Cameron wants to bring back fox hunting

[Obelix]

I think,only my opinion mind, that most of the hunters are there for the chase and the excitement of riding at speed through the countryside..many of them won't be anywhere near the kill if/when it happens..or do you think they all wait for tail end charlie to catch up..? Not sure the hounds'll stand for that any idea of the percentage of hunts that end with a kill?

 

And this is the only thing that you really get out of a drag hunt, and the number of those that exist shows that it's a very good reason for doing it. Certainly it's the only reason that I ride out on the occasions that I do.

 

As for the number of regular hunts that end in teh death of a fox - well as a percentage I think that has risen somewhat as most hunts now use a couple of dogs to flush the fox to guns. Before there were a good many hunts that considered it unreasonable to dig a fox that went to ground and would leave it - I don';t know the exact figures - or indeed if any were kept but most anecdotes heard in conversation were that more than half of hunts ended with the fox getting away.

[Rowan22]

Oh OK..

 

 

Victoria Braithwaite is Professor of Fisheries and Biology, School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University. Her research investigates the evolution of animal cognition, focusing on fish learning, perception, and memory. She has advised the UK Government Animal Procedures Committee, has published numerous research articles, and written for the broadsheet media including the LA Times. In 2006 Professor Braithwaite was awarded the Fisheries Society of the British Isles Medal.

 

Her previous CV

:Reader, Edinburgh University, 2007-present

• Senior Lecturer, Edinburgh University, 2004-2006

• Lecturer, Edinburgh University, 1995- 2004

•NERC Post-Doc, Glasgow University & Freshwater Fish Laboratories, Faskally, 1993-1995

•D.Phil. Oxford University, 1993

• BA(Hons) Zoology, Oxford University, 1989

 

 

 

Obviously your academic position is greater than hers?

 

Her work in no way invalidates my earlier point about the philogenetic scale. A fox is still of a much more sophisticated capacity than is the fish. If anything her work lends more weight to the argument against Fox hunting doesn't it?

 

So my "academic position" seems lofty enough to point out the glaring contradiction in your argument doesn't it?

[Rowan22]

So do you think that eating meat should be criminalised then? If not why not?

 

My point is that people who perpetuate the existence of factory farming have no right to even complain about fox hunting, never mind criminalise it.

 

The drive to ban fox hunting isn't driven by concern about animals, it's driven by class, all the comments in this thread about "toffs" and so forth are evidence of this.

 

 

The basis of natural justice would be on rocky ground if we stated making hamburgers illegal now wouldn't it?

We don't support the rights of animals by negating the freedom of human beings without good cause.

 

It's a matter of balance isn't it? The rights of animals on the one hand versus the rights of human beings to choose on the other.

 

The precedent having been that people eat meat. It is a fundamental human right to choice in any area which does not impinge on the rights of other human beings.

 

To rescind that right would represent an invasive authoritarian measure. One which "may" result in real physical harm and violation of free will whose presence threatens to undermine the very essence of individual freedom.

 

 

This is of a much more serious source of possible harm than the default position of meat as food.

[plekhanov]

When we slaughter animals for food steps are taken to minimise suffering. Is everything which could be done being done? No. Animals are kept and killed in deplorable situations and circumstances.

But the object of their death is the use of their flesh for food.

Which most people eat for pleasure, for fun not because they need to.

 

You can argue back and forth about the moral rightness of this. But the fact remains that some people exercise their freedom of choice to eat meat.

What a non-point people used to "exercise their freedom of choice to" hunt foxes until hypocritical bigots voted to criminalise them for doing so.

 

Contrast this with the deliberate enjoyment of the infliction of suffering and sadistic terror on a Fox and the argument has shifted to one of pure sadistic enjoyment.

It is far from clear that his is the reason for fox hunting and you certainly haven't doen anything liek establish that this is the case.

 

Whatever else can be said for or against eating meat, the infliction of (deliberate cruelty) for no other reason than the furtherance of sporting pleasure is the real defining issue?

As with many other moral issues the defining issue is suffering.

 

Slavery for example isn't wrong because it involves "deliberate cruelty" but because it inevitably causes unnecessary suffering.

 

Child neglect isn't wrong because is involves "deliberate cruelty" but because it causes unnecessary suffering.

 

I don't think you'd accept this "deliberate cruelty" being the "defining issue" nonsense when it comes to human suffering how then can you expect others to accept it when it comes to animal suffering?

[plekhanov]

I would be a bit worried to leave my children in your care, if you didn't morally know the difference between accidental and deliberate infliction of cruelty!

I think you'll find we look unkindly upon both child neglect and torture in this country.

 

Only one of those involves "deliberate infliction of cruelty" yet both are rightly regarded as crimes because they both cause suffering. You apparently disagree which might cause some people to worry for children left in your care.

[Harleyman]

If foxes are a nuisance just shoot them. What's so thrilling about seeing the animal torn to pieces by a pack of hounds?

[plekhanov]

The basis of natural justice would be on rocky ground if we stated making hamburgers illegal now wouldn't it?

We don't support the rights of animals by negating the freedom of human beings without good cause.

 

It's a matter of balance isn't it? The rights of animals on the one hand versus the rights of human beings to choose on the other.

 

The precedent having been that people eat meat. It is a fundamental human right to choice in any area which does not impinge on the rights of other human beings.

 

To rescind that right would represent an invasive authoritarian measure. One which "may" result in real physical harm and violation of free will whose presence threatens to undermine the very essence of individual freedom.

 

 

This is of a much more serious source of possible harm than the default position of meat as food.

Hunting foxes doesn't "impinge on the rights of other human beings" why isn't that covered by what you assert is "a fundamental human right to choice in any area"?

 

You have just posted an argument that neither eating meat or fox hunting should be criminalised, not that fox hunting but not eating meat should be criminalised.

[Rowan22]

Which most people eat for pleasure, for fun not because they need to.

 

 

What a non-point people used to "exercise their freedom of choice to" hunt foxes until hypocritical bigots voted to criminalise them for doing so.

 

 

It is far from clear that his is the reason for fox hunting and you certainly haven't doen anything liek establish that this is the case.

 

 

As with many other moral issues the defining issue is suffering.

 

Slavery for example isn't wrong because it involves "deliberate cruelty" but because it inevitably causes unnecessary suffering.

 

Child neglect isn't wrong because is involves "deliberate cruelty" but because it causes unnecessary suffering.

 

I don't think you'd accept this "deliberate cruelty" being the "defining issue" nonsense when it comes to human suffering how then can you expect others to accept it when it comes to animal suffering?

 

 

To consciously set out to inflict cruelty requires a degree of awareness not always present in human intent.

 

Intent is both legally in deciding the degree of murder the defining characteristic in assigning culpability.

 

Human moral development requires an interchange of emotional experiencing which provides accurate models of facilitating behaviour with the acquisition of a moral code of values.

To have acquired an inverted moral repertoire which legitimises acts of deliberate cruelty results in the legitimisation of such acts at a cognitive level? Your common variety Psychopath basically.

 

Someone who would argue for children being beaten unconscious because this way they learn to be polite.

 

Ideas about morality are inseparable from their operation at the level of emotional effect. A sane sanction for a “cheeky child” is grounding or withholding of x box privileges. These do not obliterate the Childs sense of self and do not invert the supposed moral legitimacy with an amoral action.

 

So to be truly moral an action must be both legitimate in action and in representation cognitively. A large disparity between the two is call cognitive dissonance. It means someone says one thing and potentially does the opposite.

 

You cite the example of slavery. The suffering inflicted was abhorrent. But the actualisation of slavery itself was possible only because ideas of the time divided and denied black people from the status of “human being”. An ideological construct which permitted slavery, and made the suffering, the suffering not of human beings, but of “animals” that did not possess the sentience of white people.

 

What you seem to be arguing is that people believing the suffering of a Fox is o.k., is not worse than the suffering itself. I would argue that it is this ideological construct which makes it o.k., which permits the blood and horror to seem like an enjoyable pastime and not the indictment of human enjoyment of sadism it is the central issue.

 

People have to be persuaded, just as the abolitionists persuaded many of the rightness of their cause that enjoying the suffering is a degree of acquiescence which enables the grotesque to seem like a good day out.

[Rowan22]

Hunting foxes doesn't "impinge on the rights of other human beings" why isn't that covered by what you assert is "a fundamental human right to choice in any area"?

 

You have just posted an argument that neither eating meat or fox hunting should be criminalised, not that fox hunting but not eating meat should be criminalised.

 

I didn't say in any area you did. I said that the restriction is justified if it prevents one person from inflicting direct harm on another.

 

The suffering of a cow may be regrettable, but that is not as harmful as the removal of a person freedom of choice where that choice does not cause (direct harm to another).

 

Or where the general harm is perceived to be so. This is just how law is made.

 

A person is free to eat it or to choose not to. They have no such right in the case of fox's being torn to shreds for fun.

[Rowan22]

Hunting foxes doesn't "impinge on the rights of other human beings" why isn't that covered by what you assert is "a fundamental human right to choice in any area"?

 

You have just posted an argument that neither eating meat or fox hunting should be criminalised, not that fox hunting but not eating meat should be criminalised.

 

No I haven't I believe Fox hunting should remain illegal. And people should use their own freedom of choice to decide whether or not they wish to east meat. It's called the lesser of two evils. More damage is done by making meat eating illegal than the good which stems from allowing freedom of choice. Where as where is the good which issues from allowing fox hunting?

 

A bunch of sadists chasing down a defenceless fox for fun. Who is impacted negatively by this, only the sadists?

 

As for your comments about "it's not clear they attend or some such none sense" If they wish to go horse riding or some other none sadism based day out they are free to do so aren't they?