from a pest-control point of view, which is the only viable defence of hunting, it's not the old, weak and ailing foxes you're bothered about, it's the young, fit and hungry ones? Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Lord Burns also concluded that: “insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught.”
Lord Burns also concluded that: “insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught.”
Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
Bluefish2009 wrote:
the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill.
the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill.
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
Bluefish2009 wrote:
The hunting with dog’s bill, in my humble opinion, is a complete shambles.
The hunting with dog’s bill, in my humble opinion, is a complete shambles.
So this is an argument in favour of redrafting the bill, not abolishing it.
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic.
Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic.
At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
flower411 wrote:
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
Flower, I can feel strongly and passionately about an issue which has no direct impact on my life - that is not ignorance. As can other people. If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant?
Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is wrong. Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is not a vote-changing issue in a general election. That doesn't - or shouldn't - stop me (and others like me) being able to express our opinions.
noladreams wrote:
Flower, I can feel strongly and passionately about an issue which has no direct impact on my life - that is not ignorance. As can other people. If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant?
Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is wrong. Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is not a vote-changing issue in a general election. That doesn't - or shouldn't - stop me (and others like me) being able to express our opinions.
flower411 wrote:
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
Flower, I can feel strongly and passionately about an issue which has no direct impact on my life - that is not ignorance. As can other people. If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant?
Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is wrong. Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is not a vote-changing issue in a general election. That doesn't - or shouldn't - stop me (and others like me) being able to express our opinions.
Ain't that the truth.
Bluefish2009 wrote:
I have never encountered any TYPE! People from every walk of life, social background and status form the hunting community, from the poorest farm employee to the very well off land owner, and every one in between. There is no one type. It is a common misconception.
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
I have no particular love for foxes...I despise most of the types who hunted them with hounds...so bollocks to them.
P.S. If fox hunting is about controlling the fox population ...why did many hunts breed them ? why are they not shot or poisoned ? why are hordes of tossers required to trample crops and generally destroy the land they're supposed to be protecting from the evil fox?
P.P.S. if Cameron says it's alright then it can't be....it's the rules
I have no particular love for foxes...I despise most of the types who hunted them with hounds...so bollocks to them.
P.S. If fox hunting is about controlling the fox population ...why did many hunts breed them ? why are they not shot or poisoned ? why are hordes of tossers required to trample crops and generally destroy the land they're supposed to be protecting from the evil fox?
P.P.S. if Cameron says it's alright then it can't be....it's the rules
I have never encountered any TYPE! People from every walk of life, social background and status form the hunting community, from the poorest farm employee to the very well off land owner, and every one in between. There is no one type. It is a common misconception.
Really and these none types and the very poor can afford thoroughbread hunters too!!!
noladreams wrote:
Flower, I can feel strongly and passionately about an issue which has no direct impact on my life - that is not ignorance. As can other people. If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant?
Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is wrong. Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is not a vote-changing issue in a general election. That doesn't - or shouldn't - stop me (and others like me) being able to express our opinions.
flower411 wrote:
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
noladreams wrote:
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Do you think that this debate has a lot to do with whether you are a townie or of rural persuasion rather than what social class you purport to belong to?
It's just I can't see fox-hunting even being on the radars of the folks in my local constituency come May.
Exactly ....somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
Flower, I can feel strongly and passionately about an issue which has no direct impact on my life - that is not ignorance. As can other people. If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant?
Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is wrong. Fox-hunting, in my opinion, is not a vote-changing issue in a general election. That doesn't - or shouldn't - stop me (and others like me) being able to express our opinions.
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
flower411 wrote:
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
noladreams wrote:
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
flower411 wrote:
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
tomu wrote:
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
flower411 wrote:
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
noladreams wrote:
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
flower411 wrote:
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
You have nothing to appologise to me for at all, certainly not on this thread.
I for one saw nothing whatsoever in your replies that could even remotely be called " ignorant ".
Yes like you I may not know about the " financial " side of fox hunting and am sure some people are worse off now because of it but...your points were well argued and if you argue like that against me, then I will tip me hat to you.
Instead of what we usually see an arguemnent turns into on here, I certainly cannot accuse you of acting that way.
Carry on posting, and carry on debating.
( at least your comments were not asked to be taken off
)tomu wrote:
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
flower411 wrote:
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
noladreams wrote:
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
flower411 wrote:
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
tomu your post are among the best written, best reasoned on here,more power to your key board
tomu wrote:
Crumbs, this went somewhere yesterday
Bluefish wrote a very good, well-argued post about halfway through page 2. It's the only reasoned defence of hunting that appears in this thread. I want to respond to some of your points though:
Q) Surely, from a pest-control point of view, which is the only viable defence of hunting, it's not the old, weak and ailing foxes you're bothered about, it's the young, fit and hungry ones? Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
A) Actually, they are often the most troublesome, as they are unable to hunt there natural prey, it is far easier to turn to prey which are caged and can not ex-scape.
Q) Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
A) Over an hour would be very rarer indeed, but from as short as a few minuets
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
Yes, really. it is their job. I can only speak for local hunts to me
Q) So this is an argument in favour of redrafting the bill, not abolishing it.
A) Yes
Q) Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
A) http://www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk/docs/ca_polls_2004.pdf
Q) At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
Crumbs, this went somewhere yesterday
Bluefish wrote a very good, well-argued post about halfway through page 2. It's the only reasoned defence of hunting that appears in this thread. I want to respond to some of your points though:
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Q) Surely, from a pest-control point of view, which is the only viable defence of hunting, it's not the old, weak and ailing foxes you're bothered about, it's the young, fit and hungry ones? Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
A) Actually, they are often the most troublesome, as they are unable to hunt there natural prey, it is far easier to turn to prey which are caged and can not ex-scape.
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Lord Burns also concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught."
Lord Burns also concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught."
Q) Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
A) Over an hour would be very rarer indeed, but from as short as a few minuets
Bluefish2009 wrote:
the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill.
the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill.
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
Yes, really. it is their job. I can only speak for local hunts to me
Bluefish2009 wrote:
The hunting with dog's bill, in my humble opinion, is a complete shambles.
The hunting with dog's bill, in my humble opinion, is a complete shambles.
Q) So this is an argument in favour of redrafting the bill, not abolishing it.
A) Yes
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Q) Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
A) http://www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk/docs/ca_polls_2004.pdf
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic.
Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic.
Q) At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
A) I see the fact that they enjoy hunting as a by product of pest control. I know many who work in other pest control and they enjoy their job also. How much meat do we all eat? Is that not fun at an animals exspence?
Others here keep saying about poor people do not hunt, they may not have a horse but the largest part of any hunt is unmounted people. I have been on Exmoor and seen several hundred foot followers on many occasions.
As I have said several times, I know from experiance my veiws will not change any one's mind or veiws.
tomu wrote:
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
flower411 wrote:
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
noladreams wrote:
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
flower411 wrote:
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[snip]Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
[Snip] If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant? [Snip]
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
To my knowledge I have not read anything that would require an apology
