Exciting and essential Tory legislative proposals

Naffa · 20 Oct 2009 at 11:05

Dolph said:
what about killing for pest control?

That's not the reason it's done!!1 Do you honestly believe that that is the motivation behind the hunt? :confused:

Living in the area that I do, I know several masters of the hunt and all would privately admit that it's done for sport and for fun, despite their ridiculous claims that it's done as a method of culling. As stated before, if they did want to keep the fox population under control, they would employ a more effective and efficient means of doing so.

V-Spec · 20 Oct 2009 at 11:16

Dolph said:
you clearly haven't read the burns report at all. you may have read an opinion piece adding its own slant to the work. I linked to it earlier, please read it rather than simply giving anecdotes as a counter to data.

I have read it and quoted parts from it, earlier.

And aside from whatever the report says, you cannot justify performing such an act for the purposes of tradition, fun and entertainment, where it directly causes the painful and inhumane death of a wild animal.

Dolph · 20 Oct 2009 at 11:23

naffa said:
That's not the reason it's done!!1 Do you honestly believe that that is the motivation behind the hunt? Living in the area that I do, I know several masters of the hunt and all would privately admit that it's done for sport and for fun, despite their ridiculous claims that it's done as a method of culling. As stated before, if they did want to keep the fox population under control, they would employ a more effective and efficient means of doing so.

while the motivation is often fun, the pest control effect is confirmed in the burns report. hence it is very relevant especially given the welfare concerns stated in the report about all pest control methods... you really need to look at the facts andd data rather than passing off you personal opinion and anecdotes as being constructive and factual contributions to lawmaaking

Naffa · 20 Oct 2009 at 11:54

Dolph said:
while the motivation is often fun, the pest control effect is confirmed in the burns report. hence it is very relevant especially given the welfare concerns stated in the report about all pest control methods... you really need to look at the facts andd data rather than passing off you personal opinion and anecdotes as being constructive and factual contributions to lawmaaking

The 'pest control effect' offered by hunting with hounds is irrelevant. If pest control is the issue at hand, like I said before, get a marksman onto your land, with a spot light and a gun and get him to work through the night. Twenty foxes in one night, easy as pie. How on earth can you think that that is my own personal opinion? One person working through one night catching twenty foxes is more effective than thirty people and twenty hounds going for ten hours and maybe catching two.

Also, you're forgetting that the law is against hunting with hounds. Do you feel that the wild stag is a pest that needs to be kept under control? :confused:

Yamahahahahaha · 20 Oct 2009 at 12:01

People watch X-Factor for fun.

I would say this is a hundred million times more excurciatingly painful than being pulled apart by hounds. Infact it sounds positively delightful when compared to having to listen to useless warblers get cheered on by equally ignorant crowds.

Foxes have it easy, pity the British public and saturday night television.

deuse · 20 Oct 2009 at 12:18

Dolph said:
The Burns report.

Do you mean the one that is 9 years out of date?

Glaucus · 20 Oct 2009 at 13:42

naffa said:
The 'pest control effect' offered by hunting with hounds is irrelevant. If pest control is the issue at hand, like I said before, get a marksman onto your land, with a spot light and a gun and get him to work through the night. Twenty foxes in one night, easy as pie. How on earth can you think that that is my own personal opinion? One person working through one night catching twenty foxes is more effective than thirty people and twenty hounds going for ten hours and maybe catching two.

No it is not more effective, it is more efficient. Two very different things. The point is opinion and emotion should never be basis for law. That is all you have. The report states that it is no worse than many other legal methods, number of foxes being killed wont go down. So we can come to the conclusion, that the law is based on opinion and emotion. Laws should ONLY be based on fact and never ever ever anything else.

Naffa · 20 Oct 2009 at 14:09

AcidHell2 said:
No it is not more effective, it is more efficient. Two very different things. The point is opinion and emotion should never be basis for law. That is all you have. The report states that it is no worse than many other legal methods, number of foxes being killed wont go down. So we can come to the conclusion, that the law is based on opinion and emotion. Laws should ONLY be based on fact and never ever ever anything else.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Times go on, and things become morally unacceptable as time goes on and this is one of them. Being racist was an acceptable practice in the early-mid 1900s, and it's no longer the case now. The change in culture wasn't spawned from 'proven fact' or anything, it was spawned from human emotion and the updating of an out of date definition of what's morally acceptable.

Glaucus · 20 Oct 2009 at 14:12

naffa said:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Times go on, and things become morally unacceptable as time goes on and this is one of them. Being racist was an acceptable practice in the early-mid 1900s, and it's no longer the case now. The change in culture wasn't spawned from 'proven fact' or anything, it was spawned from human emotion and the updating of an out of date definition of what's morally acceptable.

Based on the fact we are all human. It is still based on fact. This is not the same at all and has no fact behind it.You are silly if you think emotions should have anything to do with law. Otherwise if the majority of public agree, you can get any laws.

Emotions aren't even involved in the punishment and for a good reason. it should have no bearing on law at all.

^TANK^ · 20 Oct 2009 at 15:16

AcidHell2 said:
Based on the fact we are all human. It is still based on fact. This is not the same at all and has no fact behind it.You are silly if you think emotions should have anything to do with law. Otherwise if the majority of public agree, you can get any laws.

Emotions aren't even involved in the punishment and for a good reason. it should have no bearing on law at all.

No emotions :confused:

, I always put fox hunting down to repressed bestiality urges.