# Contradictions



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

Are you pro hunting but anti-fur?  Do you eat fish but not mean?  Do you poison rats but think that foxes should be left alone?

Just interested as I'm sure we all contradict ourselves....I eat fish but not meat.  I said I'd never hunt (while I was taking a break from horses) but now, I have to say that I'm actually very interested to see what it's all about.  I don't know if I can be an anti unless I've experienced a hunt........


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

I'm anti cruelty!

I will wear fur - mum has a fur coat, its very old though.  The fur trade is cruel so I suppose like most I'm hypocritical.  I eat meat and fish, couldn't live without it.  I think poisening of any form is cruel and would rather catch rats, foxes e.t.c with JRT's or hounds, much more humane.

I think out of sight out of mind is the issue here, if you witness the cruelty involved in fur/meat trades then you think about it, if you don't know about it then it doesn't play on your mind.  Meat in a shop doesn't look like a dead animal.

But when you think about it does a lion show feelings towards an antelope when its about to kill it?  Does a fox think about the pain it will cause a chicken when it kills it?  Are we all getting too soft?


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

My stance on meat has always been farming.  I know it sounds absurd, but if we had to farm and hunt for our own food it would be natural.  As humans we kind of take the sport out of it by farming them!  Slaughter houses are not humane in my eyes - those animals know they're going for the chop.

I try and eat non farmed fish though although casting out a massive net is still not natural so yet another contradiction.

I'm always willing to be educated, hence my curiosity with hunting.....


----------



## Sidesaddle (19 July 2006)

does a lion show feelings towards an antelope when its about to kill it?  Does a fox think about the pain it will cause a chicken when it kills it?
		
Click to expand...

No.  Animals do not have the same behavioural traits as we do.  They don't have emotions.  They react on instinct.  Supposedly that is one of the things that sets us apart from other animals.


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"But when you think about it does a lion show feelings towards an antelope when its about to kill it? Does a fox think about the pain it will cause a chicken when it kills it? Are we all getting too soft? "

I imagine that all the lion and fox thinks is .....  food !  This is because they are simple animals with limited intelligence.  We on the other hand are the most intelligent creature on the planet (well, maybe one of the most intelligent...) and are capable of deeper thought.  We should be capable of understanding the difference between a need to kill for food and the obtaining of sport therefrom.

RS


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

The 'sport' is the issue with some HHO forum members *cough* RS *cough*   it would make it in-humane to to hunt our food.

We have two piggies at the mo (pumba and timone) they will be in the freezer by October but they've had a lovely life, they have a wallow and a little arc and get all the scraps and I scratch their backs every day so I won't feel so guilty eating them, they haven't spent their life knee deep in [****] shut in a dark barn like some.

I don't have a problem with farming, I'm the same as you, I do have a problem with slaughter houses, it may sound wierd but I'd like to know my food was killed with a bit of respect, I doubt this happens.

What are you curious about hunting?


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

But we are talking about food.

If I go out and slaughter the nearest beef cow...but I take 10 mins to kill it, or start eating it alive like you see on some wildlife programmes, would you think that is humane as its 'for food'?


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

Because I used to love galloping around and love jumping!  I don't know if you can be anti something until you know all the facts.

How anyone can say that hunting on foot for food is inhumane is beyond me, how the hell did our ancestors eat?  I'm not sure I could actually rear them myself though.

In an ideal world, I'd own an organic free range farm, not deal with the animals (as I'd get attached) and know that I was giving those animals a good life and that they were killed humanely......


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

Maybe not humane, but what the loin is doing is natural - that's the key word for me.

As humans, back thousands of years, as we don't have the power to over power a cow by hand, or any other large mammal, it would generally be killed, with a spear or such like, relatively quickly.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (19 July 2006)

Me?

I'm anti meat in practise not principle - thats why I want to be a farmer - so I can make meat less cruel...

I'm anti fur because it's just pointless and un-necessary - but that doesn't mean the coats of old should be destroyed...

I'm anti poison - taking a few days to kill a rat over a terrier managing it in minutes??

I'm anti the shooting of large mammals except by experts with high powered rifles

I'm not a fan of animal racing but I do believe that horseracing is worse than greyhound racing which isn't nice...

As Severnmiles says, I'm anti cruelty, not anti using animals.  I want to live in a way where I eat meat that I knew from birth, can dispatch wild animals quickly and easily with hounds or terriers and where no animal I own is used and abused.

Perhaps one day I may even set aside the time, space and resources to rescue farm animals


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

What facts don't you understand?

"In an ideal world, I'd own an organic free range farm, not deal with the animals (as I'd get attached) and know that I was giving those animals a good life and that they were killed humanely......"

Me too, except I would deal with mine...its dangerous naming them though! :-/


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

I doubt a spear would kill a cow outright, sometimes a bullet doesn't.  They may have used rocks too.

But thats what I'm saying, that is how we lived years ago and even a hundred years ago the housewives would kill the chicken themselves...are we getting too soft?  How long before we are worrying about picking an apple from the tree..its killing it?  Sounds stupid eh?  Some people already think that.


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"The 'sport' is the issue with some HHO forum members *cough* RS *cough*  it would make it in-humane to to hunt our food"

No, I never said that.  I have no problem with humans or any other creature hunting for food.  Of course, I think that us humans are capable of hunting and killing in a humane way.

It's when you hunt for sport, not for food, that I think it becomes immoral.  After all, none of the mounted field are hungry and you dont eat the dead fox afterwards, do you ?

RS


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

I know, but I couldnt' deal with them on a daily basis!  I suppose that's why I don't eat meat at all - maybe never will be able too!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 July 2006)

I farm cows for sport.  Does this make it evil?

I get enjoyment from the whole process raising, killing and consuming livestock.

Is this badder than going down Tescos?


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

I'm with both of you on this - and agree with your points.

Are you a full veggie, or just meat?


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

"I'm anti poison - taking a few days to kill a rat over a terrier managing it in minutes??"

Seconds!!  With our terriers anyway.

SoD, do you think the cruelty within the meat trade is in farming?  Or the slaughter house?


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

So if I BBQ the fox after will you agree its humane?


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"If I go out and slaughter the nearest beef cow...but I take 10 mins to kill it, or start eating it alive like you see on some wildlife programmes, would you think that is humane as its 'for food'? "

I have no problems with you wanting to kill the cow in order to eat it (or some of it).  In fact, I'd like a piece too.
I hope you will use a humane form of slaughter though, that minimises the suffering of the animal.  In fact, I expect you to do this, and I dont expect you to chase it for miles just for the fun of it.  I dont expect wild predators to be capabl;e of a humane kill since they are less intelligent.  I also dont expect a wild animal to avoid having to chase the prey, though I dont expect they are capable of intellectual enjoyment (aside of the expectation of getting a meal); however, from the point of view of the predator, a short chase is much more efficient than a long one.


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

ewwwww  :crazy:


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 July 2006)

But predation is one of the least cruel means of death a wild animal can expect.

Do you think starvation or death through disease or wounds is a better way to die?


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

How did you make that link ?

If you eat the fox afterwards I will agree that the hunt was for food.  That does not necessarily make it humane, and/or not a sport (depends how many people participated and how long the chase was).


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

There's a big difference between what happens in the wild and what humans do deliberatly.


----------



## AlanE (19 July 2006)

So really. judging from the comments on this thread, the problem seems to be not what we do, but the WAY we do it. By this I mean that many of us feel disquiet  at the current 'industrialized' form of farming. Given the incentive (hunger) we would be happy to raise and kill our own animals in their natural environment and take whatever measures possible to ensure it was done humanely.

The whole original idea of fox-hunting stemmed from protecting our livestock; the fox needed to be controlled if we were to eat. Given that mankind as a species are hunters, and thereby developed a superior reason and intelligence, using brains instead of brute strength to kill animals larger than themselves, then hunting is built into our psyche.

Of course, old Ruggs argument that its OK to kill animals but not for sport, is in reality a none-starter. A species which owes its survival to hunting cannot adequately separate its motives. Impossible to think that stone-age man did not enjoy his hunting. Impossible to think that they didn't hunt just for the hell of it if game was plentiful.Impossible to think that they didn't sit around the fire at night and say: 'It was a damn good hunt today' etc etc.  Ruggs would say that was unacceptable, but most of us recognize that he lives in a world of impossibly delicate discrimination.


----------



## severnmiles (19 July 2006)

But hunting is humane whether I stick Charlie on the BBQ or not.

Ok then, would you agree with it then?  I'm eating it, so what is the problem?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 July 2006)

That difference it at it's smallest when people control animals by hunting with dogs.  It is the method that most closely mirrors the natural predation that occurs in the wild.

In general natural predation is a good thing because it targets sick animals and saves them from a worse fate.

In the ansence of predation you get more disease and more suffering.

Doing nothing has moral consequences too.


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"A species which owes its survival to hunting cannot adequately separate its motives."

You've used the wrong tense.  You should say 'owed' when related to this society.

" Impossible to think that stone-age man did not enjoy his hunting. Impossible to think that they didn't hunt just for the hell of it if game was plentiful."

I have the feeling that they did other things when game was plentiful.  Like make cave paintings; dug flint pits; built huts.

"Impossible to think that they didn't sit around the fire at night and say: 'It was a damn good hunt today' etc etc. Ruggs would say that was unacceptable"

Actually, no, I dont find that unacceptable.  We cant penetrate the mind of stone age man, but we could take an example from those people who even now do hunt for survival.... I suspect that they do indeed sit round saying that the hunt was good, but I beleive this is because they now have a supply of food rather than that they enjoyed running after animals just for the sake of the run.


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"So really. judging from the comments on this thread, the problem seems to be not what we do, but the WAY we do it"

I rather think you've missed the point.  It's not WAY, it's WHY.


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"But hunting is humane whether I stick Charlie on the BBQ or not."

Arguable, but I wont enter into that one at the moment.

"Ok then, would you agree with it then? I'm eating it, so what is the problem? "

How many people took part ?


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

"But hunting is humane whether I stick Charlie on the BBQ or not."

Arguable, but I wont enter into that one at the moment.

"Ok then, would you agree with it then? I'm eating it, so what is the problem? "

No problem.  Of course, if the hunt was conducted in such a way as to introduce a sport element, then there would be an element of immorality.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (19 July 2006)

I'm with both of you on this - and agree with your points.

Are you a full veggie, or just meat?
		
Click to expand...

I was a mix - I ate eggs but only cos my own chickens laid them, I did dairy but in my usual small quantities (Me and dairy don't get along) and I did fish, because my mother was at her wits end trying to make alll inclusive meals!!

Earlier this year I started eating meat again cos not only was it now problematic with my mum, but it was with Myles too - it was more expensive to buy his meaty meal and my veggie one than one we could share, and we can't afford that!

Also, because I'm not against eating meat on principle, I will eat it if I know it's source, so I'm very keen on local organic meat


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

See I just don't know if I could eat it now - on a taste basis!  I gave it up after the BSE thing - not through fear of catching BSE (I was weaned on mince beef like alot of our generation, so I'm buggered anyway) but it was actually seeing some of the things the animals went through in the slaughterhouse...not nice at all and I don't want to be part of that.  Can't afford top grade organic meat either so do without!


----------



## Doreys_Mum (19 July 2006)

I'm not keen on much meat anymore either - beef, lamb and some pork just don't seem to taste like I remember...

but ham and chicken are my poison... *cries*

I have to confess to being a great fan of game too...


----------



## AlanE (19 July 2006)

Ah Ruggs, missed the point again, I think! The point, surely, is that you cannot divide out the various components of hunting. You accept that stone-age man probably sat around the fire and relived a good hunt. You seem to think that was OK because he was killing animals for food. Since cave painting may well have been some sort of magic to give hunters success, then they were perhaps more likely to do that when the hunting was bad, not good. If an excess of game was killed, I am sure they would have managed to eat it. BUT, they didn't really need it.

This produces a problem for you, because at that point you will  - if you are consistent - have to say they were wrong to go hunting, and in your world, you would have banned it.

It might be , of course, that if game was plentiful, they hunted sickly animals for sport, culling them so that the healthy game had food and would stay in the area.

Perhaps you would also accept that when farming first began, mankind killed predators which affected his agriculture. This was another form of hunting, in the sense that it was only indirectly connected to food: it was preserving stock, not providing food directly. 

I suspect you would also acknowledge the acceptability of such actions.

Contemporary farmers have a problem with foxes. As do various urban authorities, and both these groups kill large numbers of foxes.

Hunting kills a proportunately small number, but contributes to the total kill. It does it in a natural manner, in the foxes own environment, and is arguably the most humane of all methods used for fox control.

Therefore your premise that 'it is wrong to kill animals for sport', does not automatically oppose you to hunting, since there is always another reason why animals are hunted. If this had not been the case, then hunting would have died out years ago. It has not, and nor will it, because it is an intrinsic part of the human species, just as it is of the natural world around us.


----------



## flying_change (19 July 2006)

I've never opposed the idea of necessary hunting for food or to cull or to deal with problem animals.  If a fox is killing your chickens thend I have no problem whatsoever with you killing the fox (humanely, of course).  I said that last year, and they year before, and the year before that.

Just dont make a sport out of it.  And I said that last year, and they year before, and the year before that too.

RS


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 July 2006)

But isn't shooting foxes just as much of a 'sport' for some people?

Or is it OK to 'enjoy' something as long as it's not a formal sport.

What about the rat carcher who enjoys his job?

Or the executioner?


----------



## Parkranger (19 July 2006)

I must admit, the smell of cooked chickens at tescos does make me weep but I just can't do it now after 5 years!!!


----------



## Doreys_Mum (19 July 2006)

chicken and bacon sandwhichs in the village... *sobs*

I make my own now I moved...


----------



## flying_change (20 July 2006)

"But isn't shooting foxes just as much of a 'sport' for some people?
Or is it OK to 'enjoy' something as long as it's not a formal sport."

Any activity that inolves harming or killing animals that is made into a sport (formal or informal) is immoral.

"What about the rat carcher who enjoys his job?
Or the executioner? "

I cant believe you've brought these up.  I think the first time they were mentioned here was about 5 years ago, and they crop up about once every year.  I have no problem with the ratcatcher who enjoys his job, nor the executioner.  I'm sure that both jobs can give satisfaction in their way without being made into sports.  For example, both people could take satisfaction for their skilling killing without causing unecessary pain or distress to the subject.


----------



## AlanE (20 July 2006)

Ruggs: Why not simply admit you are trying to impose your idea of 'morals' on the rest of us? Your arguments don't give you a leg to stand on, and I think you acknowledge that in your mind, but are afraid to admit it to the rest of us.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (20 July 2006)

So you've no problem with people getting enjoyment from killing.

You don't oppose hunting but you oppose hunting for sport.


What is it about hunting as a sport that you find immoral, as opposed to killing for fun?


----------



## flying_change (21 July 2006)

"What is it about hunting as a sport that you find immoral, as opposed to killing for fun? "

I dont know where you got the idea that these two things might be different.


----------



## severnmiles (21 July 2006)

Why would moral issues have anything to do with fun or entertainment, I fail to see the connection.


----------



## flying_change (21 July 2006)

Sport = fun = entertainment, surely ?


----------



## KJI_Lover (21 July 2006)

Something being fun doesn't necessarily make it sport.

Hunting serves a purpose and is fun to some groups of people. Does that make it bannable under "RS Law" being that fun is being had? My plea would be a higher purpose is being satisfied so the fun is a mere by product, a secondary satisfaction, and hence not relevant.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (21 July 2006)

Sport is fun, yes, but not everything that is fun is a sport...

I have fun coming onto HHO...


----------



## flying_change (21 July 2006)

" Does that make it bannable under "RS Law" being that fun is being had? "

Yup


----------



## flying_change (21 July 2006)

And not every sport involves killing animals.  But if you make a sport out of killing, or get fun out of it, or make it entertainment, it becomes immoral.

Getting fun or entertainment out of HHO (or for me, making sport out of tormenting pros) is not immoral.


----------



## severnmiles (21 July 2006)

I've said before 'down ere in them there deep dark dank valleys' (okay so its not like that at all) we call it pest control...not sport!  It doesn't make it any less enjoyable though.


----------



## flying_change (21 July 2006)

Not exactly an oxymoron there, but close.....

Have a good weekend.

RS


----------



## severnmiles (21 July 2006)

Are you saying I'm contradicting myself?  :shocked:

And you!  Have fun!!


----------



## KJI_Lover (21 July 2006)

" Does that make it bannable under "RS Law" being that fun is being had? "

Yup
		
Click to expand...

RS you can't say that....it's totally deleterious to my arguement


----------



## AlanE (21 July 2006)

Ruggs, I'm waiting for the penny to drop!

You have stated that if hunting is 'killing for sport', then it is 'immoral'.

Have you therefore not realized that, for example, if YOU were to go hunting, (under the premise that, for that particular fox in a certain location, that was the best way of dealing with it ), then, because YOU were not hunting for' entertainment', then you could hunt in your own moral certitude that you were doing no wrong!

Your hypocrisy is mindblowing!


----------



## soggy (21 July 2006)

" Your hypocrisy is mindblowing!"

Are you sure that it has a mind to blow?

Every thing its posted so far has been so empty headed that I seriously doubt that it had a mind in the first place.

Sport+Fun= Immorality. LMAO.

So if hunting was just a job of work or a activity that a group of like minded individuals took part in but received no enjoyment from it would be morally justifiable.

What a crock!


----------



## severnmiles (22 July 2006)

Yes SBB, if there was no field or followers and there was just the huntsman and two hunt servants then the whole thing would be moral, according to RS.


----------



## CARREG (22 July 2006)

"Yes SBB, if there was no field or followers and there was just the huntsman and two hunt servants then the whole thing would be moral, according to RS"

So what difference does it make to the fox how many people are there

RS, out of all the pathetic reasons for people being opposed to hunting yours has got to be the worst...............Carreg


----------



## soggy (22 July 2006)

Well he's a friend of old Pasty Faced Mairi, what more can you expect.


----------



## flying_change (22 July 2006)

You can always tell when a pro has run out of reason and argument.  They resort to insult and invective.  Thanks for letting me know you've got nothing more to say.


----------



## flying_change (22 July 2006)

Exactly !


----------



## flying_change (22 July 2006)

Oh, and by the way, I notice that you find it easy to make insults about others appearance while hiding your own.  Post your photo and you might earn a little respect.


----------



## flying_change (22 July 2006)

"Your hypocrisy is mindblowing! "

Not as mindblowing as your imagination.  You really think I'd go hunting ?


----------



## wurzel (23 July 2006)

"You really think I'd go hunting ?"

Yes, have you ever been?


----------



## severnmiles (23 July 2006)

No, he hasn't.  Its against his morals.

I therefore feel his view to be a tad unvalid.


----------



## soggy (23 July 2006)

You can always tell when a pro has run out of reason and argument.  They resort to insult and invective.  Thanks for letting me know you've got nothing more to say.
		
Click to expand...

Suckitt

I am only just getting started. As for the insults and invectives,(its always good to do both don't you think.) the truth often hurts.

Sport+fun=Immoral

What a crock!


----------



## soggy (23 July 2006)

Oh, and by the way, I notice that you find it easy to make insults about others appearance while hiding your own.  Post your photo and you might earn a little respect.
		
Click to expand...

Suckitt

I would if I could . But you know how this are ,! Us country (killing is fun) types don't always have the most modern digital technology to hand . Unless I manage to bag one off some pasty faced anti this coming hunting season. If they actually turn out of course, we had to wait until January before one showed up  I managed to find a good mobile phone last season that one of them dropped. They never seem to work again after being in a muddy puddle for 20 minutes or so  

I can do with the respect of your lot thanks very much. You see I don't put much store behind your views or opinions. In fact I don't put any at all. 

Have fun

SBB


----------



## soggy (23 July 2006)

No, he hasn't.  Its against his morals.

I therefore feel his view to be a tad unvalid.
		
Click to expand...

Unvalid!! If they were written on paper they wouldn't be worth using as loo roll.


----------



## Lobelia_Overhill (23 July 2006)

I'm an omnivore, I don't wear fur but have worn leather (shoes usually), I buy "cruelty free" shampoo and stuff like that, and never wear make-up.  I use prescribed medicines when needed, I am pro-contraception and anti abortion-on-demand.  

I've never hunted, I've never felt the urge to do so... if I was going to gallop across country on horseback in a crowd following a pack of baying dogs then I'd go draghunting.

I live in a very rural area, and have never seen a fox - well aside from one at the vet's that had been hit by a car and had a broken jaw, I know full well what a fox will do when it gets into a chicken coop. but I don't blame the fox for obeying it's instincts, I 'blame' people who anthropomorphise animals (ie credit them with human intelligence, instincts and morals) and I can't understand why people who keep chickens, ducks etc don't either get a dog that will scare off foxes, or keep them in a pen that is fox-proof.  And before anyone flames me- I used to work at an animal sanctuary when injured birds were looked after, they were kept in pens that were basically huge cubes/cuboids/cylinders of sturdy wire mesh to keep foxes out.  The only fowls who fell prey to a fox [I said I'd not *seen* one!] were the one who was found on the nearby marsh (dodgy leg) who we couldn't catch and one who sneaked out of the pen when someone went in, and was missed during the head count.

I get the idea that hunters insist that pests/vermin need to be controlled - but don't get why they need to dress up, and gallop after said pest/vermin for hours to have hounds rip it to shreds... 

With regards to the 'control' issue, I wonder how much of a problem foxes, stags etc are actually causing to the general public?  So a fox knocked a dustbin over, and someone hit a deer on the road, is it therefore necessary to cull a large percentage of the population of foxes. stags etc?  You don't see hoards of foxes, stags etc marching down the road getting ready to rumble with a rival gang of foxes, stage etc.  They don't steal cars and 'joyride', they don't leave drug paraphernalia laying around public footpaths, they don't drive cars when drunk and kill people.  

*and relax*

I often think that if the Pro and Antis could re-direct their efforts at things that actually cause problems for society then things might be a bit better... use the hounds to sniff out and scare off drug dealers, paedophiles, etc


----------



## wurzel (23 July 2006)

"With regards to the 'control' issue, I wonder how much of a problem foxes, stags etc are actually causing to the general public?"

I think you are missing the point slightly !!!


----------



## soggy (23 July 2006)

I'm an omnivore, I don't wear fur but have worn leather (shoes usually), I buy "cruelty free" shampoo and stuff like that, and never wear make-up.  I use prescribed medicines when needed, I am pro-contraception and anti abortion-on-demand.
		
Click to expand...

GG What a vision to be hold.





			I've never hunted, I've never felt the urge to do so... if I was going to gallop across country on horseback in a crowd following a pack of baying dogs then I'd go draghunting.
		
Click to expand...

So you admit that you have no knowledge or experience of the subject matter. Yet you expect people that do, to take your views seriously. 




			I live in a very rural area, and have never seen a fox - well aside from one at the vet's that had been hit by a car and had a broken jaw,
		
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely sure.




			I know full well what a fox will do when it gets into a chicken coop. but I don't blame the fox for obeying it's instincts, I 'blame' people who anthropomorphise animals (ie credit them with human intelligence, instincts and morals) and I can't understand why people who keep chickens, ducks etc don't either get a dog that will scare off foxes, or keep them in a pen that is fox-proof.
		
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of free range chickens? I'll come back to that later when you have answered.




			I used to work at an animal sanctuary when injured birds were looked after, they were kept in pens that were basically huge cubes/cuboids/cylinders of sturdy wire mesh to keep foxes out.  The only fowls who fell prey to a fox [I said I'd not *seen* one!] were the one who was found on the nearby marsh (dodgy leg) who we couldn't catch and one who sneaked out of the pen when someone went in, and was missed during the head count.
		
Click to expand...

Good for you. Not exactly the norm though is it. 




			I get the idea that hunters insist that pests/vermin need to be controlled - but don't get why they need to dress up, and gallop after said pest/vermin for hours to have hounds rip it to shreds...
		
Click to expand...

So if the hunt servants didn't wear pink, and there was no galloping you would understand the need for hunting.  I am starting to wonder what you imagine hunting entails.





			With regards to the 'control' issue, I wonder how much of a problem foxes, stags etc are actually causing to the general public?  So a fox knocked a dustbin over, and someone hit a deer on the road, is it therefore necessary to cull a large percentage of the population of foxes. stags etc?  You don't see hoards of foxes, stags etc marching down the road getting ready to rumble with a rival gang of foxes, stage etc.  They don't steal cars and 'joyride', they don't leave drug paraphernalia laying around public footpaths, they don't drive cars when drunk and kill people.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you get much hunting in urban locations, which seem to suffer from the various forms of malaise that you have described above to a far greater degree than rural communities.




			*and relax*
		
Click to expand...

I am relaxed. Are you?




			I often think that if the Pro and Antis could re-direct their efforts at things that actually cause problems for society then things might be a bit better... use the hounds to sniff out and scare off drug dealers, paedophiles, etc
		
Click to expand...

Your limited knowledge has really started to let you own now.
Are you saying that drug dealers, and paedophiles all have a similar smell. I have absolutely no experience of these two groups in society. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how this  happens. Is it genetic?

Have fun 
SBB


----------



## AlanE (23 July 2006)

Lobelia: May I use your posting as a typical insight into anti mindsets? We seem to have it all: you don't like people riding whilst smartly dressed; don't like foxes being controlled (hunting is not responsible for that - agriculture and urban ciouncils all seem to be at one on their determination to kill as many foxes as possible: surely hunting is just doing what we can to contribute to the cull?)

You want us to do something else, something charitable, - for christs sake go and tell a football crowd that, why don't you?

An unbelievable stereo type of the old anti propaganda being swallowed whole and undigested! AND you live in a hunting country! Inexcusable!


----------



## Doreys_Mum (24 July 2006)

No, he hasn't.  Its against his morals.

I therefore feel his view to be a tad unvalid.
		
Click to expand...

Unvalid!! If they were written on paper they wouldn't be worth using as loo roll.
		
Click to expand...

No, RSuggit hasn't been hunting, but I have taken him to meet all of our local hounds.

His views are valid because he does actually take in what pros say, and he does realise that when it comes down to it, it's simply the "fun+killing=Cruel" equation that distinguishes many pros from antis.  He does also understand that it's possible for pros to be against killing for fun cos thats not how they view hunting.

Now, how can someone who understands so much about the pro mindset not be worth listening to?


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

"What a crock"

Crock ?

Surely you can come up with something nastier than that ?


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

"taken him to meet all of our local hounds"

And very sweet they are too !


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

"Your limited knowledge has really started to let you own now.
Are you saying that drug dealers, and paedophiles all have a similar smell. I have absolutely no experience of these two groups in society. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how this happens. Is it genetic?"

Hmmm, you dont know that dogs (spaniels, often) are used at airports and such places to sniff out drugs and also explosives ?


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

You know full well that I could. But I choose not to. Its called showing a little discrestion.

Have fun

SBB


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

You know full well that I could. But I choose not to. Its called showing a little discretion.

Have fun

SBB


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

Discretion.... gosh, not something I was expecting....


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

Hmmm, you dont know that dogs (spaniels, often) are used at airports and such places to sniff out drugs and also explosives ?
		
Click to expand...

Suggitt

Your limited knowledge has really started to let you own now.
Can you tell me what a paedophile smells like?
I am well acquainted with the role that canines fulfill at airports and other locations.
Unlike you I am also well aware of which types are preferred for their particular working attributes.
Beagles are sometime used but that is the limit on the use of traditional hunting breeds I'm afraid.



Have fun

SBB


----------



## Sidesaddle (24 July 2006)

Can you tell me what a paedophile smells like?
		
Click to expand...

LMAO Soggy!  Exactly what I was about to ask.  Why stop there?  Why not have sniffer dogs sniffing out rapists, poll tax avoiders, shoplifters, oh, the list is endless.


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

"Unlike you I am also well aware of which types are preferred for their particular working attributes.
Beagles are sometime used but that is the limit on the use of traditional hunting breeds I'm afraid."

Well, tell us more then.


----------



## KJI_Lover (24 July 2006)

This post is about contradictions. One thing pros can't say is RS has ever contradicted himself on the "sport" arguement.

It's an entirely self-consistent that whatever benefits society as a whole may gain from hunting that doing it for sport is immoral. That's my understanding. Pro's and anti's can disagree on that viewpoint but is is most certainly valid.

On a personal note i've met RS briefly and he is a jolly hospitable chap....nothing small minded about him at all.

Argue the points guys and keep the personal assaults out of it.


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

Thanks, the cheque's in the post......


----------



## Sooty (24 July 2006)

Sadly personal assaults are the only posts some users seem capable of making...


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

... and generally tells me that they have nothing worthwhile to say.....


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

It's a large and complex subject, what is it that you would like to know.  
I guess the best place to start is what do you know of the subject? Judging by your previous comments I would have to say very little.

To save the board the boredom of such a debate perhaps you would care to conduct our discusson via PM's

I know I get bored with certin posters.

SBB


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

It's an entirely self-consistent that whatever benefits society as a whole may gain from hunting that doing it for sport is immoral. That's my understanding. Pro's and anti's can disagree on that viewpoint but is is most certainly valid.
		
Click to expand...

Having managed to decode you above comment. All I can say is you are as deluded as Suggitt. No wonder you found him so hospitable, your both as deluded as one another.

Morality has nothing to do with whether someone enjoys hunting. To claim so is to admit that you have no comprehension of what motivates people to go hunting.

Sport+fun=immorality

What a crock.

SBB


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

It usually tell me that they are dealing with a complete dickhead.
With about as much knowledge and experience of the subject matter as a worm.


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

If the cap fits.....


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

Pms ?   Oh no, you go ahead and make a fool of yourself in public.


----------



## flying_change (24 July 2006)

You're repeating yourself, but not actually saying anything.


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

Suggitt

It most definitely yours. Its even got your name written inside.


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

Who was the fool that posted

"Hmmm, you dont know that dogs (spaniels, often) are used at airports and such places to sniff out drugs and also explosives ? "

Duh! You don't say.


----------



## soggy (24 July 2006)

I've taken a leaf out of your book.

Fun+sport=Immorality.

What a crock!

Your not a Wesleyian by any chance?

Have fun 

SBB


----------



## severnmiles (24 July 2006)

I'm sorry SoD but meeting hounds does not make your view on hunting valid, what can that teach you about morals/whether hunting with hounds is humane bla bla?  Nothing.


----------



## severnmiles (24 July 2006)

"This post is about contradictions. One thing pros can't say is RS has ever contradicted himself on the "sport" arguement."

You are right which is why I respect RS.  However whether or not he contradicts himself does not make his views anymore or less valid than they are.


----------



## Parkranger (24 July 2006)

My god, what have I started?


----------



## soggy (25 July 2006)

Darn right Severn!

Its all a crock.


----------



## soggy (25 July 2006)

And again.


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

Dont worry, threads often digress a bit.....


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"Your not a Wesleyian by any chance?"

No, I have leanings towards Buddhism more than anything else.


----------



## soggy (25 July 2006)

Don't lean to far, you might topple over.

I had a suspicion that you agruement was based upon some quasi, psuedo, religious  view.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (25 July 2006)

I'm sorry SoD but meeting hounds does not make your view on hunting valid, what can that teach you about morals/whether hunting with hounds is humane bla bla?  Nothing.
		
Click to expand...

It's not the MEETING of the hounds that was symbolic... it was the fact that I took him around 3 or 4 packs of hounds at a show, where the huntsmen were more than happy to discuss hunting in the ring.  Not only did RS meet the hounds, but he listened to the huntsman and me warbling on about it, with no escape, as the hunts rather outnumbered him 

Most antis would have refused to attend such an event on principle - lest of all sat and listened to the huntsman without shouting abuse!


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"I had a suspicion that you agruement was based upon some quasi, psuedo, religious view. "

I bet you're happy to know that it wasnt.  After all, the Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish faiths all oppose killing for sport.


----------



## severnmiles (25 July 2006)

Which is why I respect RS.  The fact he did that still doesn't give him any hard knowledge of hunting though.  Therefore (sorry RS) I still find his opinions unvalid.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (25 July 2006)

RS - all religeons oppose killing for sport.... they all preach love for all of the creatures on earth...

However, we're now back to whether or not hunting with hounds is a sport, or a service...


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

Which I hope does go to indicate to the likes of SBB, Tom-F, Carreg and 7Miles that I am prepared to listen and learn.

I admit that I've not learned anything than so far has made me change my basic point of view.

But theyses people have all said that I'm too ignorant to have a point of view anyway.

But then none of them have risen to the challenge of teaching me anything (apart from, in a couple of cases, how to be sarcastic).

So maybe I should repeat the challenge; I ask them to tell me what they think I ought to know in order to have a well-informed opinion about hunting.  I'll listen.  You never know, I might change your mind.

But for them it's put up or shut up time.

Because if they dont do this - at the n'th time of asking - I'll assume that they cant. And anyone telling me that I'm uninformed in the future will be reminded that they failed to tell me and us (because a lot of people read this forum) just what they do know. And that means that everything else from them is just bluff and hot air.  Even an insulting reply is just hot air, and an evasion from the challenge.

The ball is in your court guys.

RS


----------



## CARREG (25 July 2006)

I think there are writings in the Koran that actually encourage hunting for food AND sport, I'll see if I can find the quotes used elswhere from the Koran..........Carreg


----------



## CARREG (25 July 2006)

RS
My problem isnt your point of view, its your actual reason for being an anti, I decide for myself what I think is immoral, and I wont have your morals thrust down my throat, Ive been hunting almost 30 years everywhere I hunt has a healthy stable population of wildlife, some of the surrounding areas are like wildlife deserts... do I enjoy hunting ??...yes...do I hunt only for enjoyment ??...no....I'll let my sister [vegan] have the last word...meat eating antis are no different to badger baiters, no better, no worse...........Carreg


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"My problem isnt your point of view, its your actual reason for being an anti, I decide for myself what I think is immoral, and I wont have your morals thrust down my throat"

Of course you decide for yourself what you think is immoral.  What I'm doing here is sharing my opinions with you, discussing them, and where necessary defending them.  That's what a debate site is for.  In my opinion, it's immoral to make sport out of killing animals, but you know that already.  If you feel this is ramming my morals down your throat, that's your problem; maybe you shouldnt visit this part of the forum if you dont like reading ideas that you dont agree with . If my morals stick in your throat, maybe you should ask yourself why.  If your sister wants to discuss veganism on the site, I'll be happy to read what she says.  I personally dont agree that being anti-hunting should imply that one should be vegan or vegetarian.

RS


----------



## severnmiles (25 July 2006)

But do you think that hunting which is to us pro's morally right should be banned because YOU think its immoral, disregarding the fact of whether it is more humane that other morally right(in your view) methods?  Does the fox care about morals?  No.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

"After all, the Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish faiths all oppose killing for sport."

You sure about that ??

You need to tell the muslims of the Arabian peninsula that !

But of course, my eyes may have deceived me!


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

"But theyses people have all said that I'm too ignorant to have a point of view anyway."

No, I think you are welcome to have your point of view.

"But then none of them have risen to the challenge of teaching me anything (apart from, in a couple of cases, how to be sarcastic)."

I will teach you, what do you want to know? 

"So maybe I should repeat the challenge; I ask them to tell me what they think I ought to know in order to have a well-informed opinion about hunting. I'll listen. You never know, I might change your mind."

I don't think you OUGHT to know anything. I believe you only want to have things your way, which obviously you can't.

You want me to snare foxes. You think that is moral. I think it is moral to chase them and kill them.

There is probably many mays are morals are completely opposite. We will probably never agree.

You have conviction which is admirable.

Muslims don;t hunt for sport you say with conviction.

You mean some muslims. Which part of the muslim world do you get you experience and conviction from?

I can teach you where muslims DO hunt for sport. I can give you exact locations.

Here beggineth the first lesson...


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

Do carry on....


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"But do you think that hunting which is to us pro's morally right should be banned because YOU think its immoral,"
Yes.

"disregarding the fact of whether it is more humane that other morally right(in your view) methods? "

I'm happy to find another method that is both moral and humane.

"Does the fox care about morals? No. "
As you say, no.  But humans do.

RS


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"Muslims don;t hunt for sport you say with conviction"

I base my comments on references such as these....

http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/FAQ/Cultural/FAQ_Cultural.html

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/109_what_does_judaism_sa.htm

http://www.amidatrust.com/article_animals.html

but you are welcome to google 'muslim sport hunting' and 'judaism sport hunting'.  I think there's no doubt that the teaching of these religions is agains blood sports.  Of course, not all members of these faiths follow all the teachings.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

I am not interested in Google.

But I am interested in real life.

What I have seen and experienced.

"I think there's no doubt that the teaching of these religions is agains blood sports. Of course, not all members of these faiths follow all the teachings. "

So what you said was absolutely meaningless, wasn't it?

http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/history/history_falconry.asp

Imagine. The ruler of Dubai, a pious Muslim, laughing in the face of his religion !

A spot of travel for you my friend.

Or have you "done" the Arab world ?


----------



## severnmiles (25 July 2006)

""But do you think that hunting which is to us pro's morally right should be banned because YOU think its immoral,"
Yes."

I find that comment rather selfish.  Will you alter your lifestyle to match what I believe is morally right or wrong?  If I believe flying should be banned due to the release of fuel and the damage it is doing to the earth, also many birds are killed by planes, will you stop?


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"Will you alter your lifestyle to match what I believe is morally right or wrong? If I believe flying should be banned due to the release of fuel and the damage it is doing to the earth, also many birds are killed by planes, will you stop? "

Yes, if a) you convince me that I should do so, and/or b) it becomes illegal.

RS


----------



## flying_change (25 July 2006)

"What I have seen and experienced."

So, tell us about it.


----------



## Karla (25 July 2006)

It's obvious you have very little life experience. There's more to life than breeding pigs.


----------



## Fairynuff (25 July 2006)

karla, I may be wrong but I believe TF is a sheep farmer, or to put it in nice modern terms a "wool grower", or is he a mutton man? Dont think pigs are his main thing anyway. Mairi.


----------



## soggy (25 July 2006)

So I have been informed . They also allow ritual slaughter!


Hmmm something of a dichotomy there I think.

Apart from Buddist of course, but then they would agree to anything.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (25 July 2006)

There is nothing wrong with trying to influence someone's lifestyle if you find it abhorrent...

I happen to find intensive farming and the GBP's (great british public's) mindless quest for cheaper, more hormone filled, unhealthy, bland and tasteless meat abhorrent and would like to see the practise abandoned...

Does that make me a heathen with no opinion too?


----------



## soggy (25 July 2006)

"But do you think that hunting which is to us pro's morally right should be banned because YOU think its immoral,"
Yes.
		
Click to expand...

Theres the rub. We dont want to march to the sound of your drum Suggitt. Nothing you have said in the month of posting has convinced me that hunting for sport is immoral.

You seem totally fixated on one very small aspect of hunting. why is that? The death of the quarry is an incidental aspect of hunting. Its it quick 99.9% of the time and that 0.1% where it is not its only a matter of minutes.




			I'm happy to find another method that is both moral and humane.
		
Click to expand...

Well there you go then. Problem solved. How long do you think it will take you to find one? Can we expect a post with your finding in what say 12 months?

 [/quote]
"Does the fox care about morals? No. "
As you say, no.  But humans do. [/quote]

True, and my moral barometer says there is no immorality.

Sport+killing=Immorality

What a crock!

Have fun

SBB


----------



## Karla (25 July 2006)

Who's "Earnest Hemmingway"?


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

""What I have seen and experienced."

So, tell us about it."

I have been hunting with Muslims in the Hatta mountains, the Mussandam, and Bait Al Khor among others.

Obviously not practising muslims I guess.

Want to know about hunting for fun in different parts of the world ?

Narssarsuaq ? The eskimos love to hunt and trap.

Its a big wide world out there?

Any more tests on Muslim customs habibi?


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

"It's obvious you have very little life experience."

Is it? Quite probably. But I am happy. And particularly happy when out hunting. 

I presume you are happy with that too? 

"There's more to life than breeding pigs."

Quite possibly. Although I imagine it to be rather interesting. Each to their own.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

"karla, I may be wrong but I believe TF is a sheep farmer, or to put it in nice modern terms a "wool grower", or is he a mutton man? Dont think pigs are his main thing anyway. Mairi."

Correct, incorrect, incorrect, and correct.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

Its people like you who make this country what it is today !!


----------



## Karla (25 July 2006)

No one who's travelled widely could be as blinkered and petty-minded as you. You've probably been to a Center Parc - that's about it.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

You will have to elaborate.

In what way am I petty minded or blinkered ?

Mr Suggitt pontificated that muslims don't hunt for fun. I said I had joined them. I also provided a link to a common blood sport in the emirates. It is also common in Saudi, Oman, Aden, Afghanistan and Iraq. Probably elsewhere. 

Blinkered?

"You've probably been to a Center Parc - that's about it."

Probably. But actually not. Although I wouldn't mind. Are they in Holland?

Keep trying Karl.


----------



## Karla (25 July 2006)

My advice to you is to leave this forum for at least six months and travel. See that there are lots of things in the world outside pig farming (not that there's anything wrong with that career). When you return perhaps you'll view debates here in a less fanatical way. The sad alternative is that you'll end up like the ludicrous AlanE, or the resident McDonalds clowns Carreg and his/your "chum" Sogblahblah.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

My travelling days are over Karl.

I am here to stay.

Thanks for your relevant input Karl.

I take it you are not here for the hunting debate.

Never mind, we will carry on regardless. What ever is good for my muslim brothers is good enough for me.

It is the Ummah you see.


----------



## Karla (25 July 2006)

Ummah Thurman?

Well it's your bed, my lad, you lie in it. If you want to be manacled to that Soggy specimen it's up to you. I can think of more appealing bed-fellows though.


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

As I said...

Well done for you relevant input to the hunting debate.

Enjoy your cubbing.

Time for a new entity I think !!


----------



## severnmiles (25 July 2006)

But you have not convinced me to do so.  Hunting is not illegal.......round and round we go!


----------



## Doreys_Mum (25 July 2006)

Its people like you who make this country what it is today !!
		
Click to expand...

*checks self over*

Where exactly am I an overpayed under sexed chauvanistic male Labour MP then?


----------



## wurzel (25 July 2006)

"Where exactly am I an overpayed under sexed chauvanistic male Labour MP then?"

I don't know what you are.

But you want to interfere with other peoples lives so I guess you fit the bill.


----------



## severnmiles (25 July 2006)

Forgive me if I'm wrong TF but Karla I'm pretty sure he's served the crown.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (25 July 2006)

"Where exactly am I an overpayed under sexed chauvanistic male Labour MP then?"

I don't know what you are.

But you want to interfere with other peoples lives so I guess you fit the bill.
		
Click to expand...

Did they stop fitting glass stomachs on the NHS then?

Actually, I'm a rather liberal if non too quiet supporter of peace, love for all animals and humans, who wants to change the world one day, but for the better... to see an end to arrogance and hatred, an end to people not being able to see out of their own digestive system far enough to understand that other people have views and feelings...

My concern is that we are a culture now so driven by money and fashion that we've forgotton how everything we do COULD be compassionate, and COULD help make someone or somethings life a lot better...

My aim in life is not to interfer, not to ban things that don't need banning, but to help people to see that their actions DO effect others, that they are NOT just useless ants on the face of the earth, and that the little things they do CAN help...

Not very labourish at all!

Plus, I'm female... and tory born and bred...


----------



## wurzel (26 July 2006)

"Actually, I'm a rather liberal if non too quiet supporter of peace, love for all animals and humans,"

"Plus, I'm female... and tory born and bred..."

"to see an end to arrogance and hatred, an end to people not being able to see out of their own digestive system far enough to understand that other people have views and feelings..."


Are you Condoleeza Rice ?

What has any of this crap got to do with a hunting debate?


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

And one hell of a bore!

You're  40 years to late you should have been a Hippie.

Peace , love , dope . Man!


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

Nope nope nope.  RS said 'After all, the Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish faiths all oppose killing for sport. '  If you cant see the difference between what I wrote and what you thought it meant.....


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

"They also allow ritual slaughter!"

I agree that this method of slaughter is outdated and seems barbaric, but....

a) the ritual slaughter is for human consumption, not sport.

b) it's designed to minimise suffering to the animal

c) such is the concern for the animal and gratitude for its life that prayers are said.


----------



## CARREG (26 July 2006)

Have you ever seen a sheep with its throat cut............Carreg


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

go and play somewhere else, you clown!


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

"Have you ever seen a sheep with its throat cut"

Nope, though I've seen quite a few carcasses on Dartmoor.   But read again what I said.  I agreed it was outmoded.  I also said there were particular reasons for it being done that way.


----------



## CARREG (26 July 2006)

Hiya....................................Carreg


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

"Want to know about hunting for fun in different parts of the world ?

Narssarsuaq ? The eskimos love to hunt and trap."

Well I've spent some time in Barrow in Alaska, which was quote an eye-opener.  Yes, Inuit do love to hunt.  But they hunt for subsistence, for food.  In fact, just about everything they have to keep themselves alive comes from sea or land animals.  This is because the land is so barren in those regions that there are no trees, no crops, nothing glowing in the tundra (apart from moss and lichen).  The hunters are a very important part of this society, because without hunting, there is starvation.

But the inuit does have a deep spiritual life, and a spiritual connection with the animals that he hunts.  I found this description.... "To avoid their hostility, souls of the important subsistence animals-- seals, walrus, whales, and polar bears--were propitiated through extensive honorary customs and taboos. For example, one of the most widespread customs was for the hunter's wife to offer a dead seal a drink of water as a sign of hospitality when her husband brought the carcass to the entryway of the house. In some areas, especially western Alaska, complex annual ceremonies of thanksgiving were performed in honor of the souls of seals and whales.

The central religious figure was the SHAMAN (angakok in some of the central Canadian languages). His functions were comprehensive: to divine the causes of poor hunting, which often was believed to be brought on by a group member breaking food or hunting taboos; to diagnose and treat sickness; and to serve as the general source of advice in coping with crisis. Most groups believed in a supreme ruler of the sea animals and in a vague deification of the forces of nature."

When did you last have a ceremony of thanksgiving for the life around you ?


----------



## CARREG (26 July 2006)

".....a) the ritual slaughter is for human consumption, not sport.

b) it's designed to minimise suffering to the animal

c) such is the concern for the animal and gratitude for its life that prayers are said...." 

So its O.K to kill animals in a cruel inhumane manner as long as its for food, I dont think praying over it makes it any less barbaric, how does slitting its throat and letting it bleed to death "minimise suffering"........Ive worked in a slaughterhouse and Ive seen animals with their throats cut lying on the floor bleeding to death it isnt a pretty sight, how any anti can eat meat and call a hunter cruel is beyond me................Carreg


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

Sigh.

Do you ever read what I write ?  All of it ?  Doesnt look like it.  Stop making things up and try responding to what I actually *do* say.


----------



## CARREG (26 July 2006)

perhaps you need to make it plainer for thick fcukers like me, you always use that excuse someones read it wrong or not paying attention, at the end of the day, you are making excuses for barbaric acts, I know they are barbaric because Ive stood there and watched it being done, tell you what I'll pray over a fox next time I kill 1.............Carreg


----------



## severnmiles (26 July 2006)

"perhaps you need to make it plainer for thick fcukers like me"

That made me laugh out loud!


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

Maybe I should make it plainer.  No, I'm not making excuses for barbaric acts.  Any barbaric act.  I'm commenting on the fact that the people who slaughter animals in this way do it for a particular reason.  This was the way it was designed 1500 years ago for inhabitants of hot arid regions.  Yes, the reason is outmoded.  Got it now ?


----------



## CARREG (26 July 2006)

No no no...what about this lot

BUT....You put a big BUT in there

".....a) the ritual slaughter is for human consumption, not sport.

b) it's designed to minimise suffering to the animal

c) such is the concern for the animal and gratitude for its life that prayers are said...."

please explain what praying has to do with it, and how does slitting its throat minimise suffering..........Carreg


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

"please explain what praying has to do with it, and how does slitting its throat minimise suffering.........."

Gladly (to the limit of my understanding)

1) praying to my mind reinforces the idea that it's not a sport, is being done in a carefully-planned manner, and is being done in a religious context (ie still not a sport).

2) As a matter of ritual, the killing knife must be perfect and free of nicks.  The person doing the slaughter must be trained to deliver "a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus" in *one* cut.  This has the effect as follows...
"A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.


The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.  Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.


The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen  a brain death, to put it in laymens terms  the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move."


----------



## flying_change (26 July 2006)

P.S. for 'BUT' read 'BUT there are some other aspects to this method of slaughter that I think should also be remembered'.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (26 July 2006)

"Actually, I'm a rather liberal if non too quiet supporter of peace, love for all animals and humans,"

"Plus, I'm female... and tory born and bred..."

"to see an end to arrogance and hatred, an end to people not being able to see out of their own digestive system far enough to understand that other people have views and feelings..."


Are you Condoleeza Rice ?

What has any of this crap got to do with a hunting debate?
		
Click to expand...


Because you reach a point where you realise no one is wrong in the hunting debate, everyone is right - because it is right to hold your own opinion, it is right to respect both that opinion and differing opinions, and WRONG to slag people off and belittle their opinions if they are different from you...


----------



## Doreys_Mum (26 July 2006)

And one hell of a bore!

You're  40 years to late you should have been a Hippie.

Peace , love , dope . Man!
		
Click to expand...

No, no dope for me...

"Oh I wish I was a punk rocker, with flowers in my hair..."

Oh, and on the bore? Takes one to know one...


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

Oh, and on the bore? Takes one to know one...
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. If you have met enough of them you begin to recognise the signs, and I have met quite a few in my time. Thats how I spotted you from a long way back in the boards history. 

Bleeding heart liberals are on a par with anti's in my book.  Worthless to man and beast.


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

Has anyone noticed that Soggyblah takes particular pleasure in attacking women (pro or anti) on this forum?


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

I show no favour to man, woman or beast.

But in your case I'll make an exception Sweetheart.


----------



## severnmiles (26 July 2006)

I don't think I've ever ruffled his feathers....yet!  Now I feel left out... 

*Off to search for Sogs weak spot*


----------



## Sidesaddle (26 July 2006)

I am feeling left out too.  He's never had a go at me either.

Wait for me SM, we can search for it together.


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

"*Off to search for Sogs weak spot*"

Try his brain.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (26 July 2006)

I'd suggest his groin, but that suggests a penis is present...

I'm flattered actually that Soggy holds me on a par with such prominent and kindhearted forum members such as Mairi!

Oh, and Karla is a man.


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

I'm not! I'm a laydee!


----------



## Doreys_Mum (26 July 2006)

Okay, Karla is just... SPECIAL...


----------



## severnmiles (26 July 2006)

Lol!  Thats the first time you've made me smile Karla! (sorry Sogs)

I seem to be lol'ing all over the hunting forum this afternoon, keep it up guys...


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

You failed to spot the irony in my post then .

Perhaps I'm just too subtle.


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

I'm not! I'm a laydee!
		
Click to expand...

Your are worm.


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

Yes, terriermen are famed for their sense of irony and subtlety. Just look at Rob Reynolds UK!


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

I'd suggest his groin, but that suggests a penis is present...
		
Click to expand...

Fear not there is one present.



			I'm flattered actually that Soggy holds me on a par with such prominent and kindhearted forum members such as Mairi!
		
Click to expand...

You're easily flattered.  Whats the prize if someone actually says something complimentary about you. I hate to guess in these morally liberal days.


----------



## Fairynuff (26 July 2006)

Your are worm. [/quote] ????


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

Another stunner! We should call you Ronald in honour of your employer!


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

Yes, terriermen are famed for their sense of irony and subtlety. Just look at Rob Reynolds UK!
		
Click to expand...

Hello Tony 

Where have you been hiding yourself?


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

I bet you say that to all the boys!


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

No. Just to you Tony.

So where have you been hiding?


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

Tony? You surely don't mean Tony Wright?

No, I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not blessed with the name Tony.


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

No, of course you aren't .LOLOL

Catch you later Tony.


----------



## CARREG (26 July 2006)

".....Okay, Karla is just... SPECIAL... "

Yeah......SPECIAL.... Special needs..............Carreg


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

Good evening Ms Harper

I hope that you are well.

I take it that you found my comments humourous? Thats good!

Have fun.

SBB


----------



## wurzel (26 July 2006)

But don't you think it strange that the ruler of Dubai hunts for fun?

Maybe Islam is losing its appeal there !!


----------



## wurzel (26 July 2006)

I am sure you are right about Barrow RS. I have never been.

But the Inuit in Greenland certainly don't NEED to hunt. Its all for fun.

They have a welfare state.

Thanks for the lesson about Alaska mind, looks like we are both learning.


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

You seem to get a kick out of trying to make some of the women in this forum feel uncomfortable. Your repeated use of Mairi's (apparent) surname is creepy and actually deliberately aggressive. You were catty and bitchy about the pictures of Mairi and Claire even though they're both attractive people (in every sense). You repeatedly run down SoD even though she's still at school and is a passionate and eloquent supporter of hunting. You're very strange.


----------



## soggy (26 July 2006)

Tony

You seem very concerned about about what I do and don't do. You're not infatuated with me are you?

I have taken the mickey out of Pasty once, and she took it rather personally. Some people have no sense of humour I guess.  I use her surname as she made a point a few weeks ago of pointing out that the she uses her real name so I have decided to use it in my posts.  I fail to see how that is creepy or aggressive. 

Who is Claire ?

Attractive people?? I have seen 1 out of focus of one and don't know they other, so I couldn't say. 

I have today had a slight leg pulling session with SoD. I had no idea that she was still at school. I here and now apologise to her if any of my posts caused offence to her personally, and can assure her that it will not happen again.

I think I will even send her a PM to that effect .

Unlike some(You) I don't make a point of looking at other posters Bio's or photo galleries. I don't have the inclination to be honest.

I see however that you details are rather sparse. I wonder why?

Perhaps you should pt your own house in order before trying to do so for others.

People in glass houses and so forth.

Good to see you back

SBB


----------



## Doreys_Mum (26 July 2006)

Aww, Soggy, Bless ya!

I'm 19, but only just left school as I stayed down a year (of my own free will, I'm a sadist really...  )

Thanks for the wishes of good luck with my exams


----------



## Karla (26 July 2006)

Crazy K, you're far too forgiving! Did you see that Hounds has shut down by the way? I suppose we'll always have our memories...


----------



## flying_change (27 July 2006)

The basic set of laws for the Christian and Jewish religions is the Ten Commandments, but we all know that they are broken every day.  The fact that they are broken doesnt stop them being part of the doctrine of that faith and also an ideal for behaviour.


----------



## flying_change (27 July 2006)

Learning is what life's all about.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (27 July 2006)

NOOO!!!!

Thats like... our birthplace! Where will we be without it?

Perhaps thats where the lack of wanting to post on forums comes from - that the forum that started it all has gone?!

NOOOOOOOOO.... my powers.... waning....... my typing... slowing.....


----------



## Karla (27 July 2006)

haha.

Poor old Janet. I'm not surprised she shut it with just that knob-end Harry posting.

I couldn't be bothered to make anything for lunch so literally ate an entire (large) bunch of grapes and can hardly move now. I may have to go and sleep it off.


----------



## Fairynuff (27 July 2006)

Unlike some(You) I don't make a point of looking at other posters Bio

SBB [/quote]
so where dig you dig up my surname from?


----------



## wurzel (27 July 2006)

So what you wrote initially about religion was pretty meaningless then?


----------



## flying_change (28 July 2006)

I'll repeat, "The fact that they are broken doesnt stop them being part of the doctrine of that faith and also an ideal for behaviour"


----------



## wurzel (28 July 2006)

So you accept that muslims hunt for sport and fun.

Just like me.

Maybe I will emigrate. 

They have less laws over there. They only bother with the enforceable ones !!


----------



## wallace (29 July 2006)

I don't know, but I expect he was very sincere.


----------



## wallace (29 July 2006)

"If you have met enough of them you begin to recognise the signs, and I have met quite a few in my time."

You don't say.....

I expect bores naturally and irresistibly gravitate towards you. They can't help themselves. The word goes out that you are thinking of throwing a party. There is brief but noticeable excitement amongst the slack-jawed, redneck community. The plaintive individual notes from an out of tune banjo are momentarily heard above the yawning of the cattle. Slightly more spittle than usual finds it's way into the chest hair of the expectant trailer folk. Some of the men are get excited too. 
"Hear that, Cleetus? Bottom Boys is throwing a partay! Go tell Faggy and the four of us'll make two months in Ayia Napa feel like Morrissey's Stag Night!" 

"Bleeding heart liberals are on a par with anti's in my book."

On a par with "anti's"??? Anti's what? Religious beliefs? Choice of hats? Inability to use or understand basic punctuation? 

Which is it to be?

You are an ignoramus of gargantuan proportions.

And a liar.


----------



## soggy (29 July 2006)

Wee Jock

I do say!

The bores I refer to would be definitely include you.  You would certainly be near the head of the queue for the awards of at the end of the evening. Yawn yawn...... 

It would appear that you like parties. it was interesting to read about you clan gatherings. If you would like an invite to our next hunt ball all you have to do is ask. The girls are always up for a bit of anti baiting with the terriers by the end of the evening.

We've had spelling and grammar, now we have punctuation. LOLOL Its likes being back in high school english lessons. sir sir!! Wee Jocks stuffed his pencil up his nose again and made it bleed...

It that the best you can manage? Hardly worth bothering with.Its all rather cliched

Sticks and stone etc etc.

A deeply wounded SBB . ROTFLMAO


----------



## wallace (30 July 2006)

I like you calling me Wee Jock because I'm not actually really Scottish and I'm not wee!

It's just another in the long line of things you get wrong!

If I'm so boring why read all of my posts, then pretend that you don't?

"it was interesting to read about you clan gatherings."

Was it? Where did you read that? Are you actually ever going to answer one of these questions about things you've made up out of nowhere?

"We've had spelling and grammar, now we have punctuation. LOLOL Its likes being back in high school english lessons. sir sir!! Wee Jocks stuffed his pencil up his nose again and made it bleed..."

You were the one who started on someone elses spelling. If you can't take it - don't dish out. I really couldn't care less about grammar and spelling etc but when I see an unpleasant little tick like yourself having a go at other people - then demonstrating that you are wanting in that area yourself - I feel your hypocrisy needs pointing out.
So you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite and a liar.

And if you are going to use a quote in your signature, it might be nice to spell the name of the person you are quoting correctly. I see you have changed "Earnest" to "Ernest", so clearly you have taken on board the comment made elsewhere.
All you need to do now is take out the superfluous "m" in "Hemmingway" and you will finally have a complete signature.

"It that the best you can manage?"

Well, no........
And I've answered it before.

You've asked that question dozens of times to various people. Think of a new line.


----------



## wallace (30 July 2006)

Tony is one of the names AlanE has used before, but I can assure you that Karla is in no way associated with the name "Tony".

Just add it to the list.....


----------



## soggy (30 July 2006)

Wee Jock

&gt;I'm not actually really Scottish and I'm not wee!&lt;
Of course you're not. You're just Wee in mind, and wee in body.
LMAO

Of course I don't read all of your posts! They're so predictable there's no need to. A quick flick thru and away we go .

You are on a roll aren't you.

I suppose I could reply in depth to your latest splutterings and mutterings, But I really can't be bothered, I'm have fun just feeding you the odd line or two.

But  please continue with your vitriolic pomposity. Ithelps fill the time before cub hunting gets underway.

As I said earlier sticks and stones. Is that the best you can do?

Thanks for the heads up on the Hemmingway. Its taken you long enough to spot. LOL I shall chage it straight away just for you.

Have fun. I know I am.

Care for another one sucker?

SBB


----------



## soggy (30 July 2006)

You would know all about who "Tony" is of course.

Now who's the liar?

" am I bothered "

SBB


----------

