Exciting and essential Tory legislative proposals

[deuse]

Torture is systematicly causing pain whilst keeping alive. Hunting is killing. And they are not torn apart. Apart from in a very tiny portion of times and even then they die in seconds.

Those last few seconds of life that the fox is fighting for is Torture
ask any person that survived the death camps.

Hurting or killing a human is infinitely worse than hurting or killing an animal the two are not comparable. Anyone wanting to cause harm to another human needs counselling.

Now think that from a animals point of view. See.
And the some indigenous people of the Congo still kill and eat humans
they think it's ok. So are you right or them?

 

[RDM]

I have never killed a harmless animal and I Can't see it being fun.

I don't see how anyone can get pleasure out of killing something that can't fight back fair and square.

The point is though that the fox is going to die anyway and that most other methods are just as, if not more painful than, hunting. So your objection seems to be that people are killing for pleasure? Putting aside that the main pleasure from the hunt is the riding rather than the death of the fox.

So the scale goes from "Not wanting any animal to die at all for pleasure" all the way up to "Don't really care, they are only animals" and most people fall somewhere along that line. It is a somewhat subjective line though.

 

[V-Spec]

If you eat meat you are getting pleasure from causing pain and suffering to animals.

I'm struggling to comprehend how crass that statement really is.

Fillet steak - each time I take a bite I think "Yeah, I hope the cow this steak came from, really screamed out loud in pain when it got slaughtered" then proceed to gain an erection.

Christ's sake...

Its not unreasonable to have meat/fish/chicken to maintain a healthy diet, look at any good diet sheet, meat/fish/etc will be up there.
Eating meat does not mean you support barbaric bloodsports.

 

[deuse]

Not surprisingly most people find it very enjoyable and exciting. It is part of us. Even game hunters with rifles enjoy it. People who hunt for food they enjoy the thrill and the technique of the hunt as well. Most tribes that have been westernised still keep hunting.

Or as most people would say YOUR SICK..when are you going to take the next step up in killing.

As you don't value life as a whole who is next on the menu?

 

[Glaucus]

Now think that from a animals point of view. See.
?

See what? they are animals and aren't at the top of the food tree.

It is not torture. Unless you consider all killing as torture, as there's very few techniques that kill instantly.

Their is a massive difference between torture and killing.
How are concentration camps the same? starving horrible conditions, forced to do many things. Oh yes that's right you use it for the emotional impact, sod all to do with a genuine point.

 

[deuse]

The point is though that the fox is going to die anyway

Could not a serial killer say the same when he kills as well?

 

[Russinating]

I'm with AH2, but this is getting waaayy off the line.

Hunting is natural and sometimes necessary. Some people like it, some people don't. Whichever side of the trench you're on it's just something that happens and has to be accepted.

 

[Glaucus]

Or as most people would say YOUR SICK..when are you going to take the next step up in killing.

As you don't value life as a whole who is next on the menu?

Ha-Ha love it. Emotional wish washy rubbish. Who's next on the killing? Certainly not humans. I'm strongly against even the death penalty.

Most people would not call it sick. Most of the ones who do are hypocritical or have never done it and taught from a young age it is wrong.

Could not a serial killer say the same when he kills as well?

They could but they would be wrong, because their is a massive difference between human and the rest of the animal kingdom, not many people try to deny this.

 

[Naffa]

Hunting with hounds is a disgraceful practice and I will be absolutely disgusted if the law against it is destroyed.

The thing that's so horrid about it is the fact the people that partake in it actually think that their claims that it's a effective means of culling the fox population are believable. They blatantly take part in it because it's good sport and they enjoy it, unfortunately this practice that was acceptable a hundred years ago is no longer acceptable today. An absolutely disgusting practice, and the people that support it are in the minority.

 

[Glaucus]

think that their claims that it's a effective means of culling the fox population are believable.

Evidence that it isn't please...

 

[Russinating]

The thing that's so horrid about it is the fact the people that partake in it actually think that their claims that it's a effective means of culling the fox population are believable. They blatantly take part in it because it's good sport and they enjoy it

Shock newsflash: Something can be enjoyable and effective at the same time.

 

[V-Spec]

Evidence that it isn't please...

Its beside the point though isn't it?

Effective or not its a terrible and inhumane thing to do to a wild animal, regardless of whether there are other legal methods which are as bad.

 

[Naffa]

Evidence that it isn't please...

Ok, well speaking as someone that lives on a farm and has had livestock killed by foxes and as someone that seeks to cull the population, here is some evidence.

An average hunt will last a whole day, from very early in the morning until late afternoon. Thirty or so people on horseback along with approximately twenty or so hounds. Now this huge group of people will be out riding all day and may turn up with two or three foxes at best, hardly a productive days culling, wouldn't you say?

Now lets take the alternative, a marksman could do a similar job. Baiting the foxes and shooting them during daylight hours, or far more effective, they could work through the night. We have a friend that goes out with a spotlight, a quad bike and a gun (shotgun I assume, but am not certain) and can quite easily get twenty foxes in one night.

Can you please tell me the logic and give me the evidence that it IS an effective means?

Shock newsflash: Something can be enjoyable and effective at the same time.

Shock newsflash: I agree, but that statement isn't applicable.

 

[Russinating]

Ok, well speaking as someone that lives on a farm and has had livestock killed by foxes and as someone that seeks to cull the population, here is some evidence.

An average hunt will last a whole day, from very early in the morning until late afternoon. Thirty or so people on horseback along with approximately twenty or so hounds. Now this huge group of people will be out riding all day and may turn up with two or three foxes at best, hardly a productive days culling, wouldn't you say?

Now lets take the alternative, a marksman could do a similar job. Baiting the foxes and shooting them during daylight hours, or far more effective, he could work through the night. We have a friend that goes out with a spotlight, a quad bike and a gun (shotgun I assume, but am not certain) and can quite easily get twenty foxes in one night.

Can you please tell me the logic and give me the evidence that it IS an effective means?

You're using "effective" in the wrong way. We're talking about it being an effective method of killing, ie. how quickly the kill is made. It has nothing to do with how long or how many people (who want to do it) it takes.

A marksman may kill 20 foxes by shooting them in the stomach - this isn't an effective method of killing, but by your calculations it is.

 

[Naffa]

You're using "effective" in the wrong way. We're talking about it being an effective method of killing, ie. how quickly the kill is made. It has nothing to do with how long or how many people (who want to do it) it takes.

A marksman may kill 20 foxes by shooting them in the stomach - this isn't an effective method of killing, but by your calculations it is.

Forgive my rudeness, but I'm going to assume that you're not as experienced in this area as I am. A marksman doesn't graze, they kill. A single shot, instant death. Even if the marksman were not to kill the fox with a single shot, the fox will not be able to get very far, and within ten or so seconds, will be dead.

Can you please explain to me how on earth you think that is more cruel than your disgusting, barbaric alternative? I'm dying to hear.

 

[V-Spec]

You're using "effective" in the wrong way. We're talking about it being an effective method of killing, ie. how quickly the kill is made. It has nothing to do with how long or how many people (who want to do it) it's taking.

Trouble is, that goes back to the original point I made earlier regarding my friend with his rimfire, who killed several hundred in a season between himself and a few others. You can't question, that its a far more effective method of culling the foxes than a traditional hunt with dogs. I'd also bet a months salary that the kill is far quicker in most cases, than it would be having to be chased down by dogs and then killed once worn out.

 

[Glaucus]

Ok, well speaking as someone that lives on a farm and has had livestock killed by foxes and as someone that seeks to cull the population, here is some evidence.

An average hunt will last a whole day, from very early in the morning until late afternoon. Thirty or so people on horseback along with approximately twenty or so hounds. Now this huge group of people will be out riding all day and may turn up with two or three foxes at best, hardly a productive days culling, wouldn't you say?

Now lets take the alternative, a marksman could do a similar job. Baiting the foxes and shooting them during daylight hours, or far more effective, they could work through the night. We have a friend that goes out with a spotlight, a quad bike and a gun (shotgun I assume, but am not certain) and can quite easily get twenty foxes in one night.

Total number is the wrong way to look at it. We are looking at controlling the number. That is not about total number killed. That is about keeping a population at a healthy but controlled size. Just because a rifleman can get 20 in one day, does not make hunting ineffective at controlling there number.

 

[deuse]

See what? they are animals and aren't at the top of the food tree.

No you think your top of the food chain, go to the congo and say that you would be dinner.

It is not torture. Unless you consider all killing as torture, as there's very few techniques that kill instantly.

Just because we cannot measure how much pain any living thing would feel at the point of death does not mean they don't
" kill instantly" is words made up to make people fell better with themselves

Their is a massive difference between torture and killing.

The torture is the animal does not know where to escape to and runs for its life.

 

[Naffa]

Total number is the wrong way to look at it. We are looking at controlling the number. That is not about total number killed. That is about keeping a population at a healthy but controlled size. Just because a rifleman can get 20 in one day, does not make hunting ineffective at controlling there number.

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it does. If the aim is to destroy foxes, then that's exactly what it is. What would you say is more efficient, one night, one man? Or ten days with potentially three hundred different people?

 

[Russinating]

Forgive my rudeness, but I'm going to assume that you're not as experienced in this area as I am. A marksman doesn't graze, they kill. A single shot, instant death. Even if the marksman were not to kill the fox with a single shot, the fox will not be able to get very far, and within ten or so seconds, will be dead.

Can you please explain to me how on earth you think that is more cruel than your disgusting, barbaric alternative? I'm dying to hear.

You've missed the point. I wasn't saying that your marksman is a bad shooter (I'm sure he's very good indeed), I was pointing out that effectiveness with regards to this topic has nothing to do with the amount of people or time involved.

And since when did I say it was more cruel?