Conrod Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Cameron has pledged yet again that he wants to bring back fox hunting. This, despite the fact that 80 % of the country are against it. Please support Tories against Fox hunting. http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com How do we know 80% of the country is against it? I thought it was just town dwellers with no idea of the countryside who don't understand about fluffy foxy woxies being vermin who were against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Eating meat to be healthy is an entirely separate issue to hunting animals for sport isn't it? The balance is one of neccesity over arbitrary cruelty. I have been Vegan. And the diet caused many health problems. Even with B12 supplementation and many other vitamin and mineral additions. So meat preserves my health full stop. And from this perspective I have a right to self preservation. Is it regrettable that factory farmed (which I dont eat) animals are kept in deplorable conditions? Of course, which is why I would (never) eat animals kept in this way. But to conflate the argument about killing for enjoyment and killing for survival is just silly to be honest. They are not even on the same moral plane. As for the class comments. I am just as opposed to badger baiting and dog fighting, two profoundly working class (largely) pastimes which are just as moronic and sadistic. But the vast majority of people don't need to eat "meat to be healthy" do they? Most people don't eat meat out of necessity they do so because it is pleasurable to do so, because they enjoy it, because it is fun. This is the same reason why people fox hunt. If fox hunting is so cruel it should be criminalised then so should eating meat, apart from for the tiny minority of people who actually need to eat meat who would have to get it on prescription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I don't think fear is the same as terror...do you think fish feel pain? Semantic differences make little difference in reality do they? The mechanisms in operation are identical. And only differ in terms of intensity. As for fish feeling pain? Even an amoeba has enough sense of its own form to push out a grain of sand, so who knows? The point is when I look at a fish flapping about I don't recognise terror in its eyes. It brain is millions of years away from us in terms of complexity and structure. This combined with what we know about consciousness being attributable to lower level causal structures neurologically I would say indicates a lack of what we would call self awareness. It is impossible obviously to know 100% for sure, but if the science of evolution is right, and it seems the best bet. Then I would say that a fish has neither the hardwired brain capacity to feel the same way that a mammal does. And from this I would conclude logically that it also lacks the sentience of such a creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Eating meat to be healthy is an entirely separate issue to hunting animals for sport isn't it? The balance is one of neccesity over arbitrary cruelty. I have been Vegan. And the diet caused many health problems. Even with B12 supplementation and many other vitamin and mineral additions. So meat preserves my health full stop. And from this perspective I have a right to self preservation. Is it regrettable that factory farmed (which I dont eat) animals are kept in deplorable conditions? Of course, which is why I would (never) eat animals kept in this way. But to conflate the argument about killing for enjoyment and killing for survival is just silly to be honest. They are not even on the same moral plane. As for the class comments. I am just as opposed to badger baiting and dog fighting, two profoundly working class (largely) pastimes which are just as moronic and sadistic. What about deer stalking? I have a freezer full of venison at the moment, which will probably last me at the moment for another four months or so. After which it'll be stalking time again. I go out, with a reasonably powerful rifle from the cabinet and I stalk and select a suitable deer. I freely admit I enjoy it, I pay good money to do it and I have a pleasant couple of days bagging food for the freezer. Is that wrong? Is it unreasonable to enjoy the challenge - and it is a big challenge of hunting. If the quarry sees, hears or scents me coming it'll be off. It's response will be exactly the same if I was just a casual hill walker. I doubt my going hunting causes any more specific fear. If it doesn't see me then it gets a 11.3g .308 bullet doing a mile in just under 2 seconds. Odds are good it doesn't know what happened - and if it did it'll only know for a couple of seconds. Now is that better or worse than factory farming beef? If I didn't eat what I shot I wouldnt do it. I was invited on a pheasant shoot once and bagged a couple. Trouble was I don't like pheasant as I found out later. So I shoot clay pigeons now. If I didn't like venison, I wouldn't stalk it. Is that an unreasonable attitude to take? I'd like to know your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Just a more emotive word... So what it's more emotive it's still absurd semantic quibbling for you to try and pretend that "fear" is somehow distinct from "terror". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Semantic differences make little difference in reality do they? The mechanisms in operation are identical. And only differ in terms of intensity. As for fish feeling pain? Even an amoeba has enough sense of its own form to push out a grain of sand, so who knows? The point is when I look at a fish flapping about I don't recognise terror in its eyes. It brain is millions of years away from us in terms of complexity and structure. This combined with what we know about consciousness being attributable to lower level causal structures neurologically I would say indicates a lack of what we would call self awareness. It is impossible obviously to know 100% for sure, but if the science of evolution is right, and it seems the best bet. Then I would say that a fish has neither the hardwired brain capacity to feel the same way that a mammal does. And from this I would conclude logically that it also lacks the sentience of such a creature. self aware or not..if it feels pain then,by your standards,angling should be banned..Have a read of some of Victoria Braithwaite's work..not only does she think fish feel pain but that they have emotions too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 A letter from the Tory Daily Mail John from Guildford This has nothing to do with class warfare from the majority of anti's. This is a myth constantly portrayed by hunters. Neither does it have anything to do with town versus country another ridiculous cry from the pro lobby. (I know many anti's who live in the country and there's a farmers group who oppose fox hunting). This is often casued by the total lack of regard hunting communities show to peoples land, and the 'accidents' that occur when hounds come across a much loved domestic pet. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279562/Tories-plan-scrap-foxhunting-ban--Lib-Dems-facing-split-free-vote.html#ixzz1PHBpEhkw One only wishes they would come across you Keith!..........save us reading any more of your half baked leftie posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So what it's more emotive it's still absurd semantic quibbling for you to try and pretend that "fear" is somehow distinct from "terror". Don't you think words are important in tring to illicit an effect on people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If we're talking terror/fear, then essentially that's the same terror/fear the fox puts into livestock such as chickens as they watch one by one, each of their chicken friends being torn to bits when a fox gets in a chicken shed, just waiting for the fox to get round to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Well as "Hume’s Law" states, “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it”. And whatever an apocryphal "vast majority" need or do not need, I having been Vegan and becoming anaemic and arthritic showed me that I do need meat. Eating meat is the reason why human beings evolved the brain size and capacity we did. Plant material just not providing the excess calorific connects to enable the structural enlargement of the human brain over evolutionary time. So as far as I am concerned this is reason enough, and legitimacy enough to eat meat. And has absolutely nothing whatever to do with hunting for sport. They are separate moral issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.