Foxes

phykell said:
Specifically OUR societies are still around DESPITE the fact we developed nuclear weapons first... modern human societies exist DESPITE the fact we killed all opposition and who knows what it could have been if we had embraced it.
Click to expand...

History repeatedly shows us that the strive for more efficient warfare is the cause of the advancement of all technology. Without us wanting to blow each other up in new and interesting ways we probably wouldn't be as advanced as we are today.

The problem we have is that whilst we would like to consider ourselves moral and righteous beings, we are still not far enough removed from our forbears for this to be the case. Hence the reason people go and shoot animals for sport, when there is patently no need to do so.

The only way we will know that we have finally managed to advance as a species is when no one goes killing for 'fun', not because the government has made it illegal, but because we don't want to.
 
M0T said:
History repeatedly shows us that the strive for more efficient warfare is the cause of the advancement of all technology. Without us wanting to blow each other up in new and interesting ways we probably wouldn't be as advanced as we are today.
Click to expand...
Technology is but one aspect of our advancement.

M0T said:
The problem we have is that whilst we would like to consider ourselves moral and righteous beings, we are still not far enough removed from our forbears for this to be the case.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself please. :p

M0T said:
Hence the reason people go and shoot animals for sport, when there is patently no need to do so.
Click to expand...
I don't and I don't know anyone who does (anymore).

M0T said:
The only way we will know that we have finally managed to advance as a species is when no one goes killing for 'fun', not because the government has made it illegal, but because we don't want to.
Click to expand...
So our advancement isn't equal across the human race. It doesn't mean that such advancement can't be recognised or aspired to does it?
 
Mickey_D said:
In the case of a fox, it's called preventative measures. It's not a case of IF it will become a problem that will require disposing of the animal, but WHEN. It is far easier to dispose of it when you see it than it is to try and track it down after it has already destroyed an entire hen house, killed your cat, gotten jiggy with your dog (leaving it mentally unstable for the rest of its life), and dug a trench under your "security fence", leaving you with several thousand quid worth of damage that you KNOW it will return and repeat as soon as you've fixed everything.

So yes, when you see one in the proximity to your property, it IS a valid target. Just like coyotes, wild dogs, crows/ravens are around here.
Click to expand...
Did you dig your "security fence" at into the ground as recommended?

Again:

http://www.coyoteroller.com/

This should hopefully mean you don't have to wander around your property with a loaded gun.
 
phykell said:
Technology is but one aspect of our advancement.
Click to expand...

But it is arguably the most important. If all this technology didn't exist then we would not be able to have this discussion - probably because we'd all be out hunting our own food or training for a bit of a barney with the tribe one field over. Technology allows us to develop socially.



I don't and I don't know anyone who does (anymore).
Click to expand...

Round here its quite common to see people go out and shoot rabbits for no other reason than they can and they find it fun.


So our advancement isn't equal across the human race. It doesn't mean that such advancement can't be recognised or aspired to does it?
Click to expand...

I would question the desire for other people to aspire to the level of 'advancement' that we have. Our society is nothing to be proud of, we keep 80% of the world in poverty so that we can buy bananas for 20p less, how advanced does that make us?
 
Some of these arguments here about society repressing it's needs aswell are echoing some Marxist arguments I read against Fordism. Very interesting.
 
zain said:
I remember we used to have them, sounded like women screaming. Got used to it after a while but then we moved.
Click to expand...

Nothing like that sound to make you run to a window to check for rapists...

I used to throw biscuits at them and they would run away.
 
phykell said:
No we won't, can't you debate this? Can you tell me what place violence has in a society? Do you not believe that our society could have got to where it is a little quicker had it not been for our violence? Do you not believe that violence and a lack of compassion are indications of a lack of advancement? As I said, we are where we are despite our violent past, not because of it.
Click to expand...
our arguments such as they are, are utterly polar opposites, there is absolutely no point in either of us trying to reach any sort of middle ground. So it comes down to a R Heinlein quote, agree to disagree or fight. And we can't do the latter.

What? you don't want to know where I was born, where and how I grew up, etc. You can base your opinion solely on where I live now?
Click to expand...
you don't want to answer the question, I presume so that I won't point out your utter detachment from the natural environment around you.

Wrong. I'm criticising your "decisions" based on what you've written in this thread and on my personal respect for all life.
Click to expand...
regardless of what a fallacy your respect for life is. You kill millions, possibly billions of organisms daily. I kill the same number as well as higher organisms deemed vermin. Yet you consider yourself somehow morally superior, you are I presume, not a car owner as well as a vegan. I also presume that you have not once in your life consumed food from a fast food chain. Otherwise your supposed morality is as fallacious as your respect for life.

Why should I? Why should membership of your "club" qualify my opinion? your "argument", such as it is, seems to rely on attacking the poster. How about concentrating on what you do know rather than making wild accusations about me?
Click to expand...
so you confirm that having never tried to put food on your own table - you can condemn it without experiencing it?

thats ignorant.
 
Last edited:
phykell said:
Did you dig your "security fence" at into the ground as recommended?

Again:

http://www.coyoteroller.com/

This should hopefully mean you don't have to wander around your property with a loaded gun.
Click to expand...
you've never defended your property against a fox have you? and btw LOL at those prices. A single .22 rounds costs less than 5p. And solves one problem permanently.
 
Last edited:
Nana said:
our arguments such as they are, are utterly polar opposites, there is absolutely no point in either of us trying to reach any sort of middle ground. So it comes down to a R Heinlein quote, agree to disagree or fight. And we can't do the latter.
Click to expand...
I asked you a number of simple questions and you simply refuse to answer them. Your position is one of intransigence.

Nana said:
you don't want to answer the question, I presume so that I won't point out your utter detachment from the natural environment around you.
Click to expand...
Where I live doesn't matter and your implication that someone who doesn't live in the "country" is "[utterly] detached from the natural environment" is presumptious and ignorant. You haven't got some sort of monopoly on an understanding of the country-side just because you happen to live there and you have no right to deny people the right to an opinion based solely on where they happen to live.

Nana said:
regardless of what a fallacy your respect for life is. You kill millions, possibly billions of organisms daily. I kill the same number as well as higher organisms deemed vermin. Yet you consider yourself somehow morally superior, you are I presume, not a car owner as well as a vegan. I also presume that you have not once in your life consumed food from a fast food chain. Otherwise your supposed morality is as fallacious as your respect for life.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. You kill because you enjoy it, you've said so. You actually enjoy killing defenceless creatures for nothing more than the pleasure of the killing and the utility of the act is simply an excuse. I do not kill for the pleasure of kiling and we are absolutely NOT the same. As for you requiring my to live the perfect life of morality before I can question others, "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace".

Nana said:
so you confirm that having never tried to put food on your own table - you can condemn it without experiencing it?
Click to expand...
What's the point of talking to you if you're just going to read it how you want to and you continue to put words in my mouth? I haven't confirmed anything. Read what I wrote.
 
Nana said:
you've never defended your property against a fox have you? and btw LOL at those prices. A single .22 rounds costs less than 5p. And solves one problem permanently.
Click to expand...
No, but at least one of your assumptions is finally correct.

So it's all down to cost. I've been quite clear, that if there's a purpose to killing an animal which can be considered a pest, I have no problem. If it's for sport or the pleasure of killing then IMO it can't be justified. If you are killing for pleasure whilst performing a function then that's between you and your conscience. I do not accept the idea that foxes cannot be prevented from incursion but I do accept that the cost may be prohibitive.
 
M0T said:
But it is arguably the most important. If all this technology didn't exist then we would not be able to have this discussion - probably because we'd all be out hunting our own food or training for a bit of a barney with the tribe one field over. Technology allows us to develop socially.
Click to expand...
That's quite an assumption to make. Who knows? Without war we may have had a Utopia by now. The fact is that war is a terrible price to pay for "advancement" and that you cannot really say how we might have advanced if we'd have had peace for the last thousand years...

M0T said:
Round here its quite common to see people go out and shoot rabbits for no other reason than they can and they find it fun.
Click to expand...
Sick.

M0T said:
I would question the desire for other people to aspire to the level of 'advancement' that we have. Our society is nothing to be proud of, we keep 80% of the world in poverty so that we can buy bananas for 20p less, how advanced does that make us?
Click to expand...
Our society can be criticised in many ways but there are many laudable aspects to it as well. The idea that morality isn't something to aspire to is a very dangerous and backward one though. Without the desire to advance society according to the moral imperatives of respect, compassion and freedom for others we might still have public executions, stoning of individuals for arguably minor crimes, slavery, etc. Violence has never helped us advance from these black moments in history, rather, it is turning away from violence which has allowed us to advance as we have.
 
Phykell, your supposed moralistic perfection and loathesome preaching is sickening.

My refusal to answer any of your questions, stems from your refusal to answer mine. What courtesy should I show you that you won't show me?

And yes I acknoledge that I kill defenceless creatures, but you dont. So i take it as a fact that you do not own a car and have never eaten from a fast food restaurant and that you are a vegan. If not.. where the hell do you get off judging others?

oh and imo, where you live has a HUGE impact on your understanding of the environment around you, and your attitudes towards it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom