If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm obviously not saying that.
What I am saying is - the fact you happen to enjoy it is neither here nor there. People are capable of enjoying a lot of things that are immoral - the fact you find it fun doesn't give us any reason to tolerate it, if it's cruel.
I don't need to understand why it's enjoyable. I don't understand why people enjoy boxing, or cricket, or drum and bass. But they don't inflict suffering on non-consenting sentient beings, so the fact other people do enjoy them is something I'm prepared to put down to differing tastes. Torturing animals however, cannot be a matter of individual preference.
Don't be a patronising fuckwit - ever thought maybe I'm capable of being semi-serious too? Hence my comment?
Nah, I'm good thanks. I manage to have fun without torturing animals, but cheers for the suggestion.
:chin:
Opening up a Pandoras Box there, how do you define "immoral"?
Now, now, no need to get touchy.
Doesn't sound like you have much fun if this is the reaction it provokes. Maybe try clay pigeon shooting to ease yourself in.
I take it you're not actually asking me to define the word immoral, you're asking me to specify the content of morality, or identify the source of moral claims?
Well that's a lifetime's work, and anyway, it's not something I need to do here. My point is, the fact that someone enjoys something is irrelevant to any discussion of whether society should tolerate it or not. Assuming you're not a moral relativist, which is a position no sensible individual can sustain for longer than five minutes, you think that at least some actions are morally bad, whatever they may be. And then the fact that some people might find it fun to do those things doesn't give us a reason to allow them to do so.
Even the fanatical ones who injure animals and people in their fight for justice? By the way this is merely a question, i'm not having a go?
By the way just to point out to whoever was on about the shooting of foxes and how you can miss, it's actually not that easy to shoot things in the dark even with a rather large lamp.
Though people don't own cats, cats own people.
Which fanatical ones?
I am opposed to violence so no, in theory I am against animal rights activists who harm animals. I have yet to meet an animal rights activist (and I know some people involved in some 'controversial' activities) who would hurt animals for their cause... Apart from PETA, but they are crap.
Well I hope you never get an infestation of roaches or rats.
Would eat out if you knew resturants were prohibited from atcively destroying such pests.
?
People own and breed cats and cats kill other animals. Like having your own little unnecessary killing machine.
Mabe I should not eat anything that has been moved in a lorry in case it ran over a worm. :rolleyes:
Some people do take it to that extreme....
And abolitionists would agree with the statement I highlighted.
So it's ok to kill rats for pest control reasons, but not foxes?
I bet most people who don't support the killing of foxes support the idea behind killing foxes if they follow their natural instinct to hunt for food - which would impose on our own manufactured food sources. Which makes this an endless argument.
Just one more thing, why doesn't everything relating to human interaction with animals, in nature or otherwise, always come back to the idea of animal rights? We only give them "rights" because we're always playing god with nature to not know when to stop. After-all, we impose on nature more than nature imposes on us. It's just an "inconvenience to life".
(Did I see PETA mentioned in animal rights? OH GOD. They willingly allow the inhumane slaughter and abuse of animals for MONTHS on end, filming it for "evidence" without actually imposing anything upon the people responsible during their time. They just watch from the sidelines. If this was taken into perspective of other scenarios it would be a whole other issue. I'm sure they'll get stuck in themselves once the cameras are turned off. Can't make it seem like they're undercover...)
I asked ages ago what the stats are for the efficiency of hunting with dogs as a method of population control. No one answered, it was just ignored. If it turns out that hunting with dogs really is the most effective way of culling the fox population, AND that culling is necessary for farming practices etc, then I would accept that we have to tolerate it. But that's an empirical question - there should be some hard data - and no one has presented any.
I find it very hard to believe that it makes anything like a significant dent in the fox population to be justified by reference to pest control. I would guess that's just a handy cover for people who think the only way they can possibly have fun is to watch animals get torn limb from limb.
However, I'd change my mind if I saw some evidence to the contrary....
Fair does, just wondered. The one thing that does annoy me (from both sides) is the fact that there are some hunt sabs who let down their cause and others involved in it. I have seen sabs deliberately cause situations which will injure horse, rider and others around them just in honour of their cause. I've also known hunt sabs who have led hounds away from their scent and huntsman but whilst leading them away have led them towards main A roads. That's the side of demonstrating that annoys me. Sheer stupidity. Am all for everyone having a voice, just wish some people would think clearly about their actions. That goes for the hunting people who condone violence against sabs.
This is the bad thing within animal cruelty overall - people who are responsible for killing our pigs, cows or whatever else - I'm sure they do abuse their job and the animal due to the nature of the job. I know I couldn't kill an animal like that day in day out, I'm sure it'll have a negative impact on someones mental state at some point during their career.
People enjoy both. Lamping is fun, I cetainly enjoy it - I wouldn't enjoy hunting with hounds.
And when shooting dogs are still used to flush out and chase foxes.
Killing things has never negatively effected my mental state, whether it be mammals birds or fish. I look at them as meat on me plate.
So a couple of pages back when I asked why fox hunting should be legal, when dog fighting and cock fighting aren't, and your response was "fox hunting is necessary to cull the fox population" - that argument is unsound. So now we have no good reasons to allow one and not the others.
If people wanted to control foxes, they would use more effective methods, like trapping, shooting, or poison (you have already had admitted there are more effective methods).
Pest control is business and business is about productivity and profit.
But this has already been covered...
At the end of the day, what we are arguing about I don't believe is about erroding the culture of the countryside, or about pest control, it's whether or not a few thugs have the right to hurt animals for enjoyment.
:yeees:
Where the fuck did I say that?
Saying that you can kill more foxes with guns, is not the same as saying that killing foxes with hounds is inefective.
I have heard of activists hurting humans, which tbh again I disagree with, just like I disagree with the death penalty.
But I can sympathise with why people get so angry and I don't think people who abuse animals should be labelled as any more moral than people who abuse humans.
Because at the end of the day, a living creature is a living creature, regardless of how much power you have over it or whether it is the same species as you.
There is survival and there's enjoyment.
I didn't think you saw any difference between killing for meat, sport, or vermin control?
Shooting is also a sport. People will make sport out of killing vermin as long as they have to kill vermin. A sport is made out of shooting dear aswell - they're numbers also have to be kept down. My mate runs a pest control falconry business, something he also does for sport.
They do shoot them and they do it for sport ffs. Trapping and poison are both illegal methods of killing foxes, and so they should be. Fox hunting isn't innefective jsut because you can kill more with a gun. Infact in one sense it's more effective. A fox hit by a slug isn't always going to die, a fox caught by the hound is.
Who says you can't enjoy it? You the authority on what people can enjoy?
Well I think that's complete bullshit.
Maybe I'm weird but I make a distinction between animals and people in the same way I make a distinction beteen adults and children, i.e abusing a child is worse than beating an adult.
The most effective way of controlling foxes is with cars. Traffic gets most of them.
Fox hunting alone would not make much impact on the overall fox population simply because there arn't enough hunts. They're effective locally.
Lamping is the most effective way without doubt but that doesn't mean it's the kindest. A lot of you seem to be under the impression shooting is a pretty clean way of killing a fox - often it's not and dogs are still used for chasing.
The fact is, you'd have to eradicate upwards of 70% of the fox population in a year to make an impact on population numbers. Therefore, don't hide behind pest control as justification for fox hunting. Have the balls to call it what it is - it's a sport, killing of animals for fun, and then defend that. At least that would be an honest position to take. Admit that the reasons you want it legalised are nothing to do with population control, and everything to do with people's leisure activities.
i dont go fox hunting so my reasons are more matter of fact than personal.
I don't really liek the idea of chasing an animal for miles across counry for it to be killed by dogs. I've only ever seen fox hunt kill once. I do however know a lot of fox hunters, and I do go shooting and lamping. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the realities regarding countryside sports.
A regular fox hunt is effective enough at controllong local populations. If it werent, the farmers and other land owners whouldn't allow these 'toofs' to ride across there land in search of a fox.
Fact is the alternative to fox hunting often still involves dogs and the manner of death is no less 'horrific'. Living wher I do and socialising with who I do, I see no actaul improvement on fox welfare. But for everybody else the ban on foc hunting is a good thing without thinking what gos on in it's place.
Thank fuck for that.
I don't trust the 'All life is equal' brigade.
If theres a house on fire with a mothe ran kids and pets. The childresn are the priority follwoed by the mother followed by the dog. People say you can't put a value on life but you can. How do I know this? because I'd put the life of any child I had before my own, any familly infact before my own. Children beofe adults, women before men and most certanainly people before animals. I'd make a species extinct just to save 1 stranger. Find fault with that all you like but that's what's importanat to me.
If it's a choice between saving a human life and saving an animal's life, any animal, then there's no question I would save the human. But if it's a choice between human's having a marginally less pleasurable life than they would like, or letting them kill animals for fun, I'm inclined to say they should be forced to find other ways to enjoy themselves.