Corrosive Shame

So you could swallow it? ;P

From:

kneeshooter

Not quite...

From:

maleghast.livejournal.com

You can't object to the torture and killing of some animals and then support the torture and killing of others...

What you mean is:

"Oh for a finalising and compelling political platform from which I can win my argument peacfully whilst retaining the high moral ground."

surely...

From:

kneeshooter

I see where you're coming from, but some creatures are so underdeveloped that the concepts of life and death are most likely well beyond them.

From:

Perhaps if we just hunted protestors (in any form) instead?

From:

feanelwa.livejournal.com

Oh, please don't blow up my mother. I know she disagrees with you and is occasionally a pain in the arse, but I don't want her to die just yet.

From:

kneeshooter

You're safe - I'm an armchair activist with neither hand grenade nor Batman costume to hand with which to make my point.

From:

I have no doubt that these are the self same violent law-breaking protestors, fighting to overturn the views of parliament who are busy on other days of the week critising animal rights activists for behaving in similar ways. I bet that they'd be appalled by the suggestion that gangs of town-folk dress-up in fancy costumes and ride through the streets and local gardens on dirt-bikes, whilst tooting fog-horns and setting packs of dobermans on local stray cats. I can't see a whole lot of difference between that suggestion and fox hunting myself. I really hate their hypocricy and their need for titilation derived from cruelty and bloodshed.

From:

I despair at the need of most people for “titillation” from cruelty. As evidenced by the popularity of the News, which offers everyone, a ringside seat to the cruelty of life in glorious live action Technicolor.

Banning the News (or such negatively biased reporting) would actually make a positive difference, unlike banning fox hunting.

From:

How silly of me to think fox hunting is cruel; having read your post I can't for the life of me think why I came to such an obviously false opinion! I shall cease reading the Independent and listing to Radion 4 immediately.

From:

There are two things..

1. Is fox hunting cruel?
Some people think it is, others don’t.
It would be interesting to see (I have no info on this) how long fox hunting has been considered cruel by significant numbers?

2. How much good it will do? (Banning it)
I mean this in the grand scheme of things. When compared to how much good could have been achieved by focusing the countries limited resources (including pressure groups, protesters and fanatics) on other areas.
Than again we could be living in a world where the worst that can happen is fox hunting.

From:

I don't believe that cruelty is a matter of perception - if two people have different views about the acceptability of causing pain and suffering, I don't believe that changes the fact that pain and suffering is occuring.

Little things add up - I think it better to do something than nothing. I also believe that when Labour made the ban a manifesto commitment twice running and got elected, it became their duty to uphold their promise to the people. We could be focussing our efforts on all sorts of worthwile things - cancelling thirld world debt, spending less on missiles, narrowing the gap between rich and poor. The fact that the government is not doing a good enough job on that front does not change the argument that ending cruelty is a good thing. I think the way we treat the planet, each other, and the other inhabitants of the earth is a reflection upon our level of decency, humanity and enlightenment.

From:

What about the pain and suffering those who make their livelihood servicing the hunts will now endure? What about the enormous loss of life the hounds and horses will now endure?

At least it's another nail in Labour's coffin. And don't hold up single instances of manifesto pledges as being the platform on which a party got elected by a minority of the people.

This was never about cruelty - because more cruelty will ensue when farmers are forced to trap, poison and shoot foxes - it's always been a class issue. Hurrah for the great unwashed!

From:

There's no reason why drag hunting can not become more regularly practiced - it's just the same as a fox hunt but no foxes get chased and then torn apart. If horses and hounds are killed it will be out of spite and to prove a point.

If we cannot use manifesto pledges as a basis for holding a party to account, judging their performance, or casting our ballot; then what can we use?

Shooting foxes is far more humane than chasing them down and setting the dogs on them. To be honest, foxes are a very minor problem in the countryside - fox hunting is certainly not practiced out of a need to keep fox numbers down (I'm writing here as a person raised in the country, and who's had a considerable amount of contact with, and invitations from, fox hunters).

From:

I don't believe for a minute that hunters will kill their animals out of spite. I would hope that most horses will find new owners, but most of the hounds will die because they can't be rehomed and they can't be retrained once they've been hunted. What happens on a drag hunt when former fox-hunting hounds get a fox scent?

I think I agree that hunting isn't entirely about keeping fox numbers down, although it does have some effect. I am curious as to why shooting is more "humane" and I think the concept of "humane" is actually the heart of the whole issue - a fox being killed by dogs is actually more natural than it being shot, after all. Perhaps we could retrain the hunters as marksmen and they could gallop around and shoot the foxes and hopefully not any of their stepchildren by mistake while they're at it?

As for holding parties to account, isn't that the whole problem with our political system? You can't.

From:

Given the choice between being shot to death or being torn apart be dogs I don't think most people would have much difficulty deciding.

As for accountability - our politicians are accountable via the elections to their constituents; they are accountable through the media and through their party. The problem is not that politicains are not accountable; but that they are not accountable enough.

From:

The thing is that it isn't about what a human thinks is an acceptable way to die, although that's what fox sympathizers are projecting onto the animals.

And I disagree about accountability, especially where the media is concerned. You can't tell me you believe a single thing reported in the media these days, surely? It's all distorted, if not made up completely. When you say accountable to constituents, accountable to the largest minority of constituents would be more accurate. Not sure that being accountable through their party is worth a damn either. But I've said it often enough, we don't live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy.

From:

boglin.livejournal.com

Bit late entering this debate, but I can't quite understand why anyone would keep a horse *just* to hunt. Surely there are other aspects of riding and horsemanship they must enjoy? I can't quite get my head round the argument that because you can't spend every Saturday chasing a fox across the countryside you're going to have to sell or shoot your horse. As for the hounds, obviously in the short term it is perhaps sad that they will be shot, but seeing as I don't know many retired foxhounds anyway...

From:

But somehow it's less sad than a few foxes?

From:

boglin.livejournal.com

Not at all, and I would be delighted if the hunt supporters would be compassionate enough to provide for existing foxhounds until the natural end of their days; I would be more than happy to contribute to a retirement utopia for them, as I'm sure would many other members of the ignorant city masses. The foxhounds do not need to hunt foxes in order to surive - it's not like saying we should save antelope and let lions starve. Claiming that either the fox must die or the hound is false logic as far as I'm concerned. It is up to each hunt to decide whether their dogs are important enough to continue to provide for, or whether they are just an expendable tool. Bit like greyhound racing really. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that hounds were disposed of as soon as they had stopped being useful anyway?

From:

Surely the foxhounds do need to hunt foxes in order to survive if they are disposed of as soon as they stop being useful?

The foxes are going to die anyway, and more "cruelly" than ever before. Those supporting a hunting ban are responsible for the needless deaths of the hounds as well as the growth in fox suffering that will follow.

From:

boglin.livejournal.com

Surely the foxhounds do need to hunt foxes in order to survive if they are disposed of as soon as they stop being useful?

In which case it's only a matter of time before they're shot anyway. And you're missing my point. A working animal does not need to hunt quarry in order to surive as it is cared for by those who have responsibility for it. If those people then decide to kill it because it isn't any use to them any more, that's not a survival issue - it's an arsehole issue.

Those supporting a hunting ban are responsible for the needless deaths of the hounds as well as the growth in fox suffering that will follow.</>

I'm sorry, but I think that's rubbish. Those responsible for the 'needless' death of the hounds are those who decide to kill them - the same people who kill the hounds who are too old to hunt, have become unable to hunt, or show little incliniation to do so.

I would like to see more information on the whole dying cruelly thing, but in my experience the quickest and least cruel way to take out an animal is for someone who's a decent shot to shoot them. I presume that how the hunt kennels kill their dogs when they get too old, anyway.

From:

I don’t think that if someone is forced to do something because of the actions of others that they can be assigned full responsibility.

The Government must take responsibility for architecting the situation. It then follows that all those who are represented by the MP they voted far who did not oppose fox hunting are equally responsible and doubly so if they voted Labour, as it was a manifesto promise (or so I am told, as I don’t read such things).

Quick! Pass the basin of water.

From:

Pain and suffering can be caused in oh so many ways, some would argue this as a pleasure rather than cruelty. So I would say that cruelty is in the eyes of the beholder and probably the receiver.

Life, the world and nature itself is not fair. So to seek equality is unnatural. We are apart of the world and nature, not separate and we should accept inequality as a natural consequence.

I know what you are saying, that banning fox hunting moves us a step towards a more caring society. This is probably in line with the evolution of society, though we do suffer relapses.

However, we are also exploiting other countries to achieve this freedom to be so enlightened. Such issues as child labour have gone from our own shores so we can afford to focus on the smaller issues that we (as a society) are beginning to class as undesirable.

On the cruelty scale I would put the issues in other countries as far above those of a handful of foxes. Perhaps if we were more proactive and less tolerant of such gross abuses of basic existence we might move to do something about it.

Going back to fox hunting, I would consider more cruelty is done to animal kind by zoos and people abusing their pets. Add to that child cruelty and I don’t see fox hunting as worthy of such outrage.

From:

I bet that they'd be appalled by the suggestion that gangs of town-folk dress-up in fancy costumes and ride through the streets and local gardens on dirt-bikes, whilst tooting fog-horns and setting packs of dobermans on local stray cats.

Aha, so you've visited the High Peak, then?

I'd prefer a return to the days where we could ride around and shoot trespassers on our land, actually.

From:

Because human life is worth less than potential property damage?

From:

Property, livestock, livelihood - and not potential, actual. I think shooting them in the knees would save everyone a lot of time - they wouldn't need to walk and leave gates open and throw rubbish about and worry livestock with their dogs and complain about barns not being the right colour and electric fencing not being aesthetic. When is one human's pleasure worth more than another's livelihood?

From:

I see; having an opinion about the colour of barns or the look of fences, and dropping litter should be an offense punishable by shooting in the knees?

From:

Absolutely. In fact, shooting's a waste of ammunition, we should just charge them down with lances.

From:

Texas!

From: