Jump to content


Guest touchofsable

Recommended Posts

A thread which got heated on the main den has been locked.


Sta acused me of being intolerant of his beliefs. He has an anti hunting stance which I asked him to qualify when he used emotive language that PETA wopuld be proud of. I asked him to qualify his position and he offered nothing.


I on the other hand gave a great deal of rational argument endeavouring to show that my argument was based on evidence not prejudice. I used many objective links, including Veterinary Assocaitions which claim hunting is not cruel. They are expert opinion.


If Sta is right, fur is morally wrong. Becuase if it is morally wrong to hunt fox on his criteria, it is almost certainly more wrong to farm them, or hunt them for fur. An animla either has the right to be not interfered with by man or man does have that right. Because on a pure welfare basis the bulk of scientific research finds foxhunting not cruel.


I am all in favour of welfare, but not rights.


Sta's acusation that I was intolerant of his views was without foundation. I just demanded he qualify himself as is normal in rational debate.


If he can't , then his opinion is not worth anything. He offered no evidence.


So no....I do not respect an opinion that is based on prejudice. Still however, he has the right to hold that opinion. But when that opinion INTERFERES with someone else's liberty, that is where I have a problem


Foxhunting in the UK is banned. A third of a million people went hunting on boxing day in a show of solidarity against such unjust law. A law passed against the advice of its own objective report...the Burns Report.


Sta is the one whose opinions are profoundly illiberal not mine; and based on an irrational prejudice.


He believes foxhunting is immoral. That is not a question of respect for one another. He believes me immoral. That is an offensive position, and not one that should be wecome in the furden, since it only has justification if PETA are right. So yes I will always be intolerant of intolerance itself.


What moral authority have you Sta? And remember it is not me who wishes to opress you but you who wish to opress the foxhunters. Nobody is forcing you to hunt are they?


Sta you are supporting a government that has banned it.


I suggested people support the Countryside Alliance since it is the only significant opposition to the Animal Rights movement and excesses of government interfering in issues of morality and liberty. In my opinion if the CA win then government will not interfere with issues like that again. If they get away with it, fur will be next. It will be banned, in slow chunks. Firstly will be the Inuit furs, then Cree. That is why many native peoples are uniting with the British hunting fraternity and vice versa.


Sta beleives only western farmed fur is unethical. The government fdoes not share you views and has already embarked on a political path that again ignores expert advice. Maybe you missed this:




If you read from page 5 then you will see that government eec forces have doctored the scientists findings because they have already taken up a position to eventually ban fur.


Do you respect that opinion?


If you are anti hunting but pro fur then you need to know that the same enemy opresses both

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites



You really need to stop and do a reality check, sweetheart.


How many have tried to tell you here that you are out-of-line here?


You just cannot seem to see that with many passionate people that you have crossed the line of objectivity to the point you are abusive?


How many of our wars have been started with people who had a passion? Does that mean they were right? Do you think that members will continue to read and respond positively to you when you act this way?


So, I would consider that you examine how the word tolerance might be applied to your own thoughts.


Your friend always,



Link to comment
Share on other sites


I am being told that something I care about is immoral.


AR argument has been used and it is just as absurd and irrational as the argument against fur. It is STA that has an opinion that is intolerant. NOT ME. Unless I am intolerant of intolerance.


The British government has started a war when it criminalised a million people who support foxhunting.


I am not trying to force people to go foxhunting am I? I am merely pointing out that the government and Sta's position on foxhunting is based on irrational prejudice that is not supported by expert opinion of veterinary science or the findings of the Burns Report. Hunting was banned for reasons of prejudice. And fur will go the same way if opinion like sta's is allowed to flourish without challenge.


The ONLY argument aginst hunting is an Animal Rights argument. And if it is correct then fur is also morally wrong.


If there is some other rational position that it is possible to criticise one and say the other is okay I am all ears.



PETA's position is very clear and very rational if you accept the basic premise that animals have rights not to be interfered with by man.


Sta's position is not rational.


My position if you read it is based on science, and the history of animal rights philosophy.


Nobody has said one thing to discredit my view....they just do not like the way I have put it with such force.


We are already in a war in the UK linda and it was not Foxhunters that started it.


If Sta can qualify his opinion then I am happy to debate it with him and who knows maybe he is right and I will back down.


Either foxhunting is cruel or it is not. I have endeavoured to prove it is not so where does that leave Sta? He is using a position of moral authrority over me and that is unacceptable without qualification.


I am not using morality to opress him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


One thing I have learned here is when we give any instructions with this site or tell people of new areas that we need to keep those instructions less than three or four paragraphs as possible. Anything that is longer usually means that almost no one even reads the first three or four paragraphs either. They just skip the whole thing.


Makes it very difficult for us too. Indeed it makes our task almost impossible by times. But, it is still true.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

This needed a challenge. It is as irrational emotive, prejudiced, lacking in substance and proof as if it were being said about fur or native hunting and therefore should not have ben allowed to stand. It is an AR position:


saw first hand foxes chased to exhaustion then torn apart screaming in agony and fear. And those foxes that went to ground were dug out and tormented by terriers, then either bludgeoned by shovels or thrown to the hounds, very rarely were they ever shot as is assumed. Many of the terriermen gained a lot of pleasure from tormenting the terrified creatures. In addition to this I was made to attend stag hunts on Exmoor. Same situation again, stags were chased to exhaustion, etc, etc. My family are still farming, but mainly at a loss. Several years ago when the Countryside Alliance come along the genuine farming community saw a light for their dwindling lifestyle. Originally touted as an organisation to save homes for country people and to campaign for better prices from milk distributors and supermarkets, however, as the major backers of the CA are obssessed with hunting the whole organisation was hijacked with a pro hunting agenda. And as genuine country people we have lost one the last hopes we had. Across the UK people are being pushed out of their villages by city people buying 2nd homes, many of them are true blue right wingers who are pro CA and have never been on a hunt and have no idea that their 2nd home, supermarket prices lifestyle is destroying the very countryside that they think they are a part of. I am indeed pro-fur, but only if it is fur from Scandinavian, US or Canadian farms where welfare standards are exceptional. I find it hard to understand why the torment and killing of animal for pleasure is acceptable in these modern times.



This was Sta and why I have gone off on one because he is not getting away with it without evidence, rational debate or moral justification. To begin with, it is anti native hunted fur which as you know PETA are extremely afraid of as it ...like British foxhunting...is a proven pro conservation strength and an absolute thorn in their side. Sta's position violates the coc unless he can prove a welfare issue and back up his absurd claims.


I see that what you are saying is I have written at length but sometimes destroying a prejudice necessitates that.


And for his information the CA did indeed object strongly to the abolition of mink farms and several farmers and staff took part in the CA march in gratitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote by Sta:

"I find it hard to understand why the torment and killing of animal for pleasure is acceptable in these modern times. "





That is the bit that destroys our own raison d'etre.


sound familiar? try replacing vanity for pleasure.



Why is it acceptable to kill an animal for us to have sexy or fashion pleasure then?????????????????


Let that stand and you are lost.


Here is a quote from my girlfriend:


" I have not eaten meat for 20 years. It is not necessary. That is my personal position and I do not expect others to agree with me. I hate people who are anti anything because they are intolerant of other behaviour and therefore committed to conflict.

ALL animals in the west are killed for pleasure. Fox management however is essential and hunting is the only discriminate method the objective of which is dispersal not death and when they are caught they are killed in seconds. This is not the case with meat for example. You can't be pro fur and anti hunting. Its ridiculous"


She actually said when I mentioned it to her: "these are people who w**k over fur coats saying hunting is immoral yes?"



See my point? And she is pro fur.


Also she adds:


quote from Sta:


"screaming in agony and fear"



"the fox makes no noise. It is the hounds that yelp. The fox is dead by the time he realises he has been caught. It isn't like a cat kill"


quote sta:


"many of them are true blue right wingers who are pro CA "




"ahaha...that is his issue. Remind him the head of the CA is a socialist: kate Hooey"


sta: "Many of the terriermen gained a lot of pleasure from tormenting the terrified creatures."


G/F : "The terriermen love their terriers. Terriers are bred to kill fox and rats...they enjoy the way they work in the same way I like to see my cat hunt. A Falconer like to see his bird work. People who anthropomorphise dogs forget what they are really for; the terrierman doesn't. To say he enjoys the fox being tormented is a misinterpretation of what is happening and does them a grave diservice"

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Sta's beliefs are rational and valid too him.


By showing extreme intolerance of those views you are as guilty as those you rant against.


If you feel you have the right to demand he defend himself and those views, do it thru P.M's.

If he chooses to ignore you that is his right and you will have to accept it and be done with it.


Don't start another thread just to try and stir up s&%t.


Don't make me lock this thread too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToS, who are you to question anyone views or beliefs? Wallee is right on the money - you've become everything that you rail against.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is nonsense. I am not preventing Sta from indulging in wahtever he wants to. His position threatens the lifestyles and cultures of all those people who are guardians of the wilderness. It is his view he is morally superior to me, the Inuit, or the British foxhunter.

I do not say I am morally superior to him, but have attempted to show the origins of the belief systems that give animal rights credence are without moral authority.


How can I say that simpler.


Okay. am not saying he is wrong; he is saying I am wrong, and what is more implying savagery or evil.


So I want to know who made him fit to judge? The same question can be levelled at any anti fur argument. And therefore destroy it at source.



That is the only argument that gives us the right to wear fur OR hunt...because we have done it without interference from someone saying it is wrong for half a million years.


Diss hunting and you diss fur. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Almond is the most senior professor of modern history in the UK. He is head of history at cambridge, I do not think I can get a better academic qualification for the position YOU guys regard as extrem. It isn't extreme. It IS informed:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you get the antis to agree to disagree and leave people alone to Hunt then?

When hunting is legalised again I will respect the opinions of the antis.


That is my last word on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we have a passion as this forum does, it will have to embrace all areas as to where fur comes from, endangered species etc.

However, in order for us to remain a united group with a common passion we must have RESPECT, respect for others beliefs, but also respect not to inflame and create division.


I personally see a lot of hurt in these sort of forum entries and I hope we just respect peoples right to see differences, argue rationally and leave vitriol out. May we be stronger together....



Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said I have said my piece so this is about opinions and respect only. It does not concern hunting.


I have presented evidence and proven in the complete absence of counter evidence other than anecdote that Sta's view is:

1. without foundation. The claims he makes about hunting being cruel cannot be backed up by science or any other avenue.

2.Therefore morality based. He considers himself to be correct from a moral perspective

3.therefore does not respect the pro hunting opinion, and what is more assumes himself to be a more enlightened being than savages like hunters as he has much higher moral authority, though declines to say from where this comes. God? Man? Himself yes? he is God then?


I respect his right to hold the opinion that hunting is cruel but if he continues to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary , then that implies irrational prejudice.


My opinion comes from extensive research on the subject from an initial position of being anti hunting. I do NOT hold ANY opinions of things on which I am not reasonably informed. It is INFORMED opinion that should always hold sway in a democracy and if it does not then democracy is finished; and we will continue descending into rapid social decay, opressive law, injustice against minorities, conflict, thuggery, ect ect.



Even that said, I would still defend Sta's right to speak.


The problem is, as far Blair is concerned, and I assume Sta too, because they think hunting is immoral, supporting legislation against hunting, or acts of violence against hunting are aceptable because hunting is evil. The anti hunting position therfore is intolerant.


It is exactly the same as an anti fur position.


As I have said before, intolerance cannot be tolerated. Ever, and in any form, without thorough dismantling of the reasoning behind it.


That is what I have done here and for anyone who can be bothered to read it they will see that.


We will have these arguments all the time while you allow intolerance and irrational prejudice here.


Or are we going to tolerate for example racism, sexism, prejudice against tgs, smoking, guns, abortion, hysterical accusations of pedophilia if a lady in fur has a child with her in a photograph, and other positions that come from moralistic and irrational prejudice?


If you are going to hold such illiberal ideas and express them then you must be able to back up your position and we all have an obligation to atack them.


All opinion should be allowed to be expressed but not considered equal.


If I started saying that I thought women were child bearing kitchen units with inferior intelligence I hope you would be down on me like a ton of bricks with rational argument proving otherwise....and with powerful but rational vitriole.


If I stated that most crime is committed by blacks I hope you would demand I produce evidence for such an absurd satement.


We have a duty to attack opinion that is not based on anything other than prejudice; especially when it comes from groups claiming to have a moral standpoint.


Because morality is the greatest oppressor; and fur wearers suffer from that more than anyone. So to find a moral minority here is the reason I have taken this matter so seiously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject is now the nature and worth of opinion especially when such an opinion is unable to be supported by evidence, perpetuates a lie, and eminates from and encourages a moral high ground from which violence and opressive laws can be justified, and becomes part of urban myth and lowest common denominator prejudice.


Let us take for example todays announcement that a rabbit human embryo prodction by science cannot go ahead.


Now I do not know enough about this, apart from the fact that I do not like the sound of it. Howver I know little about it. I need to hear boh sides of the case in depth and then judge.

My judgement should NOT be on grounds of morality unless it can be setablished without reasonable doubt that the prceedure is in fact unethical. Those ethics must be based on something OTHER than religious, or man centred morality.


It must be on scientific or with reference to natural law. Common human decency is not a goode nnough reason. Remeber that is the grounds used by anti fur campaigners, anti smoking camapaigners, and oppressive regimes such as the Nazis.


We must allow science and Art and Other academic disciplines the ultimate say. Sometimes specific disciplines will be wrong. The evidence that smoking causes lung cance for example is circumstantial. A hiistorian or detective, or even a scientist rather than a medical scientist, can prove the case not proven.

Likewise the medical scientists who flocked to back Hitler's master race theories were also easily proven wrong by archeaologists and other scientific discipline. Size of skull and racial features have nothing to do with intelligence. That is not opinion...it is absolute truth: fact.


If the Weimar republic hadn't allowed expression of such absurd ideas through respect for all opinion, then the Nazis would never have got off the ground.


Likewise, we are as a society allowing all sorts of expressions of absurd ideas under the ideal that we must respect other opinions. Not so. We should NOT respect all opinion. Allow its expression yes....as I have maintained all along I do not have an objection to antis/PETA posting here because I know that their arguments can be SOUNDLY defeated with rational argument. But once expressed, it is an OBLIGATION to destroy ill founded opinion with debate.


That is the whole basis...or was...of british constitution and why we have a House of Lords. A house of expert opinion designed to counter the excesses of ill informed prejudice resulting from the house of commons.


The british labour party under Bair have broken that tradition. By doing so they have also allowed a precedent for a future fascist government to rule in the UK...something that the constitution always prevented.


I will however apologise for the HEAT of my argument; howver as I explained from the start it is dificult to argue an emotive position without reprting to equal and opposite emotive strength....howver I do take the point that that can get peoples backss up and I terefore apologise. Agin I point out the vitriolic and emotive nature of Sta's first post in that matter, and the accusations made.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that by debating irrational people you give validity to their arguments, no matter how ludicrous the premise.


"If there was no validity to our statements, why would you be arguing?", they say.


The correct response to these kinds of kooks is to IGNORE THEM!


The old saying goes, "It is better to be silent and let people think you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."


Allow this axiom to have its maximum effect by remaining silent on all but the most important issues and letting the P∂TA-kooks to micturate from the mouth to their heart's content. "People", as a whole, may be stupid as a whole but individual persons are not. They will no doubt see, if given enough time, that those arguments ARE stupid and the people spouting them are JUST as stupid.


But, if you go opening your mouth before taking time to think about your reaction those P∂TA-freaks will use the axiom on YOU! You will be the one standing there with egg on your face and THEY will be the ones in charge of the debate!


"Activate brain before engaging mouth!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason i engaged it worker if you look at my initail post, was to call for people in the Den to support the countryside alliance as the only credible oposition to he Animal Rights bribed labour Governemnt who have banned fur farming, banned foxhunting, and will embark shortly on a course of action to ban imports of fur.

The only chance is to support the CA, who will lobby the Conservative party to reverse these laws. Remeber in the UK we are in the grip of a governemnt with a profoundly illiberal and disrespectful of constitution, animal rights agenda.


In other words, it is a serious issue here.


And I also think that arguments are given validity by not nipping them in the bud.


Look at the urban myth beliefs that fur is cruel,smoking is medically proven as causing diseases such as cervical cancer (rot) etc, without any one rubbishing those arguments. They grow because they are NOT challenged.


Adults need to take on PETA because they are brainwashing kids with stupid ideas. And if they don't, the next generation are lost....as is fur meat hunting...and inevitably animals themselves. And when engaging, they must be completely and utterly destroyed when they have no truth in them.


Acusations must always be countered and never ignored. The truism that "me think thou doth protest too much" cannot be taken seriously surely, when accusations are made without foundation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that, when ridiculous arguments begin to take hold, they need to be put down. But you must be careful in how you go about it.


Pick and choose your battles. Do not argue petty points at length. Always remember the words of Sun-Tzu:


One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes maybe you are right on some occassions in this respect. Difficult for me though when I see unfounded accusations I can be like a dog with a stick!


BUT I did try to make the argument about broader issues which are the war not the battle.


Who has moral authority is the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect his right to hold the opinion that hunting is cruel but if he continues to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary , then that implies irrational prejudice.


And how do you think the fox feels about being chased relentlessly by a pack of blood thursty, crazed hounds, too the point of exhaustion. Knowing fully that if caught, certain death will soon follow?


Don't tell me the fox doesn't care or is a mindless unfeeling animal. If that were the case it wouldn't run to start with.


I know I'm going to regret turning your key and starting you up again, but you sit there and claim there is no scientific evidence to prove hunting is cruel.

Where's your scientific evidence that it's not cruel?

How could anyone possibly prove scientifically whether it's cruel or not?

It's really just a matter of opinion based solely on what side of the pack of blood thirsty dogs you're on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wallee. I am not reluctant to debate with someone who doesn't read waht i have already posted.



I have given you veterinary links, and suggest you read the Burns report, which was the governemnts own expert enquiry whic looked at every aspect of hunting. It came to the conclusion that while there were some welfare issues that were grey areas, the conclusion was that hunting was not cruel and should not be banned.


The government ignored it.

You are not uturning my key since your view is clearly not informed. You ask can it be proven scientifically hat hunting with hounds is not cruel? So you are unaware of the immense body of profesional veterinary, behavioualist, conservationist and hiistorical evidence that overwhelmingly has proved just that. However, for your benefit...and therefore this time I hope you do read it carefully...here goes. This is for you remember...please respect that.


I have already given you all the argument...read it through thoroughly if you are still undecided.


Cruelty involves purposeful sadistic torture and this does not happen. Those on horseback that follow for example rarely if ever witness a kill. The admire only the hounds working as a pack, and the fact that their horses enjoy the adrenalin too.


Then there is the element of adrenalin with the fox. the same adrenalin that leads him to kill and kill in afrenzy when he is buzzed up. I suggest you read about its effects as a powerful painkiller.

The way a pack of hounds kill is that ONE hound delivers a bite to the back of the neck. It is therefore EXACTLY the same METhOD of death as far as the fox is concerned as cervical dislocution, the preferred method of killing by vets for furbearers. It is not like a single cat kill which is rather slower as they go for the throat, after disabling by ripping the quarries back legs from under it. Still however even then thankfully a gazelle high on adrenalin, just like the proverbial oficer at Waterloo whio did not know a cannonball had taken off his leg as he was so adrenalin filed by watching the battle. It is nature's mercy.


So if hunting is cruel, fur is also cruel.


Your choice.


The fact that SOMETIMES the fox is torn apart by the hounds is irrelevant. It is dead. Doesnt matter whether it is eaten by hounds or skinned for a coat. As far ais the fox is concenred, it does not matter.


Therefore ethically you cannot object to hunting ...if you do...then you MUST also rationally be against fur.


The objective of hunting is also NOT death of the quarry but dispersal. Since the fox is a scavenger and was never meant to be head of the food chain, its key to survival is to breed quickly. It does not disperse its own young since in a sountry in which it would be completely would be outgunned by lions, wild dogs, and wolves. Even eagles. Take those creatures out of the equation and the fox goes beserk in eco terms and devastaes an area of other wildlife and eventually its only bio control of itself comes into play. It starves. IF however foxes are dispersd, as wolves and big cats in paticular do to it in the wild...chase it miles away from its kills...then fox numbers remain reasonable.


Problem is, we haven't a way of doing that in countries whre we do not tolerate large predators.


The Animal Rights position is clear. reduce the polulation of humans by 90% and reintridce large predators. If you like that option i will accept it.


Otherwise, the options are:

1.snares. causes suffering.

2.Poison. Cause incredible suffering

3.Giuns. 60% of shotgun hits are not fatal and 48% of rifle shots are not fatal. Result: suffering and a painful death

4. much touted but indiscriminate, and could even lead to eradication of fox. Neutering or contraceptive bait. We need the good fox to breed and be healthy. A certain number of fox is desirable and helpful in ravbbit control. We only need to disperse the old, sick and young,since these are the ones who go for easy prey like ducks and chickens.


Also, none of the other methods are discriminate. If you can think of a method that ONLY targets old smelly and sick males (strongest scent) wwho are particular pests to farmers, and the health of their own population, then I would like to hear about it.


So foxes have to be controlled, its just a question of how. Traplines are also not discriminate.If your purpose is to hunt fox for fur then you need healthy fox. Foxhunting targets unhealthy fox. In other words, it is discriminate.


Hunt staff like huntsmen take their job very seriously and for many months of the year protect the foxes habitat and ensure that the young are safe from disturbance. When the season comes the huntsman takes his duties with grave seriousness. I witnesed a kill at a hunt where a three legged mange ridden fox was killed. The huntsman pulled the fox from the pack

1. to show me that the kill was instant

2. To show me the condition of the fox before it was devoured. Maggots were eating the stump or its back leg, which it had gnawed off after suffering for a long time most likely after a road hit.

the huntsman was awelshman, whose family had done this jobfor centruries. Most Huntsmen are in fact celtic. The huntsman took off his hat and said a prayer for the fox. And asked god to give it the comfort to compensate for the wrethced life of suffering it had clearly ebdured.


THIS was NOT a cruel man. And it is typical of the Huntsman's dedication to ensure that kills are made quickly when they happen.


The cahse is not cruel since the fox is pumped with adrenalin. the banner often seen which says "if the fox didn't like it he wouldn't join in" is something lost on urban folk who do not understand what that means. i will tell you. A fox ...or any other animal...that is TERRIFIED...freezes. it cannot move. Cars erify foxes, not hounds. I do not see anyone suggesting we ban cars for the real and great damage they inflict on wildlife.

A fox however that knows what its enemy is, is hiigh on sdrenalin and excited. the kind of natural excitement we have lost touch with. So we go to horror movies and go on rollercoaster to recreate it. Fear is fun. The fox knows it can escape these hounds who do not eve see it. Everyone who has ever been on a Hunt knows the cockiness of the fox. The fact that it will stand and watch, often even AMONG the horses, watching the hounds follow a scent that is half an hour old. Its cheek...and therefore confidence in itself to evade capture...is legendary.

Exhaustion? The fox at its healthiest is far more efficient than the hounds that chase it, and will always outstay its pursuers. And unlike the hounds, it has manny many breaks where the hounds lose the scent. So again, yes it is an exhausted fox that gets caught, and therfore an unhealthy one.


If you would like me to go on and give you refeerences for all this I can; but some refernces I have already posted in the locked thread. Especially go to the British veterinary site.


I hope you have found this information useful. It does indeed prove that scientifically Foxhunting with hounds is not cruel.


Finally, remeber that the first governemnt to ban the practice was the Nazis.

Again I have posted the highest academic authority on this as a link. Within four years of the ban coming into force in the former czechoslovakia, the fox was extinct. The vast majority of foxes excape the Hunt. they do not escape posion snare or bullet from angry farmers. And if you had seen what I had seen, then you know why farmers get angry with them .Eight lambs in a night was particularly heartbreaking for me as the were all hand reared and destined to be pets.


the Foxhunt was a feudal invented practice adapted from celtic tradition by the Normns, and appeared in its modern manifestation in Britain in the 1500s. It was designed to give the fox a soporting cahnce of escape; something farmers and townsfolk did not give it.


A chicken in the 1500s was absoutely invaluable to a poor family. It was an egg layer. Not eaten. The fox was not tolerated, except by people who thought it fair to give the chance for the fox to disperse away into woodland: and so the Hunt was born; a very british incarnation of fair play, and form celtic/norman tradition rather than the saxon anthropomorphism yet destructiveness to nature.



now unless you can produce evidence contray to this, which is impossible,

and a better way of controlling fox which is more humane and in the best short and long interest of the fox, then your question has been answered.


Fox and mink are the most common mammal predator on the planet; and that is a sign of the respect in which man holds them both for hunting and fur. Its called incentive conservation...and it works whether the objective is hunting for food fur management or sport. Pity the animals that man doesn't have the same regard for, and is destroying their habitat without care.


I hope you also accept this independent research into the matter as the same argument can be used to defend hunting for fur, sport, or traditional animlas farming rather than the intensive arable kind that is wiping out nature at a breathtaking rate:




Does that help? If not I can produce a massive amount of evidence in support from scientists vets and conservationists which will take you days to digest.


if you have evidence to the contrary present it by all means but make sure it has not ONE emotive word in it which clearly does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Ripped apart alive and skinned alive are complete rubbish. Yes they both sometimes happen but they are not normal or accepted practice in either foxhunting or the fur trade. Abuse of procedure does not negate the need for it. Because police are sometimes corupt does not mean that poliing should be got rid of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't tell me the fox doesn't care or is a mindless unfeeling animal. If that were the case it wouldn't run to start with.


When you shine a bright light on a single celled amoeba, it will react violently with a sudden contraction, almost as though the light is hurting it and it is trying to hide. Is it thinking "Ouch! that hurt, I dont like it."? " I want to get away from this"? I doubt it. But nevertheless it reacts and moves away


When someone hurts us, we think "Ouch ! that is hurting me". The difference is ego. a sense of "I" ness. All living things react to stimulus. That, after all , is the function of the nervous system. But how many animals, in the huge web of creation, from amoeba to man, have an ego. Something that tells them I am Hurting, I am happy, I am going to die.


Go out shopping, leaving a dog at home. The frantic greeting you get on return, is the same wether you have been away for an hour, or on holiday for three weeks. Is the dog aware of time? or is it just aware of being alive . the present moment. Watch a dog in the house by hidden camera whilst you are away, and it certainly doesn't seem to be thinking " I am bored, when will master get home" It just gets on with doing its doggy things, until you get back when it sees you again, remembers you as something being associated with pleasure, and goes into greeting mode.


Memory does not relate to ego. The brain will remember situations, and modify reaction to a situation accordingly. But memory doesn't allow us to see into the future, "the time to come, which we haven't yet remembered". With a sense of ego, we can project our self into the future and think "What happens if I....." or, "If this happens I am going to die". Without ego, all we can do is react to the stimulus acting upon us, without judgement or awareness of outcome.


Many religions throughout the world teach us to try to remove, or rise above our ego, so that we can react to things with a pure heart. In a strange way this is almost the state my father arrived at in his Alzheimers. Yes, when the disease was developing, he suffered enormously, because he knew the future. Once he was totally alzheimic, his ego, his identity, and his awareness of self had gone. Yet he still reacted to stimuluus. Make a joke, he laughed, talk seriously, he would become serious. Open the curtains, he would squint. etc etc. But when there was no stimulus he would just sit in a "waiting" mode, aware but not self aware, waiting for the next stimulus


These issues cant be concluded by debate. We can never put our minds into another animal's mind. We can't even put it into another person's mind yet alone another species.


Reacting to worde is reacting to stimulus. drawing conclusions is only possible with the "I" present.


I wont go on, but we need to think things through and arrive at a (temporary) conclusion through insight.


To get back to your quote Wallee. I am pretty sure an amoeba is mindless and unfeeling, yet it reacts to stimuli. Whereas you are saying that if it was mindless and unfeeling it wouldn't react in the first place.


Things are never as they seem in this amazing world. But things are what they are, and if we wrap them up in our ego's perceptions and conclusions, we invariably fail to see the world as it really is. There is indeed evidence that the fox doesn't "suffer" in the way that we would do in the same situation. But the truth is that we make ourselves suffer, and feel hurt pain and indignation, because we "believe" or "perceive" that the fox is suffering.


All we can do (whilst we have an ego) is to draw our own conclusions, live our lives according to our own values, and not judge others who may have drawn different conclusions. If the way we have chosen is the best way for humanity and survival, then humanity will follow. If the way we follow is one of bitterness, hate and death, then ultimately humanity will reject it because that is not the way of survival. (There is a difference between survival of a species, and the survival of an individual.


And now I have fallen into the trap of making a post too long, so no one will read it. Oh well - what the heck - the next moment wil arise with or without me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the battle we should be fighting:


>> PETA workers face 25 felony counts in North Carolina <<


From my understanding, this trial was continued and resumes again this month. No matter when the trial ended/ends, THIS is the thing we should be talking about!


Hold up newspaper headlines.


E-mail links to news stories.


Talk about the P∂TA employees CONVICTED of 25 FELONIES!


Research articles about P∂TA and their tactics. Make sure everybody you know understands that P∂TA is BAD.


You shouldn't be sitting there arguing the finer points of Nazism and Buddhism as they relate to the animal rights movement. That only makes YOU look like the kook, not them.


Argue real-world matters. Make sure your arguments are things that people can understand on their own terms.


And, above all, do it in a natural way that lets people know that YOU are the good guy. If you yell and spout venomous rhetoric, people will peg you as the BAD guy!


This is a battle of wits and good looks, not a debate on history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...