Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 And I've said "If you don't want me to call you a liar then don't lie." You know this internet tough guy act replete with implied threats of violence are hardly helping back up your pretence that you are concerned with "minimising cruelty" and opposed to "sadism". I suppose if everything you think of as "truth" is correspondence between semantic conceptual constructs I can see why you would think that. Linear and not corresponding to the actual topography of experience. I, on the other hand think of "truth" as not merely being analytic, but contingent upon the world for verification. And in the real world, when you abuse people they take offence. And no matter how many Kantian categorical imperatives you throw at that existential fact, it will remain a fact. And people who are fully cognisant of their right not to be abused will challenge the erroneous belief that you can do that with impunity. Often with full force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 But not intent to commit "deliberate cruelty" which is what you have been claiming is all important. Manslaughter is also a crime and you can get convicted of that even when you had no idea let alone intention that what you were doing was dangerous. There is in fact a whole category of "strict liability" offences where it isn't necessary to show intent of any kind. Er strict liability doesn't apply to manslaughter per se - it's only applicable to low level crimes like speeding for example. Manslaughter requires you to prove mens rea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I suppose if everything you think of as "truth" is correspondence between semantic conceptual constructs I can see why you would think that. Linear and not corresponding to the actual topography of experience. I, on the other hand think of "truth" as not merely being analytic, but contingent upon the world for verification. And in the real world, when you abuse people they take offence. And no matter how many Kantian categorical imperatives you throw at that existential fact, it will remain a fact. And people who are fully cognisant of their right not to be abused will challenge the erroneous belief that you can do that with impunity. Often with full force. I wouldn't worry too much about Plek, he's the most tedious and boring poster on the forum ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<Aim 4> Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 As I've said if you wish to call me a liar PLEASE PLEASE P.M your address and you will be given the chance to say that to my face. ooooo get you! If you were really the big hard man you would just PM him your address and invite him over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Fox hunting has everything to do with foxes otherwise it would not be called fox hunting. It is not 'class warfare' a good many 'working class people would go fox hunting if given the chance and have done so in the past. The hunt that I used to follow where I lived previously had a very diverse hunting quotient. If one is going to bring class and cruelty into the debate we should be mentioning rabbit hunting and ferreting of course no 'posh' people do that do they? Umm well I have been called 'posh' not true IMO but I do have an accent that differs from the local accents but I used to snare rabbits most of them went in the pot some were used for other purposes. They were a pest. I also used to go ratting with terriers. This because rat infestations in grain stores wreck food supplies. Really, can you then explain why it is necessary for 20, 30 or more people, all dressed in uniform drinking booze and blowing stupid horns etc, to go chasing after a fox with dogs, when a ranger could just shoot one more efficiently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Really, can you then explain why it is necessary for 20, 30 or more people, all dressed in uniform drinking booze and blowing stupid horns etc, to go chasing after a fox with dogs, when a ranger could just shoot one more efficiently? Pleeese don't spoil their fun!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Have you ever tried shooting a fox on your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<Aim 4> Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Really, can you then explain why it is necessary for 20, 30 or more people, all dressed in uniform drinking booze and blowing stupid horns etc, to go chasing after a fox with dogs, when a ranger could just shoot one more efficiently? I dont know about that. An SAS marksman would have trouble shooting a fox dead with one shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Have you ever tried shooting a fox on your own? Why? I didn't realise it was a team sport:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I dont know about that. An SAS marksman would have trouble shooting a fox dead with one shot. Bloody crap sniper then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.