wednesday1 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 if the house gets a free vote, unlike last time and it still goes through then that is right. if the house repeals the ban, then so be it. So if paedophilia was made legal, it would be ok would it, as long as it had been passed by a free vote in the commons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So it's not just Tories who " become sadistic torturers of small defenceless creatures." ? No just as most people who work for the stock exchange aren't (all) private schoolboys. But an "awful lot" are. You know what they say about birds of a feather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Why doesn't he allow Chav Hunting, sounds bloody good fun to me. He does it's called the cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 No just as most people who work for the stock exchange aren't (all) private schoolboys. But an "awful lot" are. You know what they say about birds of a feather? So you're just generalising then to try to prove some sort of point..or give some sort of impression of a group of people..? What you're really saying is that some people from different walks of life like to hunt foxes...? Doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? What's your stance on angling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 if the house gets a free vote, unlike last time and it still goes through then that is right. if the house repeals the ban, then so be it. It was a free vote last time. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 if the house gets a free vote, unlike last time and it still goes through then that is right. if the house repeals the ban, then so be it. You've obviously not read this thread. There was a free vote last time and the bill got cross party support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If anyone's wondering where Lapdog Clegg stands on the issue, he has stated that he would prefer to 'keep the legislation as it is' for what that's worth. See below: http://youtu.be/OxtP7vrYPG8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 It was a free vote last time. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. You've obviously not read this thread. There was a free vote last time and the bill got cross party support. I too thought it was one of those three-line whip votes (enforced by the leadership) but after being corrected by max and rosyrat I accept it was a free vote and so now see no need for another free vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So you're just generalising then to try to prove some sort of point..or give some sort of impression of a group of people..? What you're really saying is that some people from different walks of life like to hunt foxes...? Doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? What's your stance on angling? My experience of the (actual world) is that the majority, the (majority) of those in favour of blood sports are middle to upper twits, with low emotional intelligence. That is just a fact of my experience. And it’s a fact borne out by most people's experience of anti hunting and the supporters in the "countryside alliance". So in this case a "generalisation" is completely congruent with the landscape of actual experience. So is completely legitimate. The existence of one, ten or a hundred fox hunters in shell suits does not disprove the rule does it? As for angling, if it floats your boat fine. But I think we have advanced a little further up the filogenetic evolutionary scale when we are talking about ripping a Fox to shreds aren't we? I think most people would agree that if you look into a fox’s eyes you can discern a creature of similar sentience. I can’t say I have ever been moved whilst looking at a carp!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 My experience of the (actual world) is that the majority, the (majority) of those in favour of blood sports are middle to upper twits, with low emotional intelligence. That is just a fact of my experience. And it’s a fact borne out by most people's experience of anti hunting and the supporters in the "countryside alliance". So in this case a "generalisation" is completely congruent with the landscape of actual experience. So is completely legitimate. The existence of one, ten or a hundred fox hunters in shell suits does not disprove the rule does it? As for angling, if it floats your boat fine. But I think we have advanced a little further up the filogenetic evolutionary scale when we are talking about ripping a Fox to shreds aren't we? I think most people would agree that if you look into a fox’s eyes you can discern a creature of similar sentience. I can’t say I have ever been moved whilst looking at a carp!! So you're now accepting that people from many walks of life like to hunt? I think you're also suffereng from fluffy bunny syndrome..ie it's OK to kill something cold and scaly,which just also happens to be a sport enjoyed by millions, yet furry animals are a no-no...where do you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.