Ethics of Fox Hunting and Pest Control

[Spider AL]

Debating the issue has become irrelevant as neither of our opinions will be changed.

YOU can be as closed-minded as you like, I on the other hand would change my opinion if it were logically proven to be ill-founded.

 

You argue how its immoral, I argue other, worse areas aren't even touched upon by government.

I've noticed this somewhat. Your responses about how other issues aren't being dealt with are irrelevant to the morality of the situation. In other words, whenever I mention morality now, you simply ignore it. That's presumably because you've run out of arguments. You WERE arguing on the point of morality originally, but now you're just... doing nothing really.

 

I'd like to continue debating with you on the morality of the subject, but if you don't have anything more to say about it... I can't, can I. Just say the word, Trippy, and the debate will be concluded.

 

It seems pointless rephrasing ideas to continue the argument, which is all that has happened in the last few posts.

Listen "mate", every time you've said "Other issues aren't being dealt with" I've asked you how that's relevant to the morality behind fox-hunting. You have NEVER answered me, you've just repeated "Other issues aren't being dealt with." over and over again. So I'll continue to ASK you this, until you stop ignoring every point that you don't happen to like, and ANSWER it.

 

Enough of THIS sort of thing:

 

Yet tertiary issues such as fox hunting are brought to the headlines.

There doesn't seem to be a strong campaign against other forms of hunting, such as deer hunting, hare hunting etc. I'm sure there is a campaign, but it has neither the press coverage, nor the support that fox hunting has had. Why is this?

When did battery farming last make the front pages?

When was the last rally against hare hunting? Or deer hunting?

For how is ANY of this relevant to the issue of whether fox-hunting should be banned or not? Yes, the third world needs more support... but that doesn't mean that a ban on fox hunting is a bad thing.

 

Yes battery farming should be abolished... but that doesn't make the fox-hunting ban a bad thing.

 

YES, our government is trying to use this to their own advantage... but that doesn't make the BAN a bad thing.

 

Fox hunting being banned is a good thing... because fox-hunting is immoral.

 

You began in this debate by making noises as if you thought fox-hunting shouldn't be banned. Now you have nothing to say on that matter? Were you just trying to contradict people for the sake of it?

 

I just find it amusing that people may see the ban as some kind of idealic legislation by a sympathetic government now dedicated to animal welfare and human rights, which from reading other posts is the impression that is created.

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?

 

You're good at retyping your same old opinion without much evidence aren't you Spiddy

Ah, there's the immaturity. I was wondering when there would be some.

[iamtrip]

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 just find it amusing that people may see the ban as some kind of idealic legislation by a sympathetic government now dedicated to animal welfare and human rights, which from reading other posts is the impression that is created.

 

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've noticed this somewhat. Your responses about how other issues aren't being dealt with are irrelevant to the morality of the situation. In other words, whenever I mention morality now, you simply ignore it. That's presumably because you've run out of arguments. You WERE arguing on the point of morality originally, but now you're just... doing nothing really.

 

 

 

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.

[Spider AL]

Battery Farming etc. is relevant is displaying government policy hasn't banned fox hunting due to issues of morality,

Mmkay, this thread is entitled "Ethics of fox hunting and pest control" not "Trippy's soapbox in which he will spend every post talking about how evil the Labour administration is".

 

We know they're evil, we know they haven't pushed the ban through on a basis of altruism. Why you feel the need to keep repeating it is beyond me... Oh wait, no it's not. It's because you don't have anything relevant to say to the subject at hand.

 

If the ban was due to moral reasons

*sigh*

 

Once more with feeling: nobody in this thread has stated (to my knowledge) that the government had altruistic reasons for instituting the ban. You're arguing with yourself, apparently.

 

I am referring to society as a whole

Actually you were referring to "posts":

 

people may see the ban as some kind of idealic legislation by a sympathetic government now dedicated to animal welfare and human rights, which from reading other posts is the impression that is created.

But you can backpedal if you wish.

 

I didn't think I would need to spell something like this out to you Spiddy

Oh? I'm glad you have such a high opinion of me Trippy. Means there's hope for you yet.

 

What is there to say? You find the killing of animals immoral. I don't.

Your "debating style" if one can call it that, is absolutely awful. You persist in ignoring points, and as in this case, attempting to misrepresent others drastically in an attempt to support your sickly and ailing arguments.

 

I have not said at any point that I consider "the killing of animals" to be immoral. I HAVE said that I consider the "killing of animals WITHOUT ANY NECESSITY" to be immoral. A not-so-subtle distinction for you there.

 

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.

Waha. Ha. Hah. You appear to be suffering from Tony Blairitis. The prognosis is NOT favourable. "I believed it was right to go into Iraq, so that makes everything okay." Of course some beliefs are more "valid" than others, because beliefs that are based upon FACT make more logical SENSE. Beliefs that are based upon NO fact are called "nonsense" and "rubbish" and other things that are not so palatable. Especially those beliefs that can bring harm to other living creatures.

 

Different people have differing ideas over morals and ethics.

I'd love to hear some of your ideas on morals and ethics concerning fox-hunting. What a shame you haven't actually posted any since your argument was exposed as fatally flawed about ten posts ago.

[iamtrip]

I just find it amusing that people may see the ban as some kind of idealic legislation by a sympathetic government now dedicated to animal welfare and human rights, which from reading other posts is the impression that is created.

 

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?

 

 

"killing of animals WITHOUT ANY NECESSITY"

 

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?

 

 

Beliefs that are based upon NO fact are called "nonsense" and "rubbish" and other things that are not so palatable. Especially those beliefs that can bring harm to other living creatures.

 

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?

 

 

Different people have differing ideas over morals and ethics.

 

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.

 

 

I didn't think I would need to spell something like this out to you Spiddy

 

Its a really basic concept. Don't get too overjoyed.

 

You persist in ignoring points,

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.

[Spider AL]

Would you like me to phrase this monosyllabically? I know the big words may be tricky.

Ah, immaturity. I think the saddest thing is that people like trip think that this dross makes them look clever, when in reality it merely makes them look like what they are: people who stoop to personal attacks.

 

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?

You said you got this impression from posts. I asked if you could quote these posts. You say you were referring to "society". I point out you were referring specifically to "posts". You come out with this.

 

It is rubbish.

 

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?

I shall give you a list:

 

Biting insects in tropical climates may be killed because of the risk of them carrying debilitating diseases.

 

Certain highly venomous snakes, spiders, scorpions, centipedes and similar critters may be killed for obvious reasons, presuming they do not run away first.

 

There are certain aggressive mammals that might also pose a threat to life and limb and if they do, one is morally justified in using force to repel their attacks.

 

In certain undeveloped areas of the world, food is not as plentiful nor diverse as in western nations, therefore for proper nutrition one who lives there may be morally justified in killing animals to eat to supplement their poor diet.

 

So obviously we see that there are indeed morally justifiable circumstances in which one can kill other creatures, not purely for the taste of their flesh, the enjoyment of their suffering or the look of their fur upon one's garments.

 

QED.

 

Beliefs are not factual. That's why they are beliefs. If there were facts to wholly support beliefs, they would become factual.

That's just silly. A belief that is based on fact is not "a fact." It is merely a hypothesis or an idea based on fact. Beliefs that are based on NO fact at all, are what we in the trade call "drooling nonsense".

 

Your morality is the consequence of living within a environment, where it is judged that cruelty to animals is wrong.

Actually my morality is based entirely upon the fact that I consider cruelty to ME to be wrong. If someone were to chase me half a mile, crush my hindquarters with some heavy hooves and rip my larynx out with a pack of dogs, leaving me to bleed to death from my severed artery while my eyeballs hang out over each cheek, I wouldn't be very happy. In fact, I'd feel downright bad.

 

Thus, I do not wish to inflict such cruelty upon other creatures because I possess empathy like all non-sociopathic human beings. THIS is the basis of a good morality, the knowledge that pain is universal and usually negative.

 

Without sounding xenophobic and ignorant, what possible reason could you have for believing your opinions and morals are somehow more valid than anothers?

Asking that question doesn't make you sound especially xenophobic or ignorant, and it's an easy question to answer: I try to base my opinions and morals on fact and experience. If I'm shown a fact, I promptly re-evaluate my opinions and morals that relate to that fact. Thus, my opinions are MUCH more valid than those that aren't based on ANY fact, and also more valid than those that are based on LESS fact.

 

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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, since you've ignored it every time I've said it: The morality of using inefficient, slow and painful poisons, is not the subject of this thread. I don't think anyone except a psychopath would agree with the use of such poisons, but it's still irrelevant to the subject of the ETHICS OF FOX HUNTING, and the BAN.

 

I've also said this before and you've ignored it: Fox hunting is a pastime where people take PLEASURE in the pain and death of another creature. This is obviously MUCH less moral behaviour than poisoning a creature solely on the basis of pest-control, to support one's livelihood.

 

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.

Oh I posted a counterpoint. You never asked me a question about my counterpoint, you merely said "ur rong" and proceeded to declare yourself the victor.

 

I on the other hand asked you a specific question many times, to which you never replied.

 

So who dodged what here? Why, you of course. You dodged the issue. You're still doing it.

 

The issue is this: Is fox hunting moral? If not, the ban must be a good thing. So do you think it's moral?

[iamtrip]

I have explained my beliefs regarding the morality of fox hunting.

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.

 

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.

[ET Warrior]

iamtrip, your argument is akin to saying that making it illegal to eviscerate cats is pointless because people can still torture and kill them without actually eviscerating them.

 

Now while I would have to question why only evisceration was illegal, I would still support such a law because I find that to be quote cruel and a practice that SHOULD be outlawed.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

iamtrip,

 

Your argument seems to be 'the fox is going to die anyway, so why does it matter how it dies?'.

 

(...you also have a 'there are much worse things than fox hunting going on, so why pick on fox hunting' argument as well, but in the end - irrelavent to whether fox hunting itself is immoral or not - as has been previously stated.)

 

I would argue that how a creature dies is the only thing that matters in relation to this particular argument. All living creatures on this Earth are going to die. Nothing can stop that.

Yes, the farmer in this case is deciding that the fox has to die sooner rather than later for the sake of his livelyhood. But both sides of this argument agree this is 'acceptable' - at least in principle. So this point can be discarded...

...and so now we are left with how should this creature die.

...does it matter?

 

Well, I would propose looking at captial punishment as a sutiable comparison to this situation. We have a criminal who has been sentanced to death - let's use the example of a murderer...

Does it matter how this person dies?

...and let's remember - this person has killed one of his own kind. So (at least imo) he would deserve a more tortuous death than a fox who was doing nothing more than doing what is nessesary to survive...

 

But anyway, us humans can be pretty inventive when it comes to killing other humans. We can get it over with quickly (e.g. beheading) or we can drag it out for days (e.g. crucifiction).

We can also torture people for a while without killing them, perhaps to extract information, or just for pure kicks.

 

...but the important point here is that in (what we like to think of as) modern society, we don 't go for the really drawn out, prolonged deaths anymore. We like to keep it relatively quick (if not painless).

We dont' have big crowds gathering to watch the gory spectacle either - as was common in medival times...

 

So the common trends of developing nations have been to execute the criminal quickly without 'glorifying' the event.

 

To put this in perspective - let's give someone on death row the following choice of how they die:

 

* Lethal injection (over in minutes)

* Gas chamber (over in minutes)

* Firing squad (over in seconds, depending on the aim of the gunners)

* Being chased by a pack of hounds and men on horseback round the countryside till you throw up with exaustion - at which point the hounds catch up with you and tear you limb from limb...

 

Which one would you pick? Let me be presumptious and state that no-one in their right mind would pick the last one over the other alternatives.

Perhaps more importantly, a country like the US would never implmement such a downright inhumane way to kill someone - even a murderer who quite possibly found even worse methods to kill 'their' victims...

 

So if it's too nasty a death for a condemned criminal, why should it be OK for a fox who did nothing more than try and feed itself?

 

Now, if poisons take a long time to kill the fox, then imo that is also wrong. I find it hard to beleive that we coudln't make effective poisons which could kill the fox relatively quickly...

[iamtrip]

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.

 

* Lethal injection (over in minutes)

 

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.

 

* Gas chamber (over in minutes)

 

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).

 

* Firing squad (over in seconds, depending on the aim of the gunners)

 

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.

 

We can get it over with quickly (e.g. beheading)

 

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.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

I have explained my beliefs regarding the morality of fox hunting.

No, you stated your beliefs regarding fox hunting. You haven't explained how your beliefs are based on any logic at all however, For instance you said this:

 

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.

First of all, being chased by a ravening pack of dogs and fops on horseback and THEN being brutally killed might well be considered a worse end than merely being brutally killed say... by poisoning.

 

Secondly, you still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable. We should ban both immoral things, yes, but banning one is a good first step.

 

Without explaining your reasoning in this respect, your argument will remain utterly invalid.

 

The foxes will still die, irrespective of whether their means of death provides pleasure.

We will ALL die. But fox hunting isn't a valid method of pest control, because as you said before it's not efficient enough at killing the "pests". And someone killing something else merely for pleasure (fox hunting) is more immoral than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no pleasure in it. (poisoning)

 

You have consistently failed to answer these points. Once more, unless you answer these points, your argument remains totally invalid logically.

 

The ban has nothing to do with morality

Of course it does, the issue of fox hunting is a moral issue. Therefore any ban that relates to it will have moral implications and moral questions attached to it.

 

Yes, yes, I know what you're about to say, something about the evil Labour government, blah blah blah heard it all before. We know they're not altruistic, that's irrelevant, drop it.

 

The ban on fox hunting has merely changed the means of death to one that is equally inhumane.

If it really is equally inhumane, which I DOUBT, then nothing has changed and you shouldn't be against the ban because... nothing has changed. You should be indifferent to the ban at worst.

 

I on the other hand do consider fox hunting to be more immoral than mass poisoning because fox hunting is brutal killing merely for foppish pleasure. Killing something for pleasure is more immoral than killing something to protect your livelihood.

 

You're also presuming that foxes should be treated with the same level of rights a human has, in a human society.

Ahahahaha. Ohohohoh. If we were saying that foxes should be treated with the same level of rights a human has... we'd all be saying that foxes shouldn't be killed AT ALL! lol

 

What nonsense.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Hmm. Well, I accept the point about the poison. It is probably harder than I took account for to create a posion powerful enough and yet isolated enough to safely kill foxes as quickly as possible...

 

So lets' asume your correct, and state that there are no truly 'humane' methods for killing foxes (in practical terms).

Let me ask a theoretical question then. Supposing a humane and perfectly safe method of killing foxes (which threatened the livelyhood of farmers) was devised. (When I say humane, I mean kills them instantly, or painlessly).

...would you then unequivicably argue for a ban on fox hunting and advocate the humane method?

...or would you stand by your statment 'If the fox is gonna die, it doesn't matter how...'?

 

 

I'm not so sure about some of your statements regarding execution methods.

I could try and dispute a few of these statements, but that would side-track us onto a pretty morbid tit-for-tat discussion which will miss the main issue...

 

...the main point being that the general trend is to not terrorise or greatly prolong the death of the individual anymore.

..sure, they may not get the doses right - or other 'technical errors' can cause more of a prolonged death than was intended. But the key word here is INTENDED.

 

..there is a BIG difference between the guy deciding the dose making an error of judgemnt, and cackling 'Heh, let's give this f**ker a ride he'll never forget' (pardon the irony) whilst draining half the dose out...

 

So while I'm not sure some of the points you made are actually 100% correct (I'm going to investigate them further when I get a chance), it really doesn't matter. The general trend in INTENT is obvious - regardless...

 

You also seem to have ignored the point that - for example - a murderer who killed one of his own kind arguably deserves a 'harrowing' death far more than a fox who did nothing more than try to survive...

 

You're also presuming that foxes should be treated with the same level of rights a human has, in a human society.

 

Really quite a blanket, black and white statement.

And I'm very interested in your exact choice of statement - particularly the words 'in a human society'...

 

Maybe it's a bit much to ask, but it would be nice if you could have a little respect for the fact that foxes were around long before us humans came along. WE are the invading force here, not the foxes.

We are forcing our society upon them - NOT the other way round...

 

Now, do I think that foxes have exactly the same rights as humans? From our human perspective, of course not. I haven't argued that farmers shouldn't be able to kill foxes at all, have I?!

..but I do think foxes do have SOME rights. Not because they demand them, because they can't demand anything of us. But rights which we -as human beings with a consience - should be willing to grant them.

 

To make the point here obvious, should it be OK for me to capture a fox, take it into my basement, keep it alive and torture it for a few days?

..I can invite a few buddies round and we can take turns at it. If we all enjoy it, then who can tell us we shoudln't be doing it?

 

...the fox was gonna die anyway right...? So what does it matter?

 

Before you go off the handle, I'm not trying to implicate that fox-hunting and systematically torturing a fox in a basement for days are literally equivalent (although I do think there are definete parallels...). I'm just trying to show that -surely - there IS a line to be drawn - somewhere...

[iamtrip]

Supposing a humane and perfectly safe method of killing foxes (which threatened the livelihood of farmers) was devised. (When I say humane, I mean kills them instantly, or painlessly).

...would you then unequivocally argue for a ban on fox hunting and advocate the humane method?

 

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).

 

But fox hunting isn't a valid method of pest control, because as you said before it's not efficient enough at killing the "pests".

 

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.

 

fox who did nothing more than try to survive...

 

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.

 

than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no pleasure in it

 

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.

 

 

 

We should ban both immoral things, yes, but banning one is a good first step.

 

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.

[Spider AL]

First, since you've failed to answer the key questions, before replying to your evasive points, I'll post them again and will continue to do so until you address them:

 

1: You still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable. We should ban both immoral things, yes, but banning one is a good first step. We could ban the torture of frogs, and that would STILL be a moral thing to do, even if we failed to ban the torture of newts at the same time.

 

2: You have NOT answered the point that someone killing something else merely for pleasure (fox hunting) is more immoral than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no sick pleasure in it. (poisoning)

 

3: You have NOT answered the point that fox-hunting is not a valid method of pest control because it does not kill enough foxes, while also damaging the farmland that its apologists claim to be defending. It is too inefficient to be useful or cost-effective, thus it cannot be defended on the basis of its pest-controlling side effect.

 

Without explaining your reasoning in these respects, your argument will remain illogical, and therefore utterly invalid.

 

---

 

Now the pseudo-points:

 

Well that's your warped definition.

It's not a definition at all trippy.

 

It's merely pointing out the fact that going to someone's house and stamping on three cockroaches does not control their pest problem. That's an analogy for fox-hunting by the way.

 

What's the point?

What's the point of banning ANYTHING that's immoral, trippy? Because it's IMMORAL. Why do you think we have laws against sexual harassment in the workplace, laws against sexual, racial and age-based discrimination? Morality should dictate our actions and the laws we institute. It does NOT, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enjoy a law that has an unintentionally moral effect.

 

If you were to ban both simultaneously, then I would accept that the ban was due to a moral issue.

Okay, for fifty points why don't you come up with a quote from this thread in which anyone says that the government had moral reasons for bringing the ban in.

 

You can't, there isn't one.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it over and over again with your fingers stuck in your ears, it's still irrelevant to this issue, the issue of the morality of fox hunting. Everyone knows that all governments are self-interested, you're not saying ANYTHING new or interesting.

 

The fox will still die, therefore whether its death provided pleasure or not is not an issue in a debate on morality.

Why do you say that? There's no logic behind your assertion. Of COURSE taking pleasure in the pain and death of another creature is more immoral than killing another creature for reasons of preserving your livelihood.

 

Hunting and killing a person for sport would be more immoral than killing an armed mugger in self-defence.

 

Likewise hunting and killing animals for sport is more immoral than killing them to defend your land, livestock and livelihood.

 

QED.

[toms]

I get that you think this ban is a political move, and are against it for that reason. But that is true with most politics and (be they right or wrong) you could actually say that MORE labour politicians believe in this than a lot of other things they have voted for. So, leaving politics aside there seem to be two issues, practicallity and morality.

 

On Practicality, it seems like foxhunting is a highly impractical method of pest control to start with... so agruments about alternatives seem a bit pointless... as most pest control is already done by these alternatives.

 

On morality, CloseTheBlastDo summed up part of it very well. The other psrt is to do with motivation. Now, i guess you could say that if the fox dies, what does the motivation matter... but that isn't the way humans work. Imagine a little old lady who dies.

1) She is put to sleep by her loving children to save her suffering

2) She is accidentally run over by a driver who has a lapse in concentration

3) She is killed by accident while trying to steal her purse

4) She is slowly tortured to death by kids for fun

 

All end with her dead, but the morality of the situation depends a lot on the motivation of the killer.

Killing foxes for pest control is one thing.

Killing foxes for pest control in the most inefficient, stressful, painful way possible... FOR FUN is totally different.

Just as killing an iraqi soldier may be necessary... killing one in a torturous way FOR FUN wouldn't be acceptable though.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Ideally, we could all coin habit the planet and sing Kum by ah. But this is reality.

 

I totally accept this reality, and I wasn't trying to dismiss it.

iamtrip, we agree on this point. There is no need to make out that this is a point of contention between us and start saying Kum by ah to me as if I don't understand this :/

If you had read my previous posts, you would know that I fully understand the reality of the situation.

I accept that to protect their livelyhood, farmers may have to kill foxes. Is that clear enough for you?

 

The point I was actually trying to make is the double-standard we sometimes seem to hold between killing another human and killing an animal, and which you elluded to with the comment:

 

You're also presuming that foxes should be treated with the same level of rights a human has, in a human society.

 

I put it to you that someone who - for example - kills another human being (their own kind) in cold blood (i.e. not in self-defense etc.) would 'deserve' a more tortuous death than a fox who did nothing else than try to survive.

 

...I'm not trying to say the farmer shouldn't kill the fox because the fox is just trying to survive.

...I'm simply stating that if we can find it in our humanity to give convicted murderers a relatively easy death (when compared to the worst we could come up with), we should certainly (if possible) find it in our humnanity to at least try our best to give the foxes a relatively easy death - considering the circumstances. (i.e. the fox has done nothing more than try and survive)

 

THAT as my point, and I'd apprecaite it if you make comments on that rather than insinate I want us all to put flowers in our hair and hug trees :/

 

Whether hunters take enjoyment from the experience or the foxes die via a clinical poison is irrelevant.

 

I would agree as far as the fate of the fox. I get the point your trying to make there.

 

But do you not accept that an official event which involves chasing down a living creature and killing it with a sense of triumph could encourage and entrench the idea (in future generations) that one of the purposes of animals on this planet is to provide us (human beings) with personal entertainment - regardless of the suffering of the animals involved?

 

I find it hard to beleive a farmer showing his son how to lay down poison for foxes is gonna get that boy excited about such a task. I donno - maybe if the farmer screamed 'Woohoo - another dead fox boy!' maybe the kid would find that funny. But most likely the boy would see it like any other task - just something which had to be done, like using the tractor or cleaning out the chicken coop. Nothing to nessesarily feel happy or excited about in and of itself...

i.e. the boy in this case has more of a chance to think of animals (all animals, not just foxes) with respect (even if he regretfully has to kill some them sometimes - when nessesary for purely practical reasons) and not see them as his personal play-things...

 

And if our totally painless yet practical method of controlling foxes came along, he would be far more likely to ditch his old methods and take on the new ones. If he had been bought up with hunting however, and has learned to enjoy it, he may want to continue at least ripping a few foxes apart with hounds, regardless of the needless suffering the fox itself is put though, since he has been bought up to disregard the feelings of animals in favour of his own enjoyment (NOTE - NOT survival, but enjoyment. 2 different things...)

[iamtrip]

1: You still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable. We should ban both immoral things, yes, but banning one is a good first step. We could ban the torture of frogs, and that would STILL be a moral thing to do, even if we failed to ban the torture of newts at the same time.

 

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.

 

2: You have NOT answered the point that someone killing something else merely for pleasure (fox hunting) is more immoral than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no sick pleasure in it. (poisoning)

 

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'.

 

1) She is put to sleep by her loving children to save her suffering

2) She is accidentally run over by a driver who has a lapse in concentration

3) She is killed by accident while trying to steal her purse

4) She is slowly tortured to death by kids for fun

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.

 

 

3: You have NOT answered the point that fox-hunting is not a valid method of pest control because it does not kill enough foxes, while also damaging the farmland that its apologists claim to be defending. It is too inefficient to be useful or cost-effective, thus it cannot be defended on the basis of its pest-controlling side effect.

 

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.

 

What's the point of banning ANYTHING that's immoral, trippy? Because it's IMMORAL. Why do you think we have laws against sexual harassment in the workplace, laws against sexual, racial and age-based discrimination? Morality should dictate our actions and the laws we institute. It does NOT, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enjoy a law that has an unintentionally moral effect.

 

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.

 

Okay, for fifty points

What is your obsession with points and scores?

 

'Mad' is a term we use to describe a man who is obsessed with one idea and nothing else.

[ugo Betti]

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Firstly I doubt a paper target feels pain or distress.

 

Well if we are going to make absurd comments about how hunting foxes is comprable to hunting mute children. Than the poor bacteria and microscopic life that lives on the paper target FEELS MUCH PAIN WHEN A HOT BULLET RIPS THROUGH THIER PRECIOUS HOME. (Cocky? Ignorant? yes, my point exactly)

we dont need to make STUPID and IGNORANT Examples that have nothing to do with the case at hand. Hunting foxes, is in no way, like killing children or tourturing cats (period).

 

and therefore the suffering of the fox who is firmly convinced, and rightly so, that it is running for its life from an implacably malevolent enemy. Therefore fox-hunting is amoral.

Washing your hands, and killing the poor germs that are just looking for a place to live is amoral. if we must respect ALL life to the FULLEST extent, let us.

 

Secondly, capturing a sick old stray cat on the street,stringing it up and torturing it for five hours before killing it won't affect any ecosystem too greatly... But it's still the evil act of a sadistic little sociopath, and it is NOT ACCEPTABLE. [/b]

Hunting a fox, which in many cultures was a common sport, is in no way sadistic, sociopathic, or evil... after all, you seem to be the type of person who would stand back and say, there is no evil if the culture doesnt consider it evil, am I correct?

 

1: You still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable. We should ban both immoral things, yes, but banning one is a good first step. We could ban the torture of frogs, and that would STILL be a moral thing to do, even if we failed to ban the torture of newts at the same time.

Than answer my question kind sir, if it is WRONG to kill a fox that may perhaps be posing a threat to your home/family/farm or what ever it may be, is in fact wrong, than is it not wrong to wash your body of germs and bacteria? after all, they are living life forms are they not? is it amoral to drive your car down the road, because you will smash a pretty little butterfly into your windshield?

 

 

if I had time, I would continue, but its off to work for me, and pounding nails into the poor cut off arms of trees for us evil humans who build houses out of them.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

 

Though you've posted some points, they do not relate directly to my questions, but instead seem to be attempts to circumvent them without having to respond to them. I will deal with these points below, but since once again you haven't answered the questions I asked. I will post them again:

 

1: You still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable.

 

2: You have NOT answered the point that someone killing something else merely for pleasure (fox hunting) is more immoral than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no sick pleasure in it. (poisoning)

 

3: You have NOT answered the point that fox-hunting is not a valid method of pest control because it does not kill enough foxes, while also damaging the farmland that its apologists claim to be defending. It is too inefficient to be useful or cost-effective, thus it cannot be defended on the basis of its pest-controlling side effect.

 

Without explaining your reasoning in these respects, your argument will remain illogical, and therefore utterly invalid.

 

Now onto your points:

 

I am saying that as only hunting has been banned, the ban is completely useless in terms of improving the treatment of foxes.

You seem to be unable to separate moral issues from the practical implimentation of morality.

 

Your assertion is debatable for a start, as hunting with dogs can be infinitely more stressful to the hunted animal than instances of poisoning can, and the eventual death can be equally as painful, though in some cases less slow.

 

Secondly, whether or not it actually realistically and instantly improves the lot of foxes is irrelevant to whether it's a moral thing to do.

 

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.

Once again you seem to be unable to separate morality from practicality. Banning the torture of frogs with toothpicks IS A MORAL THING TO DO, even if frog-torturers get through a loophole and torture the frogs with dental floss instead. The next step is to ban the torture of frogs with dental floss TOO, not to rail against the initial ban because it doesn't cover all possibilities at once. No law is totally effective all by itself. It's a good first step.

 

It really doesn't matter whether someone sitting 400 yards away on horseback is enjoying themselves.

That belief cannot be logically arrived at. A killer who kills for pleasure, versus a man who shoots a robber. Which is less moral? of COURSE the first man. Intent is not only most of morality but a lot of the law as well! How can anyone dispute this? I mean, if you don't believe in morality, just come out and say so...

 

If we had the option to kill foxes in a humane way, then I would support a ban.

A ban on fox-hunting is a precedent towards the better treatment of all animals. It's an invaluable tool to animal rights campaigners the world over. It's a weapon that can be used to apply the pressure necessary to FORCE a more humane method of pest-control into existence. Thus by your own standard, (which I doubt is genuine judging by your earlier comments, I doubt you give a fig about the welfare of foxes) it's a good thing.

 

Pest control does not have to be efficient.

Ugh... Exactly what use would it be if it WASN'T efficient? If it's not efficient it's not a realistic means of controlling the population of the pests! It's merely a bunch of sociopaths riding around red-jacketed using the excuse of contributing to a systematic culling to get their jollies by killing another creature.

 

banning just one method has no moral implications.

I think you're very confused: It has MANY moral implications, what YOU'RE arguing is that it has no PRACTICAL purpose.

 

'Mad' is a term we use to describe a man who is obsessed with one idea and nothing else.

"'Desperate' is a term we use to describe a person who tries to imply that his opponents in a debate are deranged." - Spider AL - '04

 

 

ZDawg:

if we are going to make absurd comments about how hunting foxes is comprable to hunting mute children.

ZDawg, please check your facts before ranting at me in an offensive manner. I stated earlier that if foxes had our capacity for speech, we might treat them more humanely. I think it was trippy who said "well they don't have it, so they shouldn't be." I retorted that by his standards, mute children could be treated inhumanely.

 

This is all logical. There is NOTHING absurd about it, and I was not the one who opened the door for that type of response. Absurd is comparing bacteria to higher life forms like foxes, which is what you just did.

 

(Cocky? Ignorant? yes, my point exactly) we dont need to make STUPID and IGNORANT Examples that have nothing to do with the case at hand. Hunting foxes, is in no way, like killing children or tourturing cats (period).

I'm finding your post increasingly vitriolic and offensive. Please calm down and behave more maturely.

 

As to your point, torturing any animal, whether it be a cat in an alleyway with a knife and some razorwire, or a fox using a pack of dogs and fops on horseback, is the same.

 

Now unless you have any logic to back up your claim that the two are in any way morally different, you should refrain from making that claim.

 

Than answer my question kind sir, if it is WRONG to kill a fox that may perhaps be posing a threat to your home/family/farm or what ever it may be, is in fact wrong, than is it not wrong to wash your body of germs and bacteria? after all, they are living life forms are they not? is it amoral to drive your car down the road, because you will smash a pretty little butterfly into your windshield?

Of course I will answer your question even if it was posed in a facetious manner. I am not like trippy, I answer questions directly.

 

Firstly it is not merely farmers who go on the fox-hunt.

 

Secondly the reasons I consider the killing of germs and bacteria to be different than the killing of higher life forms are the following:

 

1: The fox has a more sophisticated sense of pain, fear and distress than a single-celled organism. Thus one can inflict more immoral cruelty upon them before killing them.

 

2: Intent is most of morality and a lot of the law as well. We cannot help but kill many small creatures as we go about our daily business, we don't mean to and we don't even think about it.

 

If we took pleasure in the death of the butterfly it would become immoral. But since we don't intend to kill it with our car, and we take no pleasure in its death, our act was not REMOTELY as immoral.

 

Hunting a fox, which in many cultures was a common sport, is in no way sadistic, sociopathic, or evil... after all, you seem to be the type of person who would stand back and say, there is no evil if the culture doesnt consider it evil, am I correct?

No, you are not correct. The german populace did not consider the policies of nazism to be evil when they supported Hitler. Popular opinion is largely irrelevant as it is dictated by the media and the government.

 

If something is logically determined to be immoral, it is immoral, regardless of whether people believe it to be good, bad or cabbage.

 

I hope all this answers your questions.

[iamtrip]

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.

 

 

If something is logically determined to be immoral, it is immoral, regardless of whether people believe it to be good, bad or cabbage.

 

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:

Popular opinion is largely irrelevant as it is dictated by the media and the government.

 

Who decides what morality is, other than each individual?

 

 

Of course I will answer your question even if it was posed in a facetious manner. I am not like trippy, I answer questions directly.

Lol. The irony (you still haven't managed a counter argument from the 'Threat to America post ).

 

Ugh... Exactly what use would it be if it WASN'T efficient? If it's not efficient it's not a realistic means of controlling the population of the pests!

 

...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?

 

Your assertion is debatable for a start, as hunting with dogs can be infinitely more stressful to the hunted animal than instances of poisoning can, and the eventual death can be equally as painful, though in some cases less slow.

 

Secondly, whether or not it actually realistically and instantly improves the lot of foxes is irrelevant to whether it's a moral thing to do.

 

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.

 

 

Once again you seem to be unable to separate morality from practicality. Banning the torture of frogs with toothpicks IS A MORAL THING TO DO, even if frog-torturers get through a loophole and torture the frogs with dental floss instead. The next step is to ban the torture of frogs with dental floss TOO, not to rail against the initial ban because it doesn't cover all possibilities at once. No law is totally effective all by itself. It's a good first step.

 

 

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.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Well, I think it's a bit pointless getting dragged too much into arguing about whether fox hunting should have been banned (especially whether the goverment had alturistic intentions with this ban) until we have agreed on whether fox hunting is actually immoral or not.

 

...were not gonna agree. Or at least there's a better chance of hell freezing over. But for my part, I'm not gonna touch on the ban and whether the ban itself was morally correct, because that brings in many other issues which I think are confusing the central issue here.

...namely the Ethics of Fox Hunting and Pest Control.

..not the ethics of banning Fox Hunting or other particular forms of Pest Control...

 

 

iamtrip. I'd like us to come back to this statement:

 

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.

 

So let's go back to my example of taking a fox, keeping it in my basement, getting a few of my buddies together and systematically torturing it.

...let's say we keep it alive over the same amount of time it would take for poison to kill it.

And let's make the statement that the fox will suffer pretty much equally in both cases. I think this is a bit of a non-scientific comparison - it depends on how you quantify 'pain' and 'suffering', but let's say this is the case for arguments sake...

 

According to your above statement, you say that these two cases can be seen as equivalent with no moral difference.

 

I put it to you that the poison method would be used by somebody who at the very least wanted to kill the fox in the most humane way possible.

Ok, so we've already agreed that there is no practically feasible humaine way to do this.

...but are you seriously suggesting that keeping the fox in your basement and turtouring it for an equivalent time is 'morally' equivalent as far as the person is involved?!

 

Do you not accept that being willing and able to personally oversee the torture of a fox is very different to laying down some poison because you have to protect your livelyhood?

 

..and please note - again - I'm not trying to suggest that fox hunting is the same kind of systematic torture I've just mentioned.

I'm simply challenging the statement that if the fox dies, and suffers as it dies, then the intent of the person who kills it is irrelavent to morality.

...I'm sorry, I just don't buy that in any way...

 

You can regretfully kill something, or joyfully kill something. These are two different things, and are intertwined with morality. I find it hard to beleive we can even argue this point cos it's so clear...

[iamtrip]

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:

 

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:

 

Popular opinion is largely irrelevant as it is dictated by the media and the government.

 

 

 

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.

[Spider AL]

I have already directly addressed all of your points,

Rubbish, you have failed to answer these three simple questions:

 

1: You still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable.

 

2: You have NOT answered the point that someone killing something else merely for pleasure (fox hunting) is more immoral than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no sick pleasure in it. (poisoning)

 

3: You have NOT answered the point that fox-hunting is not a valid method of pest control because it does not kill enough foxes, while also damaging the farmland that its apologists claim to be defending. It is too inefficient to be useful or cost-effective, thus it cannot be defended on the basis of its pest-controlling side effect.

 

Without explaining your reasoning in these respects, your argument will remain illogical, and therefore utterly invalid.

 

---------

 

Morals are the confines and judgements of society. You cannot logically determine whether something is immoral or not.

Simply wrong. Morality is a standard that is applied to everyday life. If there is no logic to determine what is moral and what is not, morality becomes arbitrary judgementalism which is therefore IMMORAL.

 

Of course you need logic. So respond to the point at hand.

 

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.

LOL Okay mate, you're implying here that you believe cruelty is acceptable? What sort of angsty teen goth are you? Not only this, but you admit that fox-hunting is intrinsically cruel.

 

Could you prove my argument any better?

 

Who decides what morality is, other than each individual?

Hopefully the power of reason and logic decides what is moral, which remains intractibly the same no matter which individual is applying it.

 

Pest control needs to be a realistic means of controlling entire populations of pests now?

It certainly needs to have an appreciable impact on the population of pests to be efficient enough to carry the label of "valid means of pest control", as opposed to just HIDING behind the label.

 

Lol. The irony (you still haven't managed a counter argument from the 'Threat to America post ).

The thread's still there, you and everyone else can go back and view my answers to your questions. The fact that you ignored those answers is not my responsibility.

 

Both are equally painful. Both are equally prolonged.

Rubbish... You're just making nonsense up now. The differences between the two have been explored several times in this thread.

 

Passing legislation effecting only half of the situation has no moral effects.

It may not have a PRACTICAL effect trippy as you've been arguing, but it certainly has moral implications. You seem incapable of differentiating between moral and practical... it's tedious.

 

For one, the ban on fox hunting is not part of an ongoing campaign to improve the welfare of animals.

Give me a quote in which I stated that it was. You can't because there isn't one. I stated that the ban can be USED by campaigners. You can't twist people's words on message boards and get away with it sonny, everything's archived for reference.

 

Secondly, why should we support an utterly pointless ban on fox hunting, whilst equally immoral (using your judgement of morality) practices continue?

Because if we can't take down all immoral practices in the world simultaneously, we should enjoy the eradication of each one in turn.

 

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?

Heh heh. What utter utter guff. You're really desperate, aren't you... poisoning is in no way as catastrophically stressful to an animal as running for its life from malevolent pursuers over miles of country can be. The fear, the adrenaline overdose and subsequent low, the body-functions breaking down as the mind swamped in terror drags the body along...

 

As for pain, each instance will be different, so don't pretend they're always comparable.

 

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.

Of course it is. Once again, banning ONE immoral thing is still moral, even though other immoral things exist.

 

Therefore, the ban is not a good first step. There will be no more steps

How do you know what the animal rights campaigning community will do next, fuelled by their joy over this ban that stops immoral behaviour?

 

Now that your "points" have been disproven once again, go up and answer the questions directly, or remain a desperately scrabbling, repetitive person, flogging an already lost argument to death.

[ShadowTemplar]

Damn! I thought that this thread was about the TV station!!!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Finally, if you ban fox hunting, I believe you need to set a precedent to ban all other types of hunting, as well as other forms of animal farming, more specifically battery farming.

Since none have been banned, or are even being considered for being banned, there seems no legitimate reason to ban fox hunting, other than as a diversionary tactic unite a deeply fragmented party.

There's a difference between shooting birds (killing them with one shot) and having a fox be torn apart by dogs.

 

Also, at least you eat the bird, or deer, or moose, or bunny, or whatever.

 

Morals are the confines and judgements of society. You cannot logically determine whether something is immoral or not.

You can determine what is moral and immoral. Some things are moral, some things are immoral. If you're going to go around saying "well, you can say it's immoral, I don't care", well, you have to realize that that goes for you too. I can steal your wallet and call it moral. I can beat you up and call it moral.

 

[Torturing] foxes are in no way like torturing cats

Huh? Why not? Because cats may belong to someone? Because cats don't steal from you? What about feral cats and other homeless cats that rip apart your garbage bags at night? I suppose it's okay for me to get a rifle and car and a team of dobermans and pursue the thing for miles, then...

 

Because if we can't take down all immoral practices in the world simultaneously, we should enjoy the eradication of each one in turn.

Exactly.

 

Africans in the USA got their voting rights while physical punishment of children remained legal. Do you oppose Africans' right to vote, then, fox hunter?

 

'Mad' is a term we use to describe a man who is obsessed with one idea and nothing else.

On what possible location on Earth did you learn that, Mr. Freud?

 

Angry; resentful. See Synonyms at angry.

Suffering from a disorder of the mind; insane.

Temporarily or apparently deranged by violent sensations, emotions, or ideas: mad with jealousy.

Lacking restraint or reason; foolish: I was mad to have hired her in the first place.

Feeling or showing strong liking or enthusiasm: mad about sports.

Marked by extreme excitement, confusion, or agitation; frantic: a mad scramble for the bus.

Boisterously gay; hilarious: had a mad time.

Affected by rabies; rabid.

--Dictionary "Dot Com".

 

I totally agree. If we had the option to kill foxes in a humane way, then I would support a ban.

Which we don't? Heard about trapping and then, upon discovery, euthanization? Heard about trapping and relocating foxes? Heard about this, heard about that... geez.

 

 

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

I want to make something perfectly clear to you, so listen up: First of all, it's 10 minutes. Second of all, that's an urban legend. How on Earth are you supposed to survive when having lost connection to your heart? And don't give me "well, you've got blood in your head still". Why do you think the heart beats so many times a minute? If the blood in your head is good for three minutes, I find it odd that the heart doesn't beat only once every two or three minutes... Also, I know that if your head is severed, your body "kills itself" automatically due to the extensive pain.

 

Show me one medical report that proves me wrong. Now let's get back on topic as we both know you will not find such a report.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I want to make something perfectly clear to you, so listen up: First of all, it's 10 minutes. Second of all, that's an urban legend.

 

Wrong. The brain continues to function (albeit in a less than optimal way) for at least several minutes of oxygen deprivation. We know that because it is possible - with swift reaction - to enable full recovery in a person whose heart has stopped (due to electrical shock, f.eks.)