Woman saves fox from hounds

[Craterloads]

He doesn't want foxes shot. More foxes = less chickens. Less chickens = more expensive.

Fox hunting and fox control are two different things. One can understand a farmer shooting fox's to protect his life stock. There’s no excuse for hunting them on horses, with dogs just for pleasure.

And was more in reference to the many replies in this thread making such comparisons, not just aimed at you.

 

[Craterloads]

slaughtering chickens is just as bad IMO

If you got onto a horse dressed like a tard, rounded up about 6 dogs and chased chickens in the woods and had your dogs rip them apart, for the sole purpose of having a laugh from the brutal death of an animal..... then yep it would be just as bad.

 

[koolpc]

Release a thousand chickens free and then get a hunt to go after them and have the dogs rip them to shreds!! Its a new sport!!!!! Castiel has another one he can support!!

 

[413x]

If you got onto a horse dressed like a tard, rounded up about 6 dogs and chased chickens in the woods and had your dogs rip them apart, for the sole purpose of having a laugh from the brutal death of an animal..... then yep it would be just as bad.

im not saying i support hunting with horses and i agree it its a weird sport that is completely unnecessary and cruel

im more thinking about the actual trauma the animal goes through, which i think are equal, although one can never know

i dont think about the human perspective (comparing killing for sport to killing for food, the animal doesnt care about that) just what the animal feels

 

[Skunkworks]

In my experience if someone hasn't acknowledged the validity of Castiel's point, then they simply haven't understood it. (moral objections aside). Points already addressed haven't even been read it seems.

Some of the face saving backtracking so far has been gibberish.

In my experience, Castiel and other hunting proponents are doing what they always do, which is trying to dress the issue up to be anything but the truth, which is that they want to chase and savagely kill an animal for entertainment. The day even one of them has the balls to admit that that’s the only reason they defend it is the day I might have a modicum of respect for them.

 

[Craterloads]

im not saying i support hunting with horses and i agree it its a weird sport that is completely unnecessary and cruel

im more thinking about the actual trauma the animal goes through, which i think are equal, although one can never know

i dont think about the human perspective (comparing killing for sport to killing for food, the animal doesnt care about that) just what the animal feels

Animals in the UK are stunned before slaughter, getting chased, running for your life, and ultimately being slowly ripped apart by dogs are two completely different experiences in my opinion.

The human perspective is also important, as we are the ones perpetrating both acts, and our moral justifications must be taken into consideration.

 

[elmarko]

im not saying i support hunting with horses and i agree it its a weird sport that is completely unnecessary and cruel

im more thinking about the actual trauma the animal goes through, which i think are equal, although one can never know

i dont think about the human perspective (comparing killing for sport to killing for food, the animal doesnt care about that) just what the animal feels

I agree, but these are arguments to decrease suffering in the food industry - not in support of fox hunting.

Everybody is a hypocrite to a degree, the real question are we (as a species) at least attempting to reduce suffering at some level in some ways - as some progress is better than none.

As I said before, eventually (a very long time) I bet as a species hardly anybody will be eating meat - but to get to that stage we would need to empathise with the other species to at least the level required to find hunting for amusement abhorrent.

In my experience, Castiel and other hunting proponents are doing what they always do, which is trying to dress the issue up to be anything but the truth, which is that they want to chase and savagely kill an animal for entertainment. The day even one of them has the balls to admit that that’s the only reason they defend it is the day I might have a modicum of respect for them.

To be fair to Castiel he has not come out in support of hunting with dogs once in this thread (unless I missed a post) - (shooting for pest control is very different, as the purpose of an action does weigh on it's moral worthiness) - similar to the whole virtue ethics vs consequentialism debate.

While I expected more than indifference on the method of killing, it's inaccurate to paint him as a proponent of hunting (for fun) from what I've read in this thread.

 

[wilber]

In my experience, Castiel and other hunting proponents are doing what they always do, which is trying to dress the issue up to be anything but the truth, which is that they want to chase and savagely kill an animal for entertainment. The day even one of them has the balls to admit that that’s the only reason they defend it is the day I might have a modicum of respect for them.

Such utter crap, as that's what you believe and want to hear. Please bore off now

 

[Craterloads]

Such utter crap, as that's what you believe and want to hear. Please bore off now

Truth hurts?

 

[413x]

Animals in the UK are stunned before slaughter, getting chased, running for your life, and ultimately being slowly ripped apart by dogs are two completely different experiences in my opinion.

The human perspective is also important, as we are the ones perpetrating both acts, and our moral justifications must be taken into consideration.

You would hope so, i know a someone who works in one of those areas. Not nice at all :/

I agree, but these are arguments to decrease suffering in the food industry - not in support of fox hunting.

Everybody is a hypocrite to a degree, the real question are we (as a species) at least attempting to reduce suffering at some level in some ways - as some progress is better than none.

As I said before, eventually (a very long time) I bet as a species hardly anybody will be eating meat - but to get to that stage we would need to empathise with the other species to at least the level required to find hunting for amusement abhorrent.

I agree with you completely. and if i didnt eat meat or use medicines tested on animals i could be completely against it. its just hard (in my head) to say its terrible and everyone who does it is scum etc etc knowing that i am not really any better. The fact its a sport is the only thing where i can say it is worse than eating meat.

i do eat meat but would be just as happy to have a substitute that is grown in a dish. this disgusts a lot of people but it is probably and hopefully the future.

 

[wilber]

Truth hurts?

Not at all, its just the same regurgitated crap being spouted over and over again. Actually read all the posts in the thread, go and read the Burn's inquiry...

 

[bitslice]

I'm struggling to see the comparisons being made with battery farming (which is not pleasant) for consumption and having dogs rip apart another animal for a laugh?

It's the counter argument to "cruelty" being used here.

Both animals die
Both animals suffer to some degree from being killed, it could be argued that chickens living conditions contribute to this suffering.

Therefore to use it as an argument is disingenuous.

The only true issue people raise boils down to class war and a dislike of a human enjoying the act of slaughter.

Which itself is false because we approve of the same slaughter during wartime, in fact we glorify it.

Humans at a primal level enjoy killing, we abstain for the sake of social norms, fox hunting may be a social aberration but it isn't inhuman.

 

[elmarko]

I agree with you completely. and if i didnt eat meat or use medicines tested on animals i could be completely against it. its just hard (in my head) to say its terrible and everyone who does it is scum etc etc knowing that i am not really any better. The fact its a sport is the only thing where i can say it is worse than eating meat.

i do eat meat but would be just as happy to have a substitute that is grown in a dish. this disgusts a lot of people but it is probably and hopefully the future.

I don't try to worry too much about it.

It's not an all or nothing moral ground to stand on, at least being in support of changes which reduce total suffering will result in a net gain.

I've spent time as a vegan & time as a vegetarian - at other times I've eaten meat, I've learned to pick my battles & simply ensure support for any positive changes which results in less human/animal suffering.

I'd also gladly switch to artificially grown meat, as I'm sure will also be cheaper & more ethical in the long-run - I predict the same will happen as it has with fur (slow social revulsion to the idea & increase in popularity of artificial substitutes) - in theory as soon as meat is able to be grown then most of the current products we use animals for could also be replaced.

Which itself is false because we approve of the same slaughter during wartime, in fact we glorify it.

We?, speak for yourself .

I jest, but I know what you mean (on average) - but it's pretty obvious that this isn't the case for everybody & neither has it been historically.

Both animals die
Both animals suffer to some degree from being killed, it could be argued that chickens living conditions contribute to this suffering.

Therefore to use it as an argument is disingenuous.

An interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

 

[Craterloads]

You would hope so, i know a someone who works in one of those areas. Not nice at all :/

Using one bad, doesn’t justify a greater evil. As mentioned above improvements have been made and are being made. You can’t do that with killing for a laugh.

I agree with you completely. and if i didnt eat meat or use medicines tested on animals i could be completely against it. its just hard (in my head) to say its terrible and everyone who does it is scum etc etc knowing that i am not really any better. The fact its a sport is the only thing where i can say it is worse than eating meat.

You sound like an apologist, someone in the family kill for sport? You dont have to be a vegetarian to find blood sport sickening....

 

[413x]

Using one bad, doesn’t justify a greater evil. As mentioned above improvements have been made and are being made. You can’t do that with killing for a laugh.



You sound like an apologist, someone in the family kill for sport? You dont have to be a vegetarian to find blood sport sickening....

not for sport purely, but for meat (ie shooting a pheasant), or to protect stock, (ie a fox if its been seen near some chickens or partridges)

both of which i dont have a problem with if done right

 

[opethdisciple]

I just saw this, she's much braver than myself and probably most people!

Incredible she got away with it and fair play to her.

It does look fairly barbaric.

One question I have, is in the wild, would these dogs, hunt Foxes or not.

If the answer is no, then this is not right.

 

[Craterloads]

not for sport purely, but for meat (ie shooting a pheasant), or to protect stock, (ie a fox if its been seen near some chickens or partridges)

both of which i dont have a problem with if done right

I agree, simply.

 

[estebanrey]

One question I have, is in the wild, would these dogs, hunt Foxes or not.

That's really a question that can't be answered as those dogs would never be found 'in the wild'. The domestic dog has been bred solely by man for millenia, deliberately breeding ones that hunt and training them what to hunt.

In short, man's contribution to that dog's evolution mean it's impossible to tell what another pack that evolved seperately without the interference of man would hunt, or have even survived.

 

[bitslice]

Virtue_ethics
Consequentialism

Yep, but how else to separate what people actually think from a bunch of emotive issues.
Why do we kill but then pretend we didn't like it when other people notice.

It's like a soldier killing the guy who just shot his mate, regardless of why he was in that situation, he still reacted as a primal human and wanted to kill.
Then he gets dumped back into normal society where such reactions are frowned on, no wonder he gets confused.

Fox hunting is odd because it is institutionalised killing within a society, not outside it (as in war), yet it is the same act and we still react in the same way.

I'm not saying we are all one step away from Lord of the Flies, but it's important to be honest about our true nature.

 

[elmarko]

Yep, but how else to separate what people actually think from a bunch of emotive issues.
Why do we kill but then pretend we didn't like it when other people notice.

It's like a soldier killing the guy who just shot his mate, regardless of why he was in that situation, he still reacted as a primal human and wanted to kill.
Then he gets dumped back into normal society where such reactions are frowned on, no wonder he gets confused.

Fox hunting is odd because it is institutionalised killing within a society, not outside it (as in war), yet it is the same act and we still react in the same way.

I'm not saying we are all one step away from Lord of the Flies, but it's important to be honest about our true nature.

I don't believe we have a "true nature".

From an evolutionary perspective we don't have any innate desire to be good or bad, just act in such a way that increases our chances of reproduction & survival.

People often make the mistake of assuming characteristics that people currently posses are innate traits of people - when in reality these traits may only exists because we live in a society which rewards & propagates them.