Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location

Contact Information

  • Homepage

iamtrip's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Really? Tried it lately? Or maybe ...you've asked people pre/post head separation. Let me just rephrase this. You're suggesting that if you chop of someone's head, their body self destructs? O...k..a...y. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant, I am referring to the head. I'm really not bothered whether you're convinced or not. If you're really that interested, look yourself. However, let me suggest a scenario: A crazed anti-fox hunting madman runs up to a hunter and grasps his neck, grasping so tight, that the flow of both oxygen and blood to the brain is inhibited. Are you seriously suggesting that the hunter would instantaneously die? That you can and that you may. Although I stated you cannot determine if something is logically moral. Read the original post again. I never said that. Inventing words and phrases to suit your argument won't get you anywhere. Uhm...It's a quote... ...Those are great suggestions! Presuming they would humanely kill a fox, then they should be supported. Once again you've completely missed the argument. Banning fox hunting in exchange for another equally painful and equally long process (such as poisoning) therefore means that the ban is not 'moral'. This raises a good point. Who defines necessity? The statistics on omnivorous humans suggest a lot of people in this forum eat meat, yet this is not necessary. It would be extremely hypocritical to cry out over the 'horrific' activity of fox hunting when you, yourself, eat the produce from appallingly bred and slaughtered animals. And Spiddy, I have answered all of your points previously. Whether you choose to ignore them is your prerogative.
  2. Well as you said, if both methods (torture and poison) were to be equally painful and prolonged, as is the case with fox hunting, it really doesn't matter which way the fox dies. Take this from the perspective of the fox: Your internal organs expand (causing internal bleeding), whilst you basically vomit the mechanics of your digestive system. Alternately, you could have 2 teenagers torture you to death. I mean providing both are equally long and equally painful, do you think the fox cares how it dies? I'm not saying that either are acceptable, however to just ban one of the above would seem ridiculous and would carry no moral weight. Despite this, the morality issues, which are at discussion here, do not concern the fox. The foxes only involvement is through dying. The moral judgements will preside over the human participants. Although in your situation, the prospect of torture creates somewhat heinous connotations, the participants (in fox hunting) are not actively torturing the fox. They are some 400 yards away on horseback. These hunters are no more actively involved than those who lay the poison. However, pressing on with your pardoy...as stated in the previous post: Who decides what morality is, other than each individual? Morality is very much unique to each individual. You may only judge others through your own concepts of what is right and wrong. For a person in the Islamic world, polygamy may be an acceptable concept, whilst a Catholic may view the idea as morally wrong. In addition to the above, as the fox is to die an equally painful and long death, through both methods, the adverse effects of sadistic pleasure are somewhat irrelevant. Whether you judge the concept of fox hunting wrong through your own morals is irrelevant from the foxes point of view; he is to die painfully either way. If there was a universal move against cruelty to foxes, then I would accept the ban, however, the selective ban on cruelty to foxes serves no purpose, either practically, or morally.
  3. I'm growing tired of repeating perfectly clear views. I have already directly addressed all of your points, yet you continually ask for them to be rephrased simply, for your benefit. Please re-read. Morals are the confines and judgements of society. You cannot logically determine whether something is immoral or not. For example, an animal may suffer severe pain. Therefore, in your opinion the practice is wrong. Another opinion, from a train of thought which supports cruelty to animals and deems cruelty as morally acceptable is just as valid. Issues can only be deemed immoral when judging by your own morals. If you believe cruelty is acceptable, then fox hunting is not immoral. It is that simple. Since: Who decides what morality is, other than each individual? Lol. The irony (you still haven't managed a counter argument from the 'Threat to America post ). ...Pest control needs to be a realistic means of controlling entire populations of pests now? Wow, are you going to spontaneously create any more conditions of definition that we should be aware of? Both are equally painful. Both are equally prolonged. Whether an individual deems the issues immoral matters not. Passing legislation effecting only half of the situation has no moral effects. Zero. Zilch. As I've already stated (perhaps you missed it ), if foxes were to be treated humanely, then I would accept the fox hunting ban. However, since the ban does nothing in the slightest to improve the life of a fox, the bill carries no moral weight. For one, the ban on fox hunting is not part of an ongoing campaign to improve the welfare of animals. It was, as you so hastily agreed, a cynical ploy to unite a party. Therefore, the ban is not a good first step. There will be no more steps Surely you're not saying that not banning foxes with poisons was some kind of oversight? There will be no further measures. Therefore, by allowing other practices to continue, the ban carries no moral weight. So what 45 more foxes die from poison than by hounds? Does it really matter how the foxes die, when both means are equally painful? Secondly, why should we support an utterly pointless ban on fox hunting, whilst equally immoral (using your judgement of morality) practices continue? For instance, banning the torture of frogs with alkali, whilst the torture of frogs with acid continues is not a good first step. We've already established the bill was not part of an altruistic scheme, in aid of foxes. Therefore, the bill carries no moral weight whatsoever. I am of the opinion that it does not matter in the slightest how the fox dies, as long as foxes continue to die. If both modes are equally painful and drawn out, in addition to having the effect of reducing pest populations (whether pleasure is adversely gained or not), the banning of fox hunting is in no way in the interests of morality.
  4. Personal freedom is a fallacy. Going off the technological information available to us at this moment, everything we ever do is likely to be monitored. I think the proof is in 'Demzilla' and the other (forgot its name) program, which collects (publicly available) personal data and extrapolates upon election issues which would effect each person, individually. Remember, we're only aware of technology a government wants its people to know about. Who knows what additional kinds of technology are already in use.
  5. I am saying that as only hunting has been banned, the ban is completely useless in terms of improving the treatment of foxes. Yes both should be banned. However, only hunting has been banned. Taking your analogy: Lets ban the torture of frogs using an alkali. The torture of frogs with acid is still legal. If both were banned, then the bill would carry some moral weight. As the ban only targets one specific area, the ban is utterly pointless. It won't improve a frog's life at all. I have answered this before. Killing foxes helps to support a farmers livelihood. Whether the foxes are killed one by one, by a madman with an axe, or in massive numbers with poison, all contribute towards the reduction of pests. Pest control does not have to be efficient. Furthermore, whether the means of death provides pleasure or not is irrelevant. For example: Scenario A). A fox nibbles some poison, limps off home, continually vomits and slowly, internally bleeds to death. Scenario B). A pack of dogs chase a fox and the fox slowly dies. In both scenarios the fox dies and equally painful and prolonged death. It really doesn't matter whether someone sitting 400 yards away on horseback is enjoying themselves. May I also add that the entertainment value derived from fox hunting is in the occaision, rather than watching an animal die. Most hunts chase a 'drag'. Oh I totally agree. If we had the option to kill foxes in a humane way, then I would support a ban. However with the option of slowly and painfully killing a fox with poison, verses the comparatively quick and bloody death via hounds, I put it to you that banning one method in favour of another is completely pointless. I'm not arguing one is more acceptable than the other, merely that both are wrong in an ideal situaion, however banning just one method has no moral implications. Since when does pest control have to be efficient? You have just randomly invented the condition that in order for a form of pest control to be valid, it must kill x number of animals per y amount of money. On the most part, hunts are carried out on private property, although occasionally can stray onto other land. I have not and do not condone such action. This is not the question I have asked. What would be the point of banning 'fondling', whilst still allowing unconsenting sex? This is an analogy of banning fox hunting by the way. What is your obsession with points and scores?
  6. Yes. Until such a time, for me, poisoning instead of fox hunting ensures that fox hunting does not become an issue in terms of morality. Both methods ultimately kill the fox in an equally prolonged and painful way (poisoning would perhaps take longer than a hunt). Well that's your warped definition. Pest control merely means the controlling of pests. Whether the process is efficient or not is irrelevant. If pests die, the process qualifies as pest control. The fox tried to survive at the expense of a few chickens, the odd sheep etc. Ideally, we could all coin habit the planet and sing Kum by ah. But this is reality. Farmers need to survive to provide food for the rest of us. The killing of foxes is an acceptable evil. Therefore fox hunting, which contributes to pest control (the method is as equally painful and prolonged as the other means of killing foxes) should be deemed acceptable. Once again ...just for your benefit Spiddy... Fox hunting contributes to pest control. Whether hunters take enjoyment from the experience or the foxes die via a clinical poison is irrelevant. The fox will still die, therefore whether its death provided pleasure or not is not an issue in a debate on morality. What's the point? You ban fox hunting ...so that poisoning can continue. If you were to ban both simultaneously, then I would accept that the ban was due to a moral issue. The fact that the legislation only goes someway (and a tiny way at that) to prevent cruelty to foxes means the legislation is politically motivated rather than having anything to do with morality.
  7. What's wrong with an anyone but Bush mentality? Things are so bad, I don't think they could get any worse. Do we want 4 more years of the same? No thanks. What has Bush actually done to make you vote for him? He appears like a dumbass, spewing out malapropisms and idiotic remarks. He's turned a $5.3 trillion saving into a deficit. He's given us tax cuts... providing your rich. He's used fear and deception to wrongfully take us into war, changing the reasons 3-4 times along the way. Do I want 4 more years of this? For me this is a non-thinking issue.
  8. I run 9800 se and works just fine. If you play D3, not that the game is designed for nvidia cards, with ati performing slightly below nvidia. Based on technology and drivers, I'd take ati over nvidia anyday.
  9. Well dealing with the poisons first. If you were to introduce powerful poisons into the ecosystem, what would be the resultant effect? You need a poison which is well placed so its distribution among creatures other than foxes is minimal. Additionally, you need a low yield poison to prevent adverse effects to the rest of the environment. Finally, although small doses of low yield poisons will ultimately kill a fox after a prolonged period, if these poisons were somehow introduced into the human food chain, a small dosage of a weak poison wouldn't be lethal. The results of a small dosage of a powerful poison are obvious. I'm not sure if you know how the lethal injection works, but I'll summarise it: Stage 1: Anaesthetic. This should cause the prisoner to feel nothing, however in many cases the drug wears off before stages 2 and 3 (As argued in the Louisville courtroom). Stage 2: Paralysing Agent. This is self explanatory. The person is paralysed. Ask yourself, if under general anaesthetic, why would a paralysing agent be needed? The agent ensures the victim cannot move (therefore if the anaesthetic wears off, the victim does not appear in pain). Stage 3: Potassium Chloride. This toxic agent is administered causing the victims internal organs to implode/explode. Obviously excruciatingly painful, although still sentient and very much alive, the victim cannot move. Occasionally, technical errors cause the process to be prolonged. Hydrogen Cyanide Symptoms include shortness of breath, convulsions, vomiting and finally death after apnea and heart arrest. If you're lucky, you may loose consciousness during the process. As bigger frames require different doses of gas, the process is often prolonged as no one really knows the exact amount needed (everyone they asked was too busy dying). Providing the gunners have a good aim, you can look forward to having the contents of your head splattered across the back wall. If they miss, hope they shoot you again or enjoy a long, painful death. Some cases report victims surviving the initial shooting and lying paralysed on the floor, dying some hours later. During and after your head is removed, you will feel everything. The brain is still intact and will take up to 3 minutes to 'die'. If your executioner has a hearty sense of humour, you may be able to view your own headless body. Really humane . You're also presuming that foxes should be treated with the same level of rights a human has, in a human society. This is nature. Pests are killed by a more intelligent and cunning species. Pests are still killed. The ban on fox hunting has done nothing to reduce the number of deaths or a death's level of pain. The ban on fox hunting has merely changed the means of death to one that is equally inhumane.
  10. Its 99% likely to be your graphics card.
  11. I have explained my beliefs regarding the morality of fox hunting. Since there isn't a ban on using poisons, I don't have a problem with allowing fox hunting to continue. You didn't seem to pick up on this. Let me try to explain as simply as possible. Lets say a farmer sometimes shoots a pig and sells it at the market. Lets also say the same farmer sometimes takes his axe and, using it, kills the pig. The government then toddles along and bans the shooting of pigs. So what? The farmer will still kill the pig, in an equally inhumanely fashion. The fact is, the numbers of foxes killed through hunting was minimal. Foxes are still being killed in an equally brutal way. The ban has done nothing to reduce the numbers of foxes killed, therefore, logically, it's only purpose was to deprive the upper classes of a traditional activity. Whether people enjoyed killing the foxes or not is completely irrelevant. The foxes will still die, irrespective of whether their means of death provides pleasure. The ban has nothing to do with morality Due to the reasons stated above, I am against the ban on foxhunting.
  12. Your cellphone can traced to give your position via GPS. Your phonelines can be monitered via digital system. Your email can be intercepted and read without you knowing. CCTV cameras moniter towns and cities 24 hours a day (some with powerful face recognition software). Chips in cars to combat 'theft' can track your car's position via GPS. You credit card usage can be monitered at any time. Don't you think it's too late to be worrying about these things? They can already do all of this stuff.
  13. People refers to society. I get the same impression of idealic policies from reading other posts. Impression means A vague notion, remembrance, or belief. Got that? How quaint. What would you define as necessity? I presume (as I have come to learn) that you don't realise that humans are not reliant upon the slaughter of animals for nutrition. We could all happily and healthily survive without killing a single animal. So what exactly is a necessary reason to kill animals? Lol. Beliefs are not factual. That's why they are beliefs. If there were facts to wholly support beliefs, they would become factual. Therefore, based on the fact that a fox is in pain when killed, my belief is that fox hunting should still be allowed. Your belief is that fox hunting should be banned. Explain to me how your morality is based on fact? Your morality is the consequence of living within a environment, where it is judged that cruelty to animals is wrong. If you step out of this environment and consider other people may hold different attitudes and opinions than yourself, which are equally valid to your own, you may no longer appear as narrow minded and arrogant. Without sounding xenophobic and ignorant, what possible reason could you have for believing your opinions and morals are somehow more valid than anothers? I believe the killing of pests, for whatever reason, is acceptable. Since the likelihood is the same animals will die via a different, although equally horrific means, I do not have a problem with fox hunting. Would you like me to phrase this monosyllabically? I know the big words may be tricky. Its a really basic concept. Don't get too overjoyed. How ironic You consistently ignored several strings of my argument for around 7 posts in your 'all parties are self serving' argument . You still haven't provided a reply.
  14. Battery Farming etc. is relevant is displaying government policy hasn't banned fox hunting due to issues of morality, despite what it may claim. If the ban was due to moral reasons, then the government could have tackled other, more widespread issues. I haven't read anything of this nature, it would take a muppet to believe that a government comprised of ANY one of the major parties would have any altruism at all behind their decisions... maybe I missed it. Could you cite an example / quote People is an ambiguous word, well suited for a general comment. I am referring to society as a whole, unless you wish to argue that a Debate Forum inside of a Star Wars Jedi Knight Message Board is representative of British Society? I didn't think I would need to spell something like this out to you Spiddy What is there to say? You find the killing of animals immoral. I don't. It's my opinion and your opinion. I can't argue over the validity of mine and other's beliefs, simply because they are beliefs. Likewise, you cannot (seriously) argue that your belief's are any more valid than anyone elses. Different people have differing ideas over morals and ethics. And just because a person may have been brought up and lived in a society where ethical and moral conditioning is widespread, it does not necessarily mean that the ethics and morals presented by such a society are correct or infallible.
  • Create New...