max Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 labour used the parliament act to push the paper through. that is not a free vote by any measure. There was a free vote in the House of Commons, the Parliament Act was used as the House of Lords was attempting to subvert the will of Parliament. By any sensible measure that was a free vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So it's biology that makes you dislike foxhunting ? I don't understand why you just don't say you're against hunting because,in your view,it's a sport that only the Tories do...that's nearer the truth I think.. Spot on! ...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 There was a free vote in the House of Commons, the Parliament Act was used as the House of Lords was attempting to subvert the will of Parliament. By any sensible measure that was a free vote. our democratic process involves both houses of parliament, therefore the use of the parliament act was not a free vote as it bypassed the part of the legislative process that would not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So it's biology that makes you dislike foxhunting ? I don't understand why you just don't say you're against hunting because,in your view,it's a sport that only the Tories do...that's nearer the truth I think.. Before ignoring any and all examples to the contrary of your position, you might want to look up what Philogentic means. To suggest that we don't ascribe more of the qualities of human beings to animals higher up the scale is frankly ludicrous. And at odds with all of science and Philosophy. So your points don't logically follow, where as mine do. It is completely consistent to object to such activities based on the degree of human like consciousness we attribute to creatures higher up the evolutionary scale. Also, since the original point was about the disproportionate representation of middle and upper class participants in blood sports which involve higher order mammals such as foxes and deer,being against it is a matter of moral obligation. Since to inflict unnecesary pain on such creatures is abhorent and sadistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Before ignoring any and all examples to the contrary of your position, you might want to look up what Philogentic means. To suggest that we don't ascribe more of the qualities of human beings to animals higher up the scale is frankly ludicrous. And at odds with all of science and Philosophy. So your points don't logically follow, where as mine do. It is completely consistent to object to such activities based on the degree of human like consciousness we attribute to creatures higher up the evolutionary scale. Also, since the original point was about the disproportionate representation of middle and upper class participants in blood sports which involve higher order mammals such as foxes and deer,being against it is a matter of moral obligation. Since to inflict unnecesary pain on such creatures is abhorent and sadistic. You're only against it 'cos of who you perceive to partake in it..it's obvious..just admit it and we can continue...I'm not too bothered either way if people want to hunt or fish let them,I couldn't have cared less which way the vote went. at least I'm consistent but you need to stop hiding behind fluffy bunnies and say why one cruel sport is OK but another,equally cruel one isn't.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 You're only against it 'cos of who you perceive to partake in it..it's obvious..just admit it and we can continue...I'm not too bothered either way if people want to hunt or fish let them,I couldn't have cared less which way the vote went. at least I'm consistent but you need to stop hiding behind fluffy bunnies and say why one cruel sport is OK but another,equally cruel one isn't.. Asked and answered to be honest. And does it particularly bother me that a group of people who are in large part defined by their enjoyment of the infliction of pain on defenceless animals? Of course it does. But I am just as dead against the working class(largely) morons who badger bait and fight dogs. Cruelty is cruelty whether your wearing a deer stalker or a baseball cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Will someone please explain to me where people who eat animals not because they need to, but because they enjoy doing so. People who cause millions of animals to endure appalling lives from birth to slaughter in the factory farming system. Get the moral authority from to criminalise fox hunting an activity which in contrast to buying factory farmed meat causes only a few hours of suffering? To the average anti- fox hunting contributor to this thread why is factory farming so fine with you that you financially support it but fox hunting so bad you think it should be criminalised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Get the moral authority from to criminalise fox hunting an activity which in contrast to buying factory farmed meat causes only a few hours of suffering? ? A few hours?..how long do you think a fox takes to die when the hounds get it? I think a few seconds is more like it..So yes I agree, hunting is less cruel than factory farmimg.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Before ignoring any and all examples to the contrary of your position, you might want to look up what Philogentic means. To suggest that we don't ascribe more of the qualities of human beings to animals higher up the scale is frankly ludicrous. And at odds with all of science and Philosophy. So your points don't logically follow, where as mine do. It is completely consistent to object to such activities based on the degree of human like consciousness we attribute to creatures higher up the evolutionary scale. Also, since the original point was about the disproportionate representation of middle and upper class participants in blood sports which involve higher order mammals such as foxes and deer,being against it is a matter of moral obligation. Since to inflict unnecesary pain on such creatures is abhorent and sadistic. So I take it then that you think for all but the tiny minority of people who actually need to eat meat to survive vegetarianism should be compulsory then? After all intensively farmed "higher order mammals" have appalling lives filled with far more " unnecesary pain" than that inflicted upon a hunted fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 A few hours?..how long do you think a fox takes to die when the hounds get it? I think a few seconds is more like it..So yes I agree, hunting is less cruel than factory farmimg.. Doesn't being forced to flee in terror till you are completely exhausted also cause suffering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.