Fox Hunting is Ridiculous

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

A bill banning fox hunting was not in the Queen's speech. Good. I find fox hunting pretty ridiculous but even more ridiculous is the fact that there are many more things that could improve animal welfare in far more dramatic ways. For example: banning battery farming of Poultry and the importation of factory farmed meat or the Re-establishment of regional slaughterhouses so animals don't have to be transported hundreds of miles to be killed or the banning of antibiotics in animal feeds. If just half the effort was put into one of these that was put into banning fox hunting we might actually get somewhere.

― Ed (dali), Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

But foxes are cute!

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

But Ed, none of those were in the Queen's speech either! What sort of reasoning is this?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 30 November 2003 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Think of the 255 hours of parliamentary time that has been wasted on this and all those sanctimonious sabs who could be fighting for something worthwhile.

― Ed (dali), Sunday, 30 November 2003 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

There is definitely something to be said for the Bill Oddie and the Goodies' approach to stamping out fox-hunting.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 1 December 2003 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Rupert Murdoch hunting...now THAT'S a sport.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 1 December 2003 05:56 (twenty-one years ago)

what do y'all think of the trust fund idea? is this considered a pipedream? regular legislation? radical?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 1 December 2003 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I tend to agree Ed. A ban on fox hunting is merely class war dressed up in hunt sab dreads.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i am glad that these ppl put the time & effort into campaigning for fox hunting to be banned. It is barbaric & unneccessary. The argument for fox hunting to be used as a method of culling is ridiculous. I have no problems with a farmer shooting a fox if it is worrying his livestock. The rspc@ is campaigning for the outlawing of battery farms, it just isnt as high profile. They have just completed a survey of vegetarian foods in supermarkets, which scarily shows that most vegetarian food in supermarkets contain battery farmed eggs. Even well known veggie brands such as qu0rn contain some battery farmed eggs. Now that is ridiculous.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Ed/Pete. Zoe Williams in last weeks Grauniad made the obv but necessary point that the buying off of Labour MPs on the PFI-NHS bill with the promise of a hunt ban was absolutely insane.

I'm not mad keen on the idea of fox-hunting, but as a carnivore it's hard for me to be anti. I don't find it barbaric.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't think 20 hounds chasing a fox & then ripping it to pieces for sport is barbaric?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i've never seen the 'ripping to pieces' bit, just the silly costumes and lots of running around the countryside (which is a fabulous concept and would be fine would it not be for the fact these people are utter twats and should be hunted down themselves just for being horse-bred and uber-privileged).

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I have no problems with a farmer shooting a fox if it is worrying his livestock

I too think foxhunting is cruel and unneccessary, but I certainly don't think farmers should ever be allowed to shoot foxes. Certainly very few farmers are trained marksmen, so it is likely that the farmer would shoot the fox, say, in the leg, so that it dies a slow lingering death through starvation as it is unable to get around and feed itself, which is as cruel and causes as much unnecessary suffering as foxhunting itself! No, the solution is for the Government to licence trained marksmen skilled in identifying the old and diseased foxes to go round and shoot these dead, cleanly, as it is these foxes which go into poultry farms and kill the livestock as they are not fit enough to kill wild animals for food.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't think 20 hounds chasing a fox & then ripping it to pieces for sport is barbaric?

Compared to what? I suppose it's the 'for sport' bit which makes it unpalatable.

Among countless other things maybe it's barbaric. I think class war posturing is the only reason this barbarity, among the millions perpetrated daily, is singled out.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

If it truly is for the thrill of the chase, these ppl can follow a pre placed scent, which does not involve any killing at the end.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't the fox escape 2 out of 3 times anyway?

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well i see your point about farmers not being marksmen, but this is one of the arguments that will keep fox hunting going. The farmers will say that the fox is a nuisance & hunting is the best way to keep the numbers down.

Fox hunting doesnt need to be compared to anything to be barbaric. It is not a race issue for me, merely the fact that i am sickened that is a society such as ours this inhumane, violent sport should be allowed to exist.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Steve - is it true that the foxs do get away alot of the time, but this is not until they have been chased to within an inch of their life, being scared & in pain.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Sure, but it isn't for the thrill of the chase, it's a macho ritual all about blood and guts. No two ways. Either you find that barbaric or you don't, I guess; but much as I think it unpleasant, and would not take part in a hunt, and in my experiecne have not much liked huntspeople, I'm not sure that that is what the law is for.

There's plenty that sickens me about society too, but maybe I'd rather see the arguments won at a sub-legal level.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe the foxes should think how the chickens like it.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

of course it's what the law is for. Just beacuse it is not as important as say trying to deal with homelessness or whatever, but it is just as important. how would you feel if someone was regularly beating their dog, would it bother you? Would you want there to be a law to protect this animal?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

They should ban it, and then have televised Nuremberg-type trials of participants, who can then explain to the world just why they get such a big fuckin' thrill out of it

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I love the way that participants will argue that it is tradition. We used to burn witches, but there was a reason we stopped that aswell.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it looks quite fun.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)

And why is that?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Dressing up in stupid clothes and jumping over hedges? How is this not fun?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

You can do that anytime, nobody is stopping you, but just don't kill the fox at the end of it!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Of all the things to get het up about, foxhunting is very low on the list. IMHO.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah in your opinion, it is something that means alot to me & I stupidly thought it might be a serious debate on the subject.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, how can you have a serious debate about it? You're looking at it on absolute terms, i.e. it is wrong to brutally kill an animal for sport. From a pragmatic viewpoint, there are all kinds of arguments, but you're not going to listen to any of them. So you win - how can we compete?

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely it is a necessary part of any serious debate to investigate why the debate is happening? Why is fox-hunting such a big deal when unfair trade terms, religious intolerance, simple exploitation, preventable illnesses, government corruption, drug wars, etc etc ad inifnitum, are killing thousands of humans? It seems impossibly far down the list.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Seems to me there are similarities between the fox-hunting set in England and the marching Orangemen in Ireland, which go further than their dress sense. The traditions they cherish are mostly a whopping great gloat at their opponents, whose impotent fuming and cursing are a big part of the fun.

It's all about empowerment and entitlement. 'We can ban your leisure activities, you can't ban ours. Nyah nyah nyah!'

Markelby, when you use IMHO what does the H stand for?

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

'gloating' at foxes =! kneecapping your crime rivals

Most of the UK hunting aristocracy is sorta-kinda catholic, though politically they wd support the unionists.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Enrique that may be the case, but we arent talking about that on this thread, we are talking about foxhunting.
Mark, if you can put forward a valid argument for fox hunting, then of course I will listen. I have very strong views about this issue yes, but it doesn't mean I am so arrogant as to not listen to other ppl's views. I am a vegetarin aswell, but I don't ram these views down anybody else's throats here. It is not about who is 'winning' either.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I know ppl that hunt who would be offended at the fact that you assumed they are catholic. In my experience they are very much c of e.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

H'authoritarian. (ee's a cockney inneee).

I think it is certainly true that the tradition of fox hunting is all bundled up in class and land owning privilige, and as such is a display of hereditary power. I think was was interesting about the bill as it was originally tabled was a ban on hunting with dogs. As if to say, well its okay if the humans want to be barbaric, but forcing the poor little doggies to do something unnatural like hunt is beyond the pale. In this case there is a double dose of anthropomorphacizing:
a) Foxes have the capacity for fear and pain and hence the hunting of them violates their right to live and die in a natural manner
b) Dogs are by their nature docile domesticated animals which would never hunt a fox and/or viciously rip its throat out left to its won devices.

Both arguments seem flawed.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

(Especially if the arguments are bundled with spelling mistakes like that).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I know ppl that hunt who would be offended at the fact that you assumed they are catholic. In my experience they are very much c of e.

Yeah, I said 'kinda-sorta' catholic for a reason. Catholic in the Evelyn Waugh/Chales Moore sense. C o E is the broadest church out there!

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:26 (twenty-one years ago)

(Many many xposts)
Well I don't fox-hunt. It's not part of my tradition, I can't ride a horse and I don't know anyone likely to ask me on a hunt. So I don't really feel very strongly about it. But it seems to me to be a perfectly useless and harmless thing to do. I get the impression that it's all a bit chaotic and ineffective as a vermin-disposal technique, and it just a day out with the pooches most of the time. It strikes me as very different from, say, bullfighting, which relies on the audience watching every step of the torture. Logistically, I can't believe that many people on a hunt get a glimpse of a fox, even if the hunt is successful. So I'm not sure if the bloodthirstiness accusation sticks.
On the sport blog Tim linked to an anti-rugby rant which was a complete mystery to me. The writer was going on about Range Rovers and Tories, and things which were totally irrelevant to whether rugby was a worth while game or not. A lot of the anti-hunt arguments seem to follow this pattern.
Thinking about the bloodthirstiness for a sec again though, is it wrong to enjoy killing an animal? The main prob anti-hunt people have with hunting (if they're not going on about Barbour jackets) is that people have the temerity to enjoy it. Is that the issue? Conceding that vermin need to be controlled, and saying that whoever does this MUST FEEL BAD about it seems a bit much to ask.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Pinky, that's my problem. I can't give you an argument because I don't have one that would have a chance on your terms. The only way I could is if you ignored the cruelty of the sport and viewed it on a sociological level. Understandably, this isn't going to work for you.

I think the whole "there are worse things to worry about" concept (which I know I invoked myself earlier) is flawed because if something is inherently bad then it's useless to judge it against other things unless you're specifically only able to solve certain problems and not others. Murder is worse than GBH, but does that mean the latter should be ignored? Of course not. So pro-hunting arguments are screwed unless you can ignore the emotive issue of cruelty at the heart of it.

The H stands for "humble", which it obviously very seldom is :)

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:29 (twenty-one years ago)

how much of an industry has been built on fox-hunting? there's often some sort of fund-raising nonsense in tandem with it isn't there?

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox hunting is not an effective method of vermin control. What gives humans the right to kill a wild animal? It's not as if they are going to eat what they have killed. It is purely for pleasure purposes that they continue to hunt. Yes they should feel bad about killing these animals for sport. There would be a public outcry if domestic dogs were released to run in the street & then ppl take potshots at it, to see if they could kill it for the sheer hell of it.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

But surely you cannot remove cruelty from the argument. I have no issue with the class of these ppl, I just have issue with what they do & perceive as fun.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

But they don't think it's 'fun', they think it is something greater and grander, hence problematic symbolism perceived by pro's and anti's. Were it 'fun' only, then nobody would care if it were legal or not, like drugs or something.

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

fox hunting may not be effective but fox killing IS, the 'right' to kill them is as a means of preventing them killing and eating chickens. in this respect the METHOD of how it is done becomes less important - mark h made good points about the problem with bequeathing the responsibility to farmers for example. i would suggest spending money on better security for chicken coups rather than on fancy hunting outfits and subscriptions to Horse & Hound however.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

but if questioned they rarely will give other excuses than 'it is tradition' 'it's the thrill of the chase' 'it's keeps the fox population down'. All of these reasons are complete rubbish.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well other things are relevant if that's the case. Do you think it acceptable that ppl find drinking and drug-taking fun?

Oh, Dave Q's on to that already. My point is that drug-taking causes untold pain around the world to humans -- it isn't just fucking fun for the Columbians/Afghans caught up in it!

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

but if questioned they rarely will give other excuses than 'it is tradition' 'it's the thrill of the chase' 'it's keeps the fox population down'. All of these reasons are complete rubbish.

well, it *is* tradition, it *is* (presumably) thrilling and it *does* (inefficiently) keep the vermin down -- so how are these reasons rubbish? You have your conception of 'rights' for animals, they believe in the 'right' to hunt. It's kind of irreconcilable at that level.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Whether it's effective or not isn't the issue. Even if it was 100% effective it would still be a massive outlay of resources for 1 fox. What I'm saying is that if you concede that vermin do need to be controlled (do you? you seem to, but you also say that humans have no right to kill wild animals), surely it would be better to find a pleasurable way of doing this? Or should anyone doing something you find distasteful find it distasteful?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:46 (twenty-one years ago)

The Colombians and Afghans would be fine if the fucking DEA just left them alone. Buy smack, give a poppy farmer's children presents this Xmas.

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

And of course the right's of a fox impinges on the rights of their prey, sparrows and urban dustbins. Should foxes be so priviliged. Pouring salt on a slug is equally reprehensible.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:48 (twenty-one years ago)

But quite cool.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:48 (twenty-one years ago)

do slugs feel pain? And even if they do, is death by osmosis painful?

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:49 (twenty-one years ago)

The Colombians and Afghans would be fine if the fucking DEA just left them alone. Buy smack, give a poppy farmer's children presents this Xmas.

Yeah, both countries were way fuckin peaceful before the yanx got involved.

But yeah fair nuff point though the competition for drug trade isn't the most peaceful either. Wd that be different if it were permitted? I don't know.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Slugs are really intelligent man, like dolphins

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

it's cos they can pick up Radio 4 with those antennae

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Mmm, dolphins.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Pinky, are you still there? We're not having a go at you, I promise.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure Robin Carmody will post to this thread eventually saying much the same thing in far nicer and better-informed tones, but I'd like to see fox hunting banned because the kind of people who will consider it a betrayal are exactly rhe kind of people I want to piss off as much as possible. In other words, it should be banned because rich bigoted sub-aristocratic Tories do it and anything that stops them having fun and/or makes them feel even more victimised is okay by me.

The fact that there are foxes involved and they die horrific and painful deaths is merely incidental to the argument.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:55 (twenty-one years ago)

on a lighter note

http://www.nemoprod.net/emu/console/smshot/pfox.gif

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:56 (twenty-one years ago)

But Matt, these ppl thrive on 'betrayal'

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)

In other words, it should be banned because rich bigoted sub-aristocratic Tories do it and anything that stops them having fun and/or makes them feel even more victimised is okay by me.

Is the empty class war stuff mentioned upthread -- it's a stand-in for effecting real change. I'd ban cocaine for the same reason, but I'm not an authoritarian.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:02 (twenty-one years ago)

In which case, we should allow them the opportunity to foxhunt but only in specially-dedicated Fox Hunting Parks, which also double as windfarms right in the view of their unspoilt 500-year old estate.

Wild foxes are safe, UK gets new green energy and rich people get to have their fun right next to their houses with additional obstacles involved! Win-win!

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I'm down with that.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Cocaine is the ppl's drug!

I agree 100% w/ Matt DC: fox-hunting = dog-fighting for posh cunts

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

yes and the animal liberation ppl then come along and let out all of the foxes from the parks into the surrounding countryside, just as they do with mink from farms! I have no objections to farming mink, but I have GREAT objections to a non-native predator being released from a farm to decimate the local wildlife.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Cocaine is the ppl's drug!

absolute bollox. it's for robbie williams fans who think they're the people. i can't sodding afford it anyway, fortunately since i'm not into the whole 'being an arrogant shit while directly funding armed criminal gangs' deal.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Big beefy bouncers out to reveal us geezers on e's and first timers kids on whizz darlins on
Charlie
All come together for this party
All races many faces from places you never heard of

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:22 (twenty-one years ago)

robbie williams fans don't hunt foxes

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)

yeh they just skullfuck badgers, get with the program!

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

robbie williams fans hunt robbie williams.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 1 December 2003 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

'creamed badger brains' sold on Gerard St as eternal-youth elixirs tho!

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 12:25 (twenty-one years ago)

squirrels are hunted in Kentucky for their zesty brain-meat, although i think the class politics are a little different

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 13:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn hippies.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

What gives humans the right to kill a wild animal?

What makes you think wild animals have rights? How does a wild animal exercise its rights? How do wild animals represent themselves within the legal system? If wild animals are benificiaries of the legal system, why aren't they paying taxes?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Further to Dan's point, I propose that at the end of fox hunts, foxes are sent to trial and, if found guilty by a jury, sentenced to a fine of £5,000 and up to 2 years in prison.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

they are exempt from taxation as they are unable to work, altho perhaps foxes could be trained to deliver post - that'll learn those workshy Royal Mail slags

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

the postfox to thread!

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Equally luckily inability to fill in forms makes them unable to pick up social security or welfar benefits. So its swings and roundabout.

I think all hounds and foxes should watch The Fox And The Hound, and then we'd see an uprising of these po' canine characters at the way they have been poorly represented in literature.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

there was a major vermin cute-fest on BBC2 last night which involved montage footage of foxes rolling around with each other in glades to the tune of something twee in what is clearly an agenda on Auntie's part - this is what we pay our license fee for people

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I also can't believe that the filthy pervs can get away with running around NAKED all of the time.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

erm Steve, remember who is going to the pub tonight.

― chris (chris), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Equally luckily inability to fill in forms makes them unable to pick up social security or welfar benefits.

that's a cop out - when i was on the dole a smudgy handprint was enough to earn me my beer money

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Well the lack of fox-sourced National Insurance contributions makes me sick to the stomach. And as for pensions, don't get me started.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

(That's why its best to kill them before they get to pensionable age...)

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Then how would we get at the millions they keep in offshore trusts?

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

erm Steve, remember who is going to the pub tonight.
-- chris

i don't know, is Greg Dyke turning up? he'd get all the sports questions wrong i reckon.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

never mind the offshore trusts, they're hoarding all that Nazi gold in their dens

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

(Of course, the underlying point to all of this is that if you're going to anthropomorphize, you really don't get to make an arbitrary distinction between man and animals anymore and the animals are now subject to all of the rules and RESPONSIBILITIES that we are.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Hippies.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

that'll learn those workshy Royal Mail slags

I meant this!

― chris (chris), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008AOTO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

PROOF!

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

the animals are now subject to all of the rules and RESPONSIBILITIES that we are.

but if they don't abandon their young it upsets the entire eco-balance

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

That's alright, if they apply for asylum and don't get it the state gets to put their kids into care and send them back to Foxland.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

but the foxlets will just get abused in care (statistics yadda yadda) so they may as well be back in the wild being hounded by um, hounds. well i guess the system works after all.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ue4k-ngt/eaudevie/rum/FoxLand.jpg

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

well this seems like as good a time as any to resurrect THIS

join us after the break for more Sick Sad World

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I am so mad at you for that.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

At least women pay taxes.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

there is still the naked problem tho

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

It's *either* they pay taxes *or* they run naked, chief.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn right.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Would a society with that rule be misogynist?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

It's the liberal dream. Fuck, I'D go naked if it meant not paying taxes. What's your excuse, toots?

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Not even close. The problem is that we gave them shoes. Now all of a sudden they have an opinion about things.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

pardon me but i seem to have just lost my shit

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Your life must feel very empty now.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 1 December 2003 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

What if they skip practice and just dive right into it?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Cut their damn legs off at knee level, and pour salt into their now tearing eyes.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Only if we can do that to the foxes too - level the playing field.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

that's just not the British way

(x-post - that refers to Dan, not Spinktor whose methods i heartily applaud as a red-blooded ~~Irish~~English mustard man)

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey man, i dont write the rules here...only suggestions.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Hanging people by the gonads is disgusting. Anyone who practices it should be hunted like a fox.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

If bulls didnt want to be speared, then they'd stop being so big with horns. I say they are asking for it. And they want a pity party for it...LETS ALL FEEL SORRY FOR THE FUCKING BULLS. Yeah right. Im not that naive.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)

"civilised" = "your values are the same as mine", apparently.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

No, thats being CIVILISED.

Being CIVILIZED (in american terms) is doing whatever you want and collecting welfare to do it. A no-holds-barred approach to life.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Bulls only see in black and white so rather than react to red rags they are in fact being wound up by a plonker in a stupid costume.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha, so if the foxes could just get to the unemployment office, they'd be red-blooded Americans! IT'S THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR ALL OVER AGAIN.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan, you are catching on.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

hey foxes can get anywhere they want. there was a story here earlier in the year about a fox sneaking into a house PURELY to bite a sleeping child's hand. i caught the odour of several rats but no-one cares anyway.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Its all a sympathy plea from the dumbass cows with horns. Whiney bitches.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

You're all going to have to abandon any argument for fox hunting that has anything to do with controlling the population of foxes, you know. It has been shown a number of times that the big organized hunts build dens and supply food and encourage the breeding of foxes so that they have something to hunt! Even if that were not the case, it's the least efficient method of controlling vermin human history has ever invented.

Yeah, these people are all horrible. I grew up in a village in Wiltshire where the Beaufort Hunt, one of the most aristocratic of them all, sometimes gathered, right in front of my house. It's why these arguments (not recited here) about it being part of country communities, and that city people don't understand how country people are in favour of it, hold no water for me - I knew plenty of local farmers, and never saw anyone I knew in any way involved in these hunts. The farmers hated them, because they rampaged across their land doing all kinds of damage.

It's not something I'm going to campaign about because there are so many other issues ahead of it on my personal agenda, mostly to do with people being cruel to other people (our guesses about the foxes' suffering are rather less solidly grounded than our knowledge of the suffering that domestic violence or child abuse cause, for instance), and I therefore wouldn't have made it any kind of governmental priority, have but after all the trouble that has been gone to already in parliament, I'd like to see it banned as one small but good step. I won't shed any tears if it doesn't happen, but I'm on the anti side.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Just when i thought this thread was reduced to random dribble...

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

martin i clap you

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

This seems like a situation where tradition-inventors can't let a good thing (or bad thing) go - what might have once been considered all good sport old chum is now just the height of lame pseud-aristo naffness - the lack of TASTE involved appears to be the thing legislated against, more than anything else. But you can't legislate taste, can you?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I wasn't really trying to start a debate about fox hunting, although I knew it would go that way what with the two completely intractable positions. I wanted to steer the debate towards the relative values of various animal rights issues. The last truly talismanic animal rights issue in this country was the live exports of calves for veal crating in the early 90s. Battery farming in this country has never raised so much ire and I want to know why really. Maybe a few thousand foxes are killed by hunting with hounds whilst millions of fowl live and die in appalling conditions in the name of cheaper meat. The amount of space in the national debate that fox hunting has occupied seems out of all proportion with the issue at stake. This partly because of the cynical way it's been used by both the Labour party and the countryside lobby, but it still paints our society in a rathe odd light.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the secret behind this is that chicken tastes better than fox.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

And therefore can't be legislated against!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

It tastes even better if it's had a chance to run around and burn off dome of that fat and make some decent muscle.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Chicken fat = ambrosia. Fact.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I second the ambrosia claim.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Does that mean if I eat enough chicken fat I will become a god?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

In a sense...maybe. That is if you dont sex the 'deth' too much in the process. God forbid you hunt a fox as well.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)

How many fox would it take to bring down a giraffe?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Gods make mad "deth"-involved sexing, dog!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

And anyway, no "God" is going to forbid me from chasing the largest giraffe I can find, with the most foxes and dogs on hand, wherever and whenever I want, because I EAT MORE CHICKEN ANY MAN EVER SEEN. I do the forbidding around here!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

(But fox hunting—c'mon that's just ridiculous!)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 1 December 2003 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's pretty screwed up to judge this based on the animal's intelligence, or lack thereof, anyway. We need to get off this egotistical platform that humans are better than anything because their brain power's bigger. This is like two inches away from knob-size thinking.

And then again, we only value each other when it suits, most of the time.

Anyway, if it's about intelligence, let's bring in fox hunter hunting. They're amongst the dumbest fucks breathing air.

― ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Monday, 1 December 2003 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

My argument isn't based on intelligence at all. My argument is based on the belief that arguments that anthropomorphize animals are inherently flawed because animals are not human and are therefore not guaranteed protection by the laws of human society.

Humans are better than wild animals because humans control the environment and make the rules, ergo the game is slanted towards them by default. There is no ambiguity in this. In my mind, the moral implications of being needlessly cruel to a wild animal are completely seperate.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Humans making up rules makes them better because...? We not only control the environment -- we rather cleverly fuck it up to boot. Hmmm.

Fuck human society and its 'protection' of its own interests. The only thing humans are consistently great at is thinking they're all that.

― ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Reading comprehension is your friend.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Being patronised certainly isn't, tho'.

The 'better' argument doesn't work however you want to cut it. It's a load of nonsense. My reading comprehension is always more tuned into something that makes sense, I guess.

― ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not very difficult; humans control the environment and have as such manipulated it into something where they come out on top, then use this as evidence that they are better than animals. The end result is that human beings say are better than animals because they are more successful at navigating life in an environment suited towards humans. The implication is that the only evidence that human beings are better than animals is the fact that human beings say they are better than animals. The final conclusion is that, on the grand scale of living organisms, human beings aren't any different from any other animal and therefore are no better than any other animal. It's all about who/what is controlling the environment and what conditions are being created and which organisms benefit/thrive from that; it's completely meaningless and distracting to talk in terms of "X is better than Y" due to the inherent anthropomorpism (unless of course you do things like judging the behavior of moths on the same criteria that you use to judge the behavior of sharks).

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, if you agree with me, why phrase it as if you're disagreeing? You made the statement 'humans are better than animals because...' Either you think that's true or you don't, but, to be honest, if you don't, better writing is needed here. My comprehension's just fine.

― ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

The misconception lies in me avoiding scare quotes on the word "better".

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely the fact that humans conceive of making laws for themselves prohibiting animalistic behavious eg killing foxes for kix makes them better?

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 09:46 (twenty-one years ago)

humans are simultaneously better (more sophisticated mentally and emotionally) and worse (destructuve and caught between relative ignorance and all-knowing) than other animals - as Dan says we are able to manipulate the environment in ways unlike any other animal which is both for good and bad

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Kix is a mad-tasty cereal; I'd rip a few animals apart for a bowl.

http://www.walgreens.com/dbimagecache/92845.gif

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Humans rule, dolphins can suck it.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

The dilemma is that the best thing humans can do for other species is to become extinct, but the best way to achieve self-extinction is through use of technology which may adversely affect other species.

― dave q, Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

can animals catch AIDS?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, but it doesn't kill them. So if you tell that Alzheimer's joke except using cows, the punchline changes to "Thank god it wasn't hoof-and-mouth"

― dave q, Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

martin skidmore = otm, I think. It isn't something I get too het up abt, but I must admit I wd assume that anyone who considers thee idea of tearing some animal apart w/a pack of dogs as a pleasant outing in the countryside wd be a person I would not care to know or associate w/. Here in the grim up north, no-one bothers w/this shit anyway, b/c it wd get in the way of picking mag|c mushr00ms, & stealing cars from the poor and burning them out on waste ground anyway.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Ok, just finished reading the entire thread. Let's see...

Why is fox-hunting such a big deal when unfair trade terms, religious intolerance, simple exploitation, preventable illnesses, government corruption, drug wars, etc etc ad inifnitum, are killing thousands of humans? It seems impossibly far down the list.

I hear this sort of argument quite a bit attacking activist groups. Not everyone can fight for the same thing. We need people lobbying for gay rights, the environment, equal treatment in hiring, etc. Everyone (well most) plays their own part in trying to improve the world around them.

I don't think anyone should talk down the groups that seem to lead insignificant causes. Most of the time, the people doing the talking down are not actively fighting for any causes at all.

Personally, I believe that we, as humans, are supposed to protect other animals as best we can. Sure, they can not vote or pay taxes or do your chores, but I think we are responsible for their well being. This includes not killing them for sport. So, yes, for me it is an ethical issue.

Retarded people are human. Children are human. We don't expect as much out of them, but we still care for them. Oh, jeez. I'm not saying retarded people are on the same level as animals. Hopefully, you get my point.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

See, I think we SHOULD expect as much out of children and retarded people. I also do not think we are supposed to do anything WRT animals (I've never subscribed to the "God gave dominion to Man over the beasts of the Earth" idea).

I don't think torturing animals has zero impact on your ethical standing, but I do think that "the ends justifies the means" carries a lot more weight here than it does in most contexts.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

By "the end" do you mean lowering the population of foxes? Or are you speaking more generically?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:19 (twenty-one years ago)

That was my question, as well. It depends on what "means" you use to achieve the "end" you are trying to reach. Surely, this doesn't mean that as the (ha!) dominant species, humans have the right to kill because they're bored with themselves? Cavepeople, at least, had to kill to stay alive.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm speaking much more generically. I am opposed to fox-hunting because it doesn't seem to serve any purpose. I am only mildly opposed to it because it seems that the people in charge are too hapless to actually catch any foxes.

Human beings, ethical and moral issues aside, have the "right" to do whatever they want to because they make the rules. The entire idea of "rights" is a uniquely human concept that doesn't really translate to the rest of the animal kingdom.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd slap a fox in the face if one were in front of me right now.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

....And watch as it rips off bleeding chunks of your fingers/

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

(discard the /)

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I will not discard the /

You do what you want. But im going to slap a fox if thats what i want to do. Im an american, i can kill or slap anything i want.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

All I know is that if bullfighting were legal in the U.S. I would watch it all the time.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 03:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"Surely, this doesn't mean that as the (ha!) dominant species, humans have the right to kill because they're bored with themselves? "

If we aren't the dominant species, then what is? The AIDS virus?

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 03:54 (twenty-one years ago)

>>All I know is that if bullfighting were legal in the U.S. I would watch it all the time. <<

Portuguese or Spanish variant? THE PLOT THICKENS

-
Alan

― Alan Conceicao, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 05:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Lets just start stabbing random animals with sharp sticks. Not just bulls.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Food-chain wise, Bengal tigers are at the top. Somebody should have told Siegfried and Roy.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Good point. I probably would not slap a bengal tiger.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:15 (twenty-one years ago)

'I probably would not slap a bengal tiger.'

Wimp!

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously! Friend and I were in queue for short-order grill at uni. Both of us had been having a Vegetarian Episode. Hamburgers were grilling. Then they became CHEESEBURGERS and the counter guy asked for my friend's order. She looks at me and says, 'fuck it, we're not even at the top of the food chain. The Bengal tiger is, so if I am eaten by a Bengal tiger that's just the Law of the Jungle. Can I have a cheeseburger?'

'Same again.'

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Excuse the shit out of me for not wanting to slap a tiger...

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

it's slap or be slap-up

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Go and get it, or you gonna get gat. Like that?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Slapping the tiger? Never heard it called that before.

(I'd only slap a BT if it asked me to, even if it didn't say please.)

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I say that if you can slap something, and live...then you are automatically higher on the food chain.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Or you taste shit.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I dont even begin to understand what that means.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Sarah is otm, pretty much, building a better world is not about making a prioritised list, more about a series of goals working in harmony with each other.

Mind you this is a good way to justify your life goals being parasitic things like writing alot about music.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, perhaps the reason you haven't been eaten is because you taste bad - see the toad thread for further details.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn, i see what you're saying. What the fuck was I thinking? Ive only kicked back 1/2 cup of coffee as of yet...slow to wake up this morning i guess.

Yeah, im too skinny...and i prolly dont taste good.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:43 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread jumped the shark.

Fuck animals.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Stupid animal.
http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/003_jordan/001_highlights_of_jordan/027_dead_animal_in_the_desert.jpg

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm just surprised that there is a need for any laws specifically for fox hunting.. i mean shouldn't the existing laws concerning animal cruelty already cover killing foxes as a past time? like, if i set fire to my dog and my neighbour saw it, she'd be horrified and call the RSPCA and i'd be on the news.

and it serves the purpose of reducing the population of dogs so that they don't cover the streets with their POO at the fucking time.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Id slap this tiger. He's lazy.
http://schmode.net/tigerdad013.jpg

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Spinktor who are you talking to??

ken your pyro ways have done their magic because London is blessedly free of dogs and their poopy ways. It's very civilised.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Does it matter? I get ignored most of the time anyway.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i like the idea of banning fox-hunting purely on bureaucratic grounds rather than from a moral perspective

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

traditional fox hunting should be kept legal but only on the basis of denying the practioners access to horses & dogs

either
they have to use helicopters and be armed with machine guns and heat-seeking rockets
or
they have to chase the thing across the fields by themselves, on foot, in full costume, and kill it with their own teeth

both the self-affirming darwinian-brass-tacks wry congratulatory back-slapping of ourselves as top-of-the-food-chain humans capable of ceremony/tradition/culture supreme over mere animals and the dignity of back-to-nature primitivist authenticity via hunting/killing and fear/fascination with blood/death would remain plain for all to enjoy in either case

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

apart from last week when in the middle of CAMDEN ROAD (the bit where it's 3 lanes wide) my shoes had the unfortunate encounter with a stinker. :-( clearly I charcoaled one dog too little.

I can just imagine this dog/fox whatever, staring the oncoming 50mph traffic in the face, having a leisurely dump. I hope it died a unpleasant death.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

dog/fox

Hahaha...SMASH!

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i knew they aren't REAL potatoes... but I never knew it was made from dogs and foxes!

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

'either they have to use helicopters and be armed with machine guns and heat-seeking rockets

they have to chase the thing across the fields by themselves, on foot, in full costume, and kill it with their own teeth'

Two separate and distinct schools of fox hunting. The Tarantino school and the Hemingway school respectively.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

We should retrain hunting dogs so that instead of chasing down foxes and killing them they can operate a toilet on their own.

i saw a fox on my street yesterday by the way. i immediately hid behind a tree so i didn't get trampled by a cavalcade of fox hunters. but they never showed, wouldn't ya know. me fox just sat there smoking cigarettes and making long-distance calls

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Urban foxes are way cocky about the lack of foxhunters. They just kind of sit there, staring at you going "wot you looking at?" in BROAD DAYLIGHT. It's all a bit silly.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, this has seriously gotten out of hand. Lets reclaim what is ours.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought you said they get way cockney. They'd be saying things like "dog and bone" and that'd be wrong.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox hunting is awesome.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox hunting is bollox.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Threads on fox hunting are awesome. Sorry.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Most of this thread is bollox. Especially my bits towards the end.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)

If i had a tiger, id send it after you Fred.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks Ken.

I'd send it on to Calum for a good slap.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Why do you keep calling me Ken? I cant figure that out. I just figured you were talking to someone else...but here it is again...that 'KEN' word. Why?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You said on the other thread your name wasn't Spinktor, which surprised me greatly, so I tried to guess what it was by looking at your email tag.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, ok. I understand now. Its Matt if you really want to know. Dont matter though.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)

For a moment I half suspected you may have been Calum.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Nah. Ally can verify my identity. Plus my thread entries are way to short and immature.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)

(I'd like to put down the banner of species superiority for a second to put "We Are All Made Of Calum" by Moby into the heads of the three people still reading this thread. Nothing can stop us now!)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

WAH

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread roxors. It makes me want to commit animal brutality like a mofo.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you guys should make a list of the power chain. For example, are snakes better than rats because they eat them?

Ready. Set. Go!

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Does this apply?
http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/20031231640862093536425.jpg

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

2am in Australia. Time to assume a horizontal attitude.

(If I have nightmares about Bengal tigers, or foxes, or dogs crapping, or Calum, or all or any combination of the above, I'll know EXACTLY who to blame, won't I?)

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

the food chain from the 'Lisa goes veggie' Simpsons is classic

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Me?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"i'm a fifth-level vegan - i don't eat anything that casts a shadow"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

So, foxes....yeah......

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

eleven months pass...

So the govt invoked the Parliament Act. What a mess.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:37 (twenty years ago)

I'm very anti-hunting btw.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:40 (twenty years ago)

And, now, the Countryside Alliance is going to go to court and say "The Parliament Act is illegal because it was never passed by the Lords". However, if the judiciary (ultimately, the House Of Lords themselves, in other words) agree, then all that means is a return to the informal pre-Parliament Act arrangement where the government can force a manifesto bill to pass if the Lords reject it three times within three years (instead of the Parliament Act's two years)

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 19 November 2004 08:18 (twenty years ago)

I'm getting more and more offended by the focus on fox-hunting whilst battery pig and chicken farming continue. It's a drop in the ocean in animal cruelty terms, and a waste of parliamentary time. It seems now to be being played as a political gambit to make the Tories like foam mouthed blood speckled red-coated loonies, once again stifling any proper progressive political debate.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 19 November 2004 08:27 (twenty years ago)

That's true, but at the same time I'm happy with the ban – and if battery farming had been banned instead I'd be wondering why hunting with dogs was still allowed. The hunt ban is a much stronger social statement. Labour doesn't want to be anti-industry and especially anti-agriculture. Something like banning battery farming would make the farming industry suffer much more unless they adapted, which I think they could - but it would nonetheless write off Labour's countryside vote altogether. But the hunt ban is supported by an awful lot of the rural population who just aren't as vocal as the CA. Anyway, in 5 years hunting will be seen as relevant to the UK as bear-baiting or cock-fighting. Maybe.

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 19 November 2004 09:57 (twenty years ago)

I think you're wrong their. An end to battery farming would hurt the large industrial battery farms but would go some way to assisting smaller family run concerns who have the space to take on extensive pig and chicken rearing. In a well managed way it could be a shot in the arm for the everyday working farmer especially as we'd have to ban non-extensively reared imports.

As for the social side of things; it seams to me that this debate has morphed from an animal rights debate into anything but an animal rights debate. A proxy class war because no-one is minded to tackle the real injustices in british society. A petty revolution whilst the welfare state is weakened, nationally important public services and industries are destroyed, rights are eroded. Given the choice, if I were an MP, I would have voted against hunting with dogs but in order to clear the decks.

I agree with your final sentence though.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:42 (twenty years ago)

By "final sentence" do you mean the bair-baiting bit or the "Maybe"?

I think you're probably right about an end to battery farming = helping small farming businesses - I meant that fear of the short-term damage it would do to the big industrial ones puts the govt off doing it, rather than that I believed it was a bad thing. Even if individual small farmers became better off, Labour would still have confirmed the belief that they are anti-rural.

And if the hunters among the landed types think it's a class war - well, it isn't because there are upper class anti-hunting people and working class pros. It suits the toffs to portray themselves as the victims and it makes the old Labour MPs feel like they're not betraying their younger selves.

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 19 November 2004 13:16 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

so it's the last legal hunts today. are there lots of people out there celebrating? after eight years of new labour is this the payoff?

i agree with ed's initial post. this whole thing is out of proportion. i don't 'like' foxhunting, but i just don't get what government is for if it feels increasingly 'hands-off' about finance, public services and so on, but more and more hands-on about petty aspects of behavious like this.

― NRQ, Thursday, 17 February 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

I'm getting more and more offended by the focus on fox-hunting whilst battery pig and chicken farming continue.

Battery pig farming doesn't continue tho. At least not in the UK. We have stricter laws concerning pig farming than anywhere else in the EU. These were introduced at considerable cost to the pig farming industry; quite a few pig farms went out of business as a result.

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 17 February 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.