Originally posted by Brother Edwin
For christ sake its a tradition and fun!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Many things have been traditional at one time or another in Britain: killing Africans, killing Indians, killing Catholics, killing Protestants, etc. Doesn't make them right. Similarly with fun, many like to rape, murder but we would rather they didn't."
Foxes are not humans.
I didn't say they were. You tried to say that hunting should be allowed because it's traditional and fun however, as I pointed out, such things can be bad as well as good.
Do any of you actually know anyone who does it?
"I don't know any murderers or child abusers but I still think I can safely say this kind of behaviour is wrong."
So what? This is comparing foxes to people.
No it isn't! You implied that hunting can't be criticised by those who don't know any participants however, as I showed above, you can have a reasoned moral view on something without any knowledge of the people involved.
Since when has anyone cared about a fox?
"The bill went through Parliament with a majority of 2 to 1. MORI puts the national support for the ban at about 70%".
So what? Many people use cars but it still polutes the air.
First you claim that no-one cares about the welfare of foxes, then when statistical evidence to the contrary is cited you say it doesn't make any difference!
What next? A ban on fishing?
"I doubt there will be any more animal welfare legislation for a while now, but that would be nice!"
Are you a vegetarian?
Yes, but what does this have to do with anything?
Has anyone heard of natural selection?
"If you think that 'natural law' is a good way to decide how to behave then I hope you won't mind if I kill someone so I can have their girlfriend, after all violent sexual competition is part of 'survival of the fittest'."
Thats nothing to do with it. The best foxes siurvive.
That is true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the moral grounds for hunting. In fact, it undermines the argument that foxes are killed because they are vermin since if this is the case then why would you want the strongest and fastest foxes to survive? Surely they would be more able to attack livestock than weaker ones.
Foxes arnt humans therefore we can kill them
"It was once quite common practise to kill those with other religious views, but that didn't mean it was a good thing."
Again that means nothing. A fox isant a person.
I didn't say it was. I did, however, say that just because you can kill something doesn't mean you necessarily should.
they wouldant care about us
"I don't care about you, but I don't think that gives me the right to kill you."
What kind of right? Legaly you have none but otherwise you can.
This doesn't seem to refer to your original point or mine. I simply said that if someone/thing doesn't care about me or me about them then that doesn't mean I have any more right to kill it than I would otherwise.
They wont be extinct by fox hunting, it has gone on for years and they are still here.
"Correct, but the law is about animal welfare and not preventing the fox from extinction."
Well in that case it can make us all vegetarian.
By 'the law' I meant the fox hunting bill and not the law in general!
Why dont these anti-fox hunting protesters go and protest about something else like poverty.
"Many campaign about both. You imply that this is not a valid cause, whereas the level of public support says it is."
Level of public idiots who care to much about the "cute little fox".
As I said, many people also campaign about things other than animal rights/welfare. Do you also think they do that just because they think, say, that starving Africans are cute?
Well the fox has a quick death.
"Not really, hunted foxes tend to be ripped to pieces by the hounds while still alive".
Which is quick, plus most hounds are trained to go for the throat.
The Burns report states that:
"death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound" and concludes that "We are satisfied, nevertheless, that [death by hunting with dogs] seriously compromises the welfare of the fox."
Originally posted by belgianfreak
I'd firstly point out that most of your examples as to why fox hunting is bad refer to crimes against people (rape, child molestation...).
Like Brother Edwin, I think you have missed the point of my first post. I was merely pointing out why his style of argument is seriously flawed and each of his justifications for hunting (i.e because it's fun, etc.) does not constitute a reason why something may be morally right (or wrong).
if oyu take the fox out of the equation it all falls down but it's not just about killing
If you can't have hunting without the killing then it can't really be about anything else!
The fox does die quickly
The claim that the fox has a quick and easy death is largely discredited in the Burns report as I mentioned in my previous post.
The foxes are going to die anyway - how else should they be killed?
If the foxes must be killed then there are much more humane ways. They could be shot with a tranquiliser and then put down by injection, for example.
"I didn't say they were. You tried to say that hunting should be allowed because it's traditional and fun however, as I pointed out, such things can be bad as well as good."
Well it isant bad.
"No it isn't! You implied that hunting can't be criticised by those who don't know any participants however, as I showed above, you can have a reasoned moral view on something without any knowledge of the people involved."
If you had friends who did it and you understood it you would have a different opinuion. Or not, we will never know.
"First you claim that no-one cares about the welfare of foxes, then when statistical evidence to the contrary is cited you say it doesn't make any difference!"
When I said no-one cares about them I mean they dont really care about them they just feel the urge to act goody-goody.
"Yes, but what does this have to do with anything?"
If you wernt your point would be invalid, however the fact that you are makes your point slightly valid, however just because you want animals to stay alive dosent mean everyone should have to.
"That is true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the moral grounds for hunting. In fact, it undermines the argument that foxes are killed because they are vermin since if this is the case then why would you want the strongest and fastest foxes to survive? Surely they would be more able to attack livestock than weaker ones."
Its good for the foxes and good for us.
"I didn't say it was. I did, however, say that just because you can kill something doesn't mean you necessarily should."
Why not? They find it fun and it isant hurting anyone except the fox, and he dosent count.
"This doesn't seem to refer to your original point or mine. I simply said that if someone/thing doesn't care about me or me about them then that doesn't mean I have any more right to kill it than I would otherwise."
A fox isant at the level of a human. Its a menace to socity.
"By 'the law' I meant the fox hunting bill and not the law in general!"
We shouldant care about a fox which thretend's chickens who exist for meat and eggs.
"As I said, many people also campaign about things other than animal rights/welfare. Do you also think they do that just because they think, say, that starving Africans are cute?"
Africans are humans. Animals exist to die for our pleasure, why do you think we eat meat rather than vegtables? Foxes also die for the hunters pleasure but in a different way, plus it does the farmer a favour.
The Burns report states that:
"death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound" and concludes that "We are satisfied, nevertheless, that [death by hunting with dogs] seriously compromises the welfare of the fox."
Well its better than dieing from a gun. And a lot of times the fox gets away anyway.