Whats your view on the Ban On Hunting with Dogs ie Fox Hunting, have you ever been on a Hunt either as a Participant or as a Saboteur?

Couldn't care less. Doesn't affect me one bit.

For however many foxes that get killed on a hunt, how many are knocked down by cars and left to die at the side of the road?

And why not hunt foxhunters? better Sport I say. Whellity whell whell. Would it not be more of a hunt? A thrill? Intelligent prey capable of killing the hunter? Oh yes, I think I know what I'll hunt.

Ive lived in a farming area. Foxes are pests that need to be controlled. Id rather see a dead fox than a sheep that has been mutilated for no reason (foxes tend not to eat what they have killed!) I welcome the ban however because I do have stong objections to the toffee nosed oicks that the 'sport' attracts to these places.

controlling pests? where does that leave the people (attached to a hunt) who were prosecuted recently for encourage fox breeding in order to then hunt them?

still, it looks like fun, if thats your thing

personally i think the whole issue of killing them for pest control is entirely seperate from 'the hunt', it is like saying premiership footballers play football to keep fit!

I am for the ban - but quite frankly only cos I don't like toffs!

although parlament has plenty more serious issues that it should have wasted, sorry, spent its time on :(

daze spouted:
Foxes are pests that need to be controlled. Id rather see a dead fox than a sheep that has been mutilated for no reason (foxes tend not to eat what they have killed!)

if the fox population is left alone , it regulates it's own size ( during the foot and mouth outbreak when hunting was banned , a study by bristol university found that the population actually went down!). if a farmer wishes to protect their livestock they should produce better enclosures ( otherwise the fox is going to do what it naturally does). foxes may make multiple kills if the chance is available , but will take it's kills away and bury them for safekeeping in order to access them at a later date ( sheep killings left behind are more likly to be the result of an attack by a dog ). more answers to follow on others postings.

Inhumane and despicable sport that should be banned, unless they ARE pests, in which case why have dogs and horses, traps/poison/guns would work better.

and they're all a load of poncey twats with no skill anyway, they just follow dogs on horses...wow nice one. i'd give em a bit more credit if they hunted them in camo armed with a machete or air rifle, but not the excuse for a 'sport' they do now.

Squalion spouted:
unless they ARE pests....... traps/poison/guns would work better.


the "ARE" is noted , though i refer you to my above answer .

traps/poisons/guns are likly to prove equally cruel ( and to my knowledge unnecessary) , but if foxes WERE a pest ( and i disagree) then the most logical, humane,and effective method is contraception in bait.

The population control of other animals is done by the things mentioned already: poison, contraception, introduction of predators, shooting (not as a sport but as an organised culling session) yet the fox isn't going to be given the same treatment because... foxhunting is a very old tradition.

And yeah the reason it wasn't banned a long time ago is because the people who do it tend to be very powerful and rich and people like that always seem to get their own way.

marie spouted:
... foxhunting is a very old tradition.

depends on your definition of old and tradition . fox hunting as we recognise it is approximately 300 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/422753.stm

( a brief history of fox hunting)

I don't disagree with foxhunting. I think anyone who partakes in the sport is a sad fuck, because the highlight of the sport is when you get to see your pack of viscious bastard dogs rip a fox to pieces while it screams for it's life.

However, all things considered, it's just a fox. The hunt is by no means a danger to the fox population, nor does it control the vermin aspect. All in all, the only person who gets hurt is a fox, which I couldn't really care less about.

However, there are still numerous small industries that rely on this sport. The dog breeders/trainers... the horse stables etc. etc.

If you look at all the problems this country faces, the small issue of the occasional fox killing is a flea fart in a hurricaine.

The whole fox hunting issue is a media decoy tactic to try mask the more pressing issues which aren't being addressed.

OK, I live in the country, and I'm a bit of an animal lover.

I've got nothing against killing foxes if the population gets to high in a certain area, but I don't agree to killing them by letting dogs chase them until they drop with exhaustion and then ripping them apart.

I know people that are into the scene, and it's true that very few foxes get caught by the hunt, so it doesn't do a very good job of population control anyway.

As far as I can see it's on the same level as:
badger baiting
seal culling
hunting Elephants for ivory

Well said Toycar.

If foxes need to be killed to lower the population, then do it in a more humane way!

Foxhunting is just sick. If you had an ill pet that needed to be put down, how would you like it to be done? with a tablet or injection, or ripped apart by half starved dogs?

Who decides what's humane and what's not. It's easy to say that the hunting dogs are just doing what comes naturally to us.

Fox hunting is surely on no par with seal and elephant culling, simply because the fox population is not suffering due to the hunt.

Kormiic spouted:
Who decides what's humane and what's not.
General consensus. If you take a vote on who thought it was inhumane to torture soldiers, I think you'll find that the majority would agree. Have you ever seen what a pack of dogs will do to a fox Kormiic? Inhumane.
Kormiic als spouted:

It's easy to say that the hunting dogs are just doing what comes naturally to us.
OK, firstly, these dogs are not wild, and when was the last time you saw a family pooch do more than chase a cat up a tree?
Plus he said:
Fox hunting is surely on no par with seal and elephant culling, simply because the fox population is not suffering due to the hunt.
So you are saying that culling seals is only bad because it affects the population?

toycar69 spouted:
General consensus. If you take a vote on who thought it was inhumane to torture soldiers, I think you'll find that the majority would agree. Have you ever seen what a pack of dogs will do to a fox Kormiic? Inhumane.
Yeah, I've seen it. I've also need various nature documentaries. It's just the way things work. OK, so maybe the fox might not see it that way, but who cares. It's a fox

toycar69 spouted:
OK, firstly, these dogs are not wild, and when was the last time you saw a family pooch do more than chase a cat up a tree?
You can't make excuses for any creature on this planet 'cept humans. We're the only creatures who fight our natural impulses. If the dog does it, it does it because it's in it's nature.

toycar69 spouted:
So you are saying that culling seals is only bad because it affects the population?

Umm, yeah.

Don't get me wrong... I'm an animal lover too. They taste great, and can be served with a variety of sauces!

What dies, and how it dies is irrelivant to me, unless the future of the species is jeopardized.

Ok Kormiic, it's your view and you're entitled to it.

Lets just say i disagree with you on this one.

At the end of the day it's still murder for fun. There is no justifiable argument in favour of fox hunting. There are more effective methods of pest control-the hunters enjoy watching an animal being torn apart by hungry dogs.
The livliehoods of all associated with hunting could be preserved by having drag hunts- all the thrill of the chase with no barbaric violence toward defenceless animals.

magpie spouted:
...the hunters enjoy watching an animal being torn apart by hungry dogs.
The livliehoods of all associated with hunting could be preserved by having drag hunts- all the thrill of the chase...

To the first part, no they don't.
Then you contradict yourself a bit in the second part. All the thrill of the chase.

toycar, our two lovable family pet dogs got out, chased sheep around (this frightens them causing them to miscarry, or stop feeding their lambs) and one of the dogs killed a couple of them. the farmer shot em both. most dogs, when put in that situation will attack. animals are obviously inhumane! but anyone who claims that the best way to control a pest is by getting loads of people to dress up and chase it with horses and dogs is taking the piss

simeon spouted:


To the first part, no they don't.
Then you contradict yourself a bit in the second part. All the thrill of the chase.
Yes the do -why else hunt on horseback with a pack of hungry dogs and not use more effective forms of control?
Maybe I should have used quotation marks for "all the thrill of the chase". I don't personally find hunting thilling- the pro-hunters claim that the joy of hunting is in the chase not the kill, but then dismiss drag hunting because there is no kill.
Therein I feel, lies the contradiction, I was just a bit clumsy expressing it

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
toycar, our two lovable family pet dogs got out, chased sheep around
Yep, this does happen.
In an odd kind of way it brings us back to the earlier point someone made (sorry can't remember who!) about better fences etc to protect livestock.

I still say they don't magpie. I know several people who hunt, and they all do it 'for the thrill...'. If a fox is killed as well, they see this as a successful completion as their 'job' of vermin controllers.
You can argue long and hard about the humanity and method of Fox hunting. It's no less humane than a Council Pest Control Officer laying down the sticky pads they use for catching Mice. These are rectangular pieces of board, with a very strong adhesive that are put on the Mouse runs. The Mice stick to them, and are then later collected. The problem being that the Mice have a tendency to chew through whichever bit of them is stuck, to try and get away! Is that humane...course not, and is the argument that 'they're only Mice' valid...course not. It still happens though.

Squalion spouted:
In

and they're all a load of poncey twats with no skill anyway, they just follow dogs on horses...wow nice one.

You're joking, right?

Hunting is well skillful. Getting a ton of horse over fences and ditches that you don't know, whilst running at maximum attack is very hard. And dangerous. It's kinda like 3 day eventing. My ex took a spill hunting one time and broke her coccyx. Damn near bust her back.

Anyways, my POV on hunting is this:

I find it pretty distasteful.

But should it be banned? I don't think so.

I find some aspects of say..homosexuality distasteful, but I don't want it banned.

I don't like the BNP, but I wouldn't support a ban on them.

I tend to ask for tolerance off other people for things that I do. Jesus, most people would be horrified by some of the dodgy things that I do. But tolerance for things that you find unpleasant is the mark of a liberal, and God knows I'm liberal.

Foxes are dogs. I like dogs. No hunting dogs please... there to friendly

I cant really see how you can compare Mice getting stuck to cardboard to chasing an animal on horseback with a load of dogs in hot pursuit. I come from a family that Hunted. My mother and father both were heavily involved with the pro-hunt movement, but I have woken up. I had been fed with the pro hunt propoganda for years but I now still see through it. If a fox is a pest, shoot it. Most farmers have licenses and have shotguns, so get it over and done with.

To go back to the Mice thing, the pest control guy isnt doing it for sport. The mice dont get their tails cut off and the pest control guy doesnt blood his young apprentice, they dont get them mounted and they dont revel in the fact that they have killed something living.

I for one have had enough of Toffs on about a "Sport" They are killing something in a horrific way for what they deem as fun. Were a farmer to go out and shoot a couple of foxes because they were eating his sheep/chickens etc then I wouldnt have a word to say, Im not that bothered to be honest, but dont dress up Fox Hunting to be a form of pest control.....

I live in quite arural area we have lots and lots of farms around here and we do have and always have had foxes but we don't use Hunt's to kill them today as when when i was a kid men like my father had shotgun licences and they were given permison off the farmers to shoot on thier land thereby keeping down the foxes and rabbits.
Pokemink i once broke my coccyx too took a year to recover from it mine wasn't through falling off a horse mine was from sliding down the stairs cos i was too drunk to stand was fun at the time but not for the year following :)

Pokemink spouted:


You're joking, right?

Hunting is well skillful. Getting a ton of horse over fences and ditches that you don't know, whilst running at maximum attack is very hard. And dangerous. It's kinda like 3 day eventing. My ex took a spill hunting one time and broke her coccyx. Damn near bust her back.


that's a shame, maybe if she actually broke her back she might have a bit of sympathy for the animals she no doubt watched being viciously torn apart by dogs. I hope while she was painfully recovering she thought 'hey, at least I didn't get my limbs ripped off by 3 barking animals twice as big as me, that would really suck'.

riding horses at speed and jumping is skillfull. Fox hunting is not. If she tried to kill the fox 1v1 with a combat knife that'd be skillful. And that wouldn't disgust me as much. foxhunting on a horse is basically saying 'Look at me, aren't I cool, I can kill a defenceless animal 4v1, ho ho ho' - yay for you, omg you're so 1337, take away the horse and dog and you're a weak-ass pussy who's probably dead at a pint.

If I had my way with foxhunters I'd put them in my house, naked with nothing to defend themselves with, and hunt them with 3 rabid alsations, to give them a clue how it felt for the foxes. I'd to it till they begged me to end them humanely and I'd say 'fuck off, you didnt give the foxes that pleasure did you'.

ahem.

I can't believe the primary concern of the people against hunting is the suffering of the fox...

As if the multitudes of other things every human being does every day doesn't ravage the planet and cause cute little creatures to suffer and die.

The pain of that one fox is a flea fart in a hurricaine... barely even an issue.

If that's how some toffy wanker gets his ya-yas, then I don't have to like it, but it's of no consequence to me and none of my business.

Seems to me like you people are succumbing to media sensationalisation. Just 'cause it's on the news more than once doesn't mean it's a big issue.

Ban it???
Don't ban it???

There's so much bad shit going on in the world and people waste their time on this crap???

Lets take care of the important things first.

Eventually, after the important stuff, we will get to fox hunting.

and lets not bother arresting any theives until we have got all the murderers

who should really care....look around at important issues....why argue about the odd fox getting killed which has no effect on population when for instance you see children getting machettied in Africa and closer to home the country falling apart with immigrant leeches sucking the UK dry?? come on people..

The thing is..this is something they could easily ban. There's not a lot of control over murder/asylum seekers compared to what we could do over foxhunting. It could be banned in weeks and anyone dcaught doing it slapped in jail for a few months or fined a nice few grand.

with immigrant leeches sucking the UK dry??

Stupid cunt.

I wish I could care about foxhunitign as much as I care about compassionsless, thoughtless drones like you.

I'd say his point was a valid one...

I'd love to see the figures reflecting the average cost of each immigrant to the UK (including their free house/anematies/luxuries) put against the amount they pay in tax and national insurance.

Anyway, back on topic... Fox Hunting:

Foxes are a major pain in the ass. I find a shotgun does the trick a whole lot better than chasing them for miles.

"Louanne get em ma Gun girl I spy a critter"

hey Dazzla,fuck off .

I believe that hunting is natural. Cruel maybe, but cancer, birth defects, landslides and the fact that the sun will one day blow up and take the solar system with it are also cruel.
Animals are being hunted all over the world, whether it's by something looking for food or a load of farty old posh people in red.

Foxhunting is hardly going to ruin our green and pleasant land [if anything it will mean toffs will keep their acres of countryside free from development] or make foxes extinct, so the only reason to ban it it because it upsets today's modern sensibilities.

if they do ban foxhunting for good, they'll just be contributing to the sissifying of society.
What will they do then? Try and teach lions to be vegan? Ban pest control?

asking country folk not to hunt (they are no all toffee nosed thank you very much) is like someone asking a catholic virgin not to marry in a white dress or making a veggie eat meat, its tradition, a way of life, when i was 10 i had 18 rabbits in one year and they were all ripped to shreds and left for me to find the next day, i cant look at a rabbit now without thinking of poor thumper #13 and snuggles#4

maybe if they put a hunting tax out, pay to play type thing, then speedball and davidavie valid points are seen to.

It's a little known fact that foxes are responsible for stealing thousands of gallons of milk from cattle every year, they apparently slither underneath the cows udder at night time and drink the cow dry ! Honest !

So I say murder the little furry fuckers, as it's a good excuse to get dressed up in a funny costume blow a horn and run riot round the country side whilst pretending to be posh.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
and lets not bother arresting any theives until we have got all the murderers

Whilst both the above are illegal, Fox Hunting isn't.

simeon spouted:


Whilst both the above are illegal, Fox Hunting isn't.

not yet simeon , not yet

Dazzla spouted:


Stupid cunt.

I wish I could care about foxhunitign as much as I care about compassionsless, thoughtless drones like you.

Good shot Dazzla. I wouldn't have bothered with the second sentence, but your first sentence made the point well.

I'm constantly amazed by the Daily Mail readers that manage to sneak onto the site.

But, I gotta admit, if you're skill-less poor white trash, then immigrant fruit pickers may well represent a threat.

Squalion spouted:


that's a shame, maybe if she actually broke her back she might have a bit of sympathy for the animals she no doubt watched being viciously torn apart by dogs. I hope while she was painfully recovering she thought 'hey, at least I didn't get my limbs ripped off by 3 barking animals twice as big as me, that would really suck'.

riding horses at speed and jumping is skillfull. Fox hunting is not. If she tried to kill the fox 1v1 with a combat knife that'd be skillful. And that wouldn't disgust me as much. foxhunting on a horse is basically saying 'Look at me, aren't I cool, I can kill a defenceless animal 4v1, ho ho ho' - yay for you, omg you're so 1337, take away the horse and dog and you're a weak-ass pussy who's probably dead at a pint.

If I had my way with foxhunters I'd put them in my house, naked with nothing to defend themselves with, and hunt them with 3 rabid alsations, to give them a clue how it felt for the foxes. I'd to it till they begged me to end them humanely and I'd say 'fuck off, you didnt give the foxes that pleasure did you'.

ahem.

Jemm, there's so much wrong with your post there that I barely know where to begin. But I'll be charitable - maybe you were drunk, and I post ridiculous stuff when I'm pissed too.

Cipher spouted:
I believe that hunting is natural. Cruel maybe, but cancer, birth defects, landslides and the fact that the sun will one day blow up and take the solar system with it are also cruel.
Animals are being hunted all over the world, whether it's by something looking for food or a load of farty old posh people in red.

Foxhunting is hardly going to ruin our green and pleasant land [if anything it will mean toffs will keep their acres of countryside free from development] or make foxes extinct, so the only reason to ban it it because it upsets today's modern sensibilities.

if they do ban foxhunting for good, they'll just be contributing to the sissifying of society.
What will they do then? Try and teach lions to be vegan? Ban pest control?

Best post so far.

Pokemink spouted:



I'm constantly amazed by the Daily Mail readers that manage to sneak onto the site.

But, I gotta admit, if you're skill-less poor white trash, then immigrant fruit pickers may well represent a threat.

You stupid twat.
How does what paper you read count for anything?
Oh its ok I read the sun everything is top notch in the world!
Whats this that teenager that was killed last week was a Goth?
Well must be the work of satan worshippers then quick more tits needed for page three.

Immigrants are not seen as a threat, the problem lies oh fuck it I'm getting fucked off with writing the same thing over and over.

I understood the first sentence OK.

The rest of your post was incoherent.

I use 'Daily Mail reader' as shorthand for conservative little-Englanders. It's a bit unfair but hey.. they refer to liberals like me as 'Guardianistas'.

I'm suprised that you read a paper as posh as the Sun, to be honest.

But at least you can kind of read, which is sweet.

I dont read the sun.
I was trying to see if being a sun reader made a difference on anything and no it doesnt.

Foxes!!!!!

Please, it's a fucking fox.

What about the meat we eat??

O.k.

You can say that these animals are killed for a reason i.e. food ( not sport ).

But sometimes the chicken breasts in my fridge go out of date and I have to put them in the bin, does that mean these animals died for nothing!!!

Shall I start a group to outlaw date label ignorance!

After all, think of the poor animals.

daidavies spouted:
Foxes!!!!!

Please, it's a fucking fox.

ok , so it's a fox . it may or may not be a pest ( i can argue that one if you want ). it may not be an endangered animal . but why does that specifically give us the right to kill it . what is your moral and philosophical judgement .it would be more honest if you set that out.

p.s. vegetarianism/veganism , and wasting food are two other topics altogether . please try harder.

Who'd have thought this conversation would result in serious fighting??? (laughs)

"date label ignorance". Fucking brilliant, I've found my new charity. But Dai, as great as that was, your earlier post about this topic being pointless as there are more important things to sort out was a little silly, were you trying to say there are less important conversations going on here???

Saying that farmers should simply shoot the foxes is silly, the excuse for hunting is PREVENTION, if a fox is already on someone's farm then it's no longer prevention and outside of that it'd be bloody rare for a farmer to stumble across a fox.

Regardless, at least this "hobby" keeps these hunters away from us, the regular people.......

(cough)

loki spouted:


what is your moral and philosophical judgement .O.k. I understand your point and I'll try my best to answer:


PLEASE, IT'S A F**KING FOX!

True, it's a fox, but if Pixar ever made a fox related film your feelings would change...oh yes, they would. (or not, whatever)

After seeing "Babe" would you be o.k. with really elaborate pig hunting? Well, maybe after seeing the sequel.

fine . let's presume some other laws havn't been passed. try dog fighting . PLEASE , IT'S A FUCKING DOG.

bear baiting . PLEASE IT'S A FUCKING BEAR.

daidavies. PLEASE IT'S A FUCKING DAIDAVIES.( not that i would condone this one , i aint trying to be that venomous , but surely you see a pattern here ).

repitition of a statement is NOT an explanation .we all accept it's a fox. why do i have the right to kill and mutilate it purely on that basis . what is it that sets you apart morally and philosophically .is it a religeous thing? did you suffer a traumatising event with a fox as a child ? is the brick wall going to respond ?

Fox and the hound? Disney kiddie fodder anyone??

And as for stumbling across them they are brazen little fuckers let me tell ya

Get orf moi laand

It's actually harder to disagree with you when you type it like that, I'll have to try it some time...


Oi 'ate biscits!

lol , i'l have to try that to see if i get the point.


PLOISE,'TIS AI FURKING FORX

fuck me , he was right all along

There you go, now we are all happy. :)

( daidavies steps down from his position as Devil's advocate )

* loki hugs dai in a purly plutonic way ( not that homosexu....blah,blah,blah , PC , blah blah...) whilst mopping his brow with the bloody skins of several wild creatures*

loki spouted:
whilst mopping his brow with the bloody skins of several wild creatures*

Could you please bring those skins to the annual daidavies barb-a-que!


They get all kinda crispy when placed on a grill!!!

( daidavies does a sort of redneck American dance )

Pokemink spouted:


Jemm, there's so much wrong with your post there that I barely know where to begin. But I'll be charitable - maybe you were drunk, and I post ridiculous stuff when I'm pissed too.

It wasn't jemm, she's nice, it was me. please tell me what was wrong with it.

maybe he was pissed....

Oh glad someone else asked cos i was wondering what id done :)

If foxes were genuinley a problem why don't they get Rentokill to get rid of them ?

If I've got rats in my garage I don't get dressed up like a cunt then invite all my mates round to join in, then shouting "tally ho" while I set the traps.

If the local Chinnese take away has got another infestation of cockroaches they just leave some poison out........not get on horse back and chase the cockroaches with a pack of hunting gerbils !

What it all comes down to is........

Chasing a cute little fox round the countryside and getting your dogs to rip it to bits is a good laugh......simple as that !

And is'nt that sad in this day and age ?

Foxes are a major problem in rural life.
I'm not sticking up for the hunt they are a bunch of stuck up snobby arseholes, who think its part of the country life.
You see a fox after your chickens, You shoot the cunt simple as that.

Next time you get rats give me a bell rat hunting sounds ace!

Foxes aint cute either, they be smelly lil basturrrds who kill for fun mostly.

jemm spouted:
Oh glad someone else asked cos i was wondering what id done :)

OMG, I WAS pissed! Busted!

I'm so sorry Jemm.

toycar69 spouted:
So you are saying that culling seals is only bad because it affects the population?

Save the seals,


Save one for me, I'll bring my own club!

Would that be the boy scout club jaysee ?

Thats oks poke ill forgive ya :)

This world does not belong to the plants, nor the animals.

(Some would say the 'world' 'owns' 'itself, but that's another...)

Our aim in making law, policy, etc should not be towards the
ends of aleviating the suffering, the toils, or the other
problems faced by the animals. Cause of their problems be
debated ad infinitum...animal problems aren't necessarily
human problems, and like was.

Animals, (dare I suggest this)...are animals.

They behave in a manner....they're animals.

Did I mention they are animals?

They may be cute, fuzzy, fluffy, what have you.

But you'd be damned hard prest to find an animal
that could argue it's case in this forum, much less
think near as we do, much less type, much less
be able to grasp such things as electricity,
plastics, and polymers that make our computers.

The aim of law has the least to do with animals, and
everything to do with US.

Simply put: The law should work, above all else, to ease
and eliminate human suffering wheresoever possible.

And is legitimate so long as it does so without causing
more human suffering in another group.

This foxhunting ban is complete crap.

It isn't a matter of the fox's pain.
It isn't a matter of the dog's nature.
It isn't a matter....of any of this crap!

You are demanding of PEOPLE (aka Human Beings)
that they be constrained in exercise of their free will
as such, to such an end as to lessen, and alleviate
the suffering of non-sentient animals!

This is folly!

To hell with all your moaning on it, these are animals!

Now I offer you a choice;

You with us or with them?

er... the bollocks extends
for i there verily
is suffering on this world?

corse i could argue that
as they are not sentient creatures
does noteth
giveth
the righteth
for useth
to treateth themeth liketh shiteth.

for does not the moon have fifteen arms
AND A SPATULA!!!!

it may be that
these are not pests at all
infact the natural prey of the
fox is rats , mice , rabbits
and so
on
so they have enviromental
vi
a
bil
ity
in removing such "pests"

and if we have sentience
doesnt that imbue us with a duty of care
to beings that do not
for
a child to the age of TWO (introduce swirly acid trip patterns here)
cannot be said to be sentient by any scientific,moral,philosophical standards.
but then its a human
so we must grant it rights cos
its
human
and
er...

...eth

GOT MAXIM?
i'll be fucked

TEAM EDNA spouted:
Foxes are a major problem in rural life.


That's right.........here's some more true facts !

They're also responsible for crop circles.

They worry sheep ( by shouting mint sauce at them )

They joy ride stolen tractors.

They often ruin Yorkshires crop of Coconuts by pissing against the trees.

And it's a well known fact that global warming is caused by foxes, don't know how, but it's them, most certainly, without a doubt, honest !

ROFLMFAO ...............omg i just wet myself laughing LOL

dave brown spouted:
And it's a well known fact that global warming is caused by foxes,

Yep,
one of the little fuckers got into my Ozone Coop last night and ate half a dozen of my best Ozones.

Its all true!!
And my first wife ran off with one.
Kill 'em all the wife stealin lil feckers.
And as for Badgers don't even start me on Badgers

VERMIN

The fox, what ever it's age, will never come close the
intellectual potential of a human being in any later stage
of life. A human's sentience is developmental, but certain.

No, our duties extend only so far as ourselves.
(Accomodating popular sentiments; our familes,
community, country, our species, our world)

As sentients, we have the capacity to consider such as caring
for another speices, our environment. But none need be
orced to. They have a way of reminding us of their
importance.

Their capacity as pests is a moot point to me.
As is their environmental impact -- it isn't a matter.

What is, is this abridgement of human liberties in order to
'protect' the foxes.

Foxes, unlike us, are not entitled the Rights to Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness/Ownership of Private Property.

As human beings, as rational creatures...we can certainly
have compassion for them.

We can feel for them.
We can help them, in our own individual capacity.

But the issue isn't the foxes.

The issue is the abridgement of human liberty in the
name of 'potecting' foxes.

You protect them without changing policy, and on your own
dime, then not only do you have my support for doing so,
but my admiration as well.

Otherwise,...this,...is a flippant and dangerous use of the
policing power of the state. Got Murders? Got Rapists?

"Uhhn,,...no chief, see, we was out chasing these goons out
of the fox pasture..."

Think.

firstly , no more parody of your style , i really couldn't keep it up , but does distract from what you do have to say , which might have some sense ( and a lot of nonsense in).

secondly , you open with the potential development arguement . do you really want to run with that one?that way lies madness , it's a real moral maze.cos the original point was that we grant rights to the infant on the basis of it's species , not because of its potential . start saying that and the only logical end is that all potential human life is sacred , right back to the sperm . the infant is not killed because it offends modern day sensibilities. this has historically not always been the case , so moral judgements affect our legal constructs , and the law is an evolving body able to adapt to human ideological positions. further , whilst we talk of evolving , how do we not know that a foxes descendent won't evolve sentience ( i warned you it gets fruity ). you can take this one loads of places , but basically potential is going to tie you up in knots.

thirdly , you say "our world" .sentience decrees the planet is now property , and more so the total property of huns ( who ain't been around that long ) to do as they please. course not , there must be constrictions on the planet's use . an example , the enviromentneeds protecting , it's necessary . think of it as a commodity that is finite ( that will appeal to your sensibilities now ).there is a morality extended here . we ( or rather neo-liberals ) even see morality in the abstract concept of money .

this leads me to morality.morality can , does and should extend to animals also . we are able to define it's limits.shouldanimals be granted rights? livestock has rights , if only for financial considerations.pets have rights , derived partly through property considerations and partly moral . we wouldn't want to see our favourite pooch hunted now would we?so should the fox have rights ? well why not if we can define it as so . not full human rights , thats going to be plain foolish , what's a fox going to want to do with the right to own private property ? speculate on the stock market ? course not , so why bring it up?

and so to what is probably the only substantial part of your post. the issue of liberty. yes , if i want to protect them , i will
that is my libery , and it's going to be at my own cost ( christ does everything have to have a cost?). but why not curtail liberty if it can be decreed that something is morally objectionable? we do it with heroin taking , and if we follow the logic of your kantian viewpoint we should . some neo-liberals in the uk have advocated just that ( the original edition of " saturns children " by alan duncan and ???...can't remember.....though this chapter was later expunged because it was deemed morally unpalatable for the electorate , not because they saw the error of their ways).and further , i believe thats the constitution you cite? well that has a little piece i believe about the right to bear arms . i know it would be unthinkable for americans to ldrop this one , but i think in the uk it's wisely decided to see this position as a little foolish. we still get shootings , but generally , if i wanted to go to macdonalds and eat macshite i could do so without fear i'm gonna be blown away.the point is liberty can be curtailed quite reasonably. to use the fox as an excuse to allow a barbaric practise to continue is one for the idiots . but its not the fox as such you say , its the human liberty to...bollocks , let them drag hunt then . saves the fox , alters little else.

as for the flippant and dangerous use of resources. it's been dealt with eruditely earlier ( if a little shortly) . i'll not add to it except to say you are trying to get me to accept there should be rationing here , and i don't accept that argument . it's bogus . financing is a different issue to fox hunting , so start another thread if you like ( as well as one on your far-right thoughts on welfare ).

now i'm sure there are other questions , so i direct others to
http://www.homepage.ntl.world.com/john.oakland/
yeah it's going to be biased , but it is not going to stop it being right.

and stop writing in a stupid style.

huns=humans. sorry germany

my links are so fucked...shite , shite , shite.
put "ban the hunt " into google and blah , blah , blah

loki spouted:
firstly , no more parody of your style , i really couldn't keep it up , but does distract from what you do have to say , which might have some sense ( and a lot of nonsense in).


I thank you. -- And thank you.

secondly , you open with the potential development arguement ....we grant rights to the infant on the basis of it's species , not because of its potential...logical end ... all potential human life is sacred...

I open with that, yes. I use it *solely* to counter your 'child of
two - not quite sentient' argument. I don't intend to see that
argument through to it's logical conclusion, as you are
abosolutely right in it's eventual turnout. We grant rights on
the basis of species, and this is as it should be.

...so moral judgements affect our legal constructs , and the law is an evolving body able to adapt to human ideological positions.

Well, if you account for Tali-banism, the Inquisition, etc...
some 'moral adaptation' is...CLEARLY in the wrong direction.
Only to be grimaced about later, upon reflection.

Unfortunately, here-today gone-tommorow laws protecting
liberty are alright to some. I am of the mindset that says,
moral, ethical, princapalic, etc inclinations of the momentary
prevailing majority aside; Liberty is eternal.

...whilst we talk of evolving ... do we not know that a foxes descendent won't evolve sentience ( i warned you it gets fruity ).

Quite right, but you assumed that I was arguing that literally,
and I wasn't, it was argued respondently/reflexively. Oh, and
-- I love fruit.

thirdly , you say "our world" .sentience decrees the planet is now property , and more so the total property of humans ... to do as they please.

I did enumerate my observation of prevailing social beliefs
held by a significant number of individuals, ime (in my est.)

Short version: Suffice it to say I have a strict, and generous
interpetation of property rights.

course not , there must be constrictions on the planet's use ... the enviromentneeds protecting , it's necessary ...

It definetly does. That's why the worst possible thing to do is
to try to get conniving bureaucrats in the gov't to try do it ...
if they don't just USE IT as an issue, and take advantage,
then it'll still be about as effective as: See thread 'Stupid civil people.' And Earth is left where?

think of it as a commodity that is finite ( that will appeal to your sensibilities now ).there is a morality extended here . we ( or rather neo-liberals ) even see morality in the abstract concept of money .

Ahh! My type of thinking! Delicious! *Now* I understand!
As for the second part...much too messy -- brevity; mercifully,
will prevail for the moment. I won't touch.

...morality can , does and should extend to animals also . we are able to define it's limits.shouldanimals be granted rights? livestock has rights , if only for financial considerations.pets have rights , derived partly through property considerations and partly moral ...

Morality is defined by the cultural setting you are in.
Dogs are eaten in Korea. They don't have a problem with it.
It is *their* normal. Hence my saying about Inquisition, etc...
societies tend to moralise themselves to bad places every
so often. Morals change. Law does not. -- (may be repealed)
In order to genuinely change the law, you must actually
change it. But in effect, it stands irrespective all else.

Animals are granted protections on the basis of knowing
and being friends with, in manner of speaking...a human.

When I said above, 'You with us or them'...it was a multi-
tiered question; Who is the grantor of these protections, and
who the grantee? Obviously, for legal considerations, one
would rather be the Human(grantor) than an animal
(grantee.)

pets have rights...not full human rights , thats
going to be plain foolish ...course not , so why bring it up?

Because, while you; as a person I feel I can relate to,
understand animals are not people, there are elements
amongst us that would see them declared such, or a rough
equivalent. Just covering my arse.

...the only substantial part of your post...issue of liberty...if i want to protect them...it's going to be at my own cost...but why not curtail liberty if it can be decreed that something is morally objectionable?

Yes, pornography for one! How evil it is! Let us cast it from our
society with the stroke of a pen! (guess that means we have
to lose the section on Dogbomb)...again, the slippery slope
of 'morality.' Morals, as stated, tend to be a snap-shot of
sorts of the current majority group-think. If law were based,
largely even, on 'morality'....we'd have a Fundamentalist
christian, and/or muslim, etc gov't in place. Worse, the morals
of any cause are ALWAYS abused and distorted once
leadership gets ahold of them! They become 'issues!'
Issues go away if you fix them! Bad for re-election!

Etc...

...we do it with heroin taking , and if we follow the logic of your kantian viewpoint we should.

My appeared Kantian viewpoint as it relates to my simultanious invocation of both experience and rationality?

Assumes I made the moralist argument, and assumes
I was using literally that intellect-potential argument.

I'll admit haven't read much about Imanuel Kant, nor any of
his works (regretably, quick search reveals wealths of
intruguing bits on him/s work.)

Also - I do not believe in outlawing of inanimate
objects, plant materials, etc without exceptional reason.

I think all drug laws are foolish and only serve to gainfully
employ and feed gang-bangers, mafias and otherwise very
naughty people. They also make for some nasty violence.
(The threat of imprisonment is easily enough to cause that.)


...i believe thats the constitution you cite? ...about the right to bear arms .

The United States Constitution, Bill of Rights,
Amendment II: (from memory, even)

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the defense of a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let me polish Mr.Jefferson's english a bit:

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a
free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

Ambiguity? I don't think so. The right is the people's!
(The liberals here tried to say it applied to miltias?)

...They are too cowardly to out and openly denouce the
Constitution.

...i think in the uk it's wisely decided to see this position as a little foolish... we still get shootings...

Yes, your violent crime and home invasions are up drastically.
Mercy has it that, only those willing to disobey the law in the
first place are the one's who will be in possession of such
weapons. How comforting. Another beauty of this is, even
if the likes of Tony Martin use their lawfully aquired weapons,
(extreme minority can be legally had...not carried, even) the
criminals are still are favoured by your courts.

You have a quagmire. I don't need to touch it to show it's
flaws.

...go to macdonalds and eat macshite...

I hate McDonalds. I have banned them and haven't ate there
in years now. Their food, service, etc is par to the bog.

the point is liberty can be curtailed quite reasonably...

So reasonably in fact! And more, and more so!
Until you reason that you've reasoned away all your
liberties for...what now, in light of that, look like such petty
reasonings. Reason being? It was only reasonable at the
time! ...which is why we have a Constitution. The temporary favouratisms of the people need pass a great challenge before they are deemed TRULY necessary intrusions and plunderings of sweet liberty.

Rarely are these standards met. Our government has been
acting extraconstitutioanlly for so long now, most of my
contemporaries here in the US don't even know that the gov't
isn't supposed to be screwing around in 90% of the things it
is. Read our Constitution. Read it honestly, to yourself.
It dosen't take long to see the contradictions. EVEN IF
BENEFICENT! They exist. Admit it, and I will smile with you.

the fox as an excuse to allow a barbaric practise to continue is one for the idiots. but its not the fox as such you say , its the human liberty to...bollocks , let them drag hunt then . saves the fox , alters little else.

'Drag' hunt? I assume by 'drag' you use a synonym of
'mock,' or 'false' or the phrase 'for-pretend.'

If this is the case, then it is still, by way of infringment of
human liberty, wrong in it's means.

Noble ends do not justify any means.

The fox, unfortunatley, is screwed either way.

Nature made it as such. We aren't helping, but...?

as for the flippant and dangerous use of resources. it's been dealt with eruditely earlier ( if a little shortly) . i'll not add to it except to say you are trying to get me to accept there should be rationing here

No, I am not. I am asking you to face reality.
You have a finite number of police officers.
If they are off chasing down those awful, inconsiderate,
cruel, evil, nasty, smelly fox-hunters...
they are not doing something else;
Presumably a whole lot more important.

...financing is a different issue to fox hunting...

Financing isn't a problem? Money no object to Brits?
Why not hire the entire of your population into the police
force then? That'll solve the pesky issue of financing
enforcement of all the more and more petty laws that will
come in this one's wake, as it came in the wake of the petty
laws before it.

(as well as one on your far-right thoughts on welfare).

They aren't "far right," honest. The modern conservative pays
lip sevice to the evils of social welfare, but have no problems
with corporate welfarism, and giving generous monies to
business and market groups everywhere. Not to mention
Bush's 'faith-based' welfare grants to Churches, etc.

I, am a Classical Liberal. Not a modern one, mind you;
(Democratic-Socialist liberal) (pro state)
(Theocratic/Business/Populist conservative) (pro state)
(Classical Liberal, all around) (less state, maybe a bit
less, if not less. Lest we be left with more, which just wouldn't
be more right!)

Need more info?
http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm

As one last note, my style has *always* been off.
I guess I'm just not the fashionable sort.
But then, I'm a Constitutionalist...even when the current
trend is towards tyranny in the name of good, I stick with
the always good laws of liberty. I buck fashion. Fashion sucks.

I dress well, tho.

I will work on my posting habits. It's messy, being me and all.

Night.
-MAXIM

Fucking hell. Lost the will to live reading that lot.

I don't mind about fox hunting. When I'm actually in the UK, I live in a small village, and talk to many farmers on a regular basis, and they all say that foxes are a nuisance.