You’re in self-denial about what goes on (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
You’re in self-denial about what goes on
11:47am Thursday 31st March 2011 in Read
SIR – Both Roberta Balfour (Worcester News, March 11) and Geraldine Engel (Worcester News, March 12) are in a state of self-denial over over the criminal activity of hunt saboteurs and animal rights terrorists.
The following examples give some idea of the violent methods employed to terrorise law-abiding people.
In 2000 a kennel man, his pregnant wife and baby were attacked in their own home by 40 hunt saboteurs throwing bricks and stones, two police officers were also attacked and sprayed with CS gas.
In 2006 the body of an elderly lady was dug up from her grave, later four people were jailed for this crime.
In 2009 seven self-styled animal rights campaigners were jailed for up to 11 years for intimidation and blackmail. The list continues with nail and letter bombs, hit-and-run attacks and grievous bodily harm.
These are a fraction of the crimes and abuse suffered by ordinary people at the hands a tiny minority who not only believe animals rights are more important than anything else, including humans, but they are prepared to enforce their views with violence.
JON BURGESS
Worcester
Comments(74)
Maggie Would
says...
12:07pm Thu 31 Mar 11
economist
says...
1:20pm Thu 31 Mar 11
For many (most?, possibly all?) pro fox hunting people (certainly those who participate in fox hunting) there is an inability to understand the cruel and sadistic nature of fox hunting, due to their low emotional intelligence that disables their ability to empathise. If their ability to empathise was not so low or so impaired they would understand the pain they inflict through fox hunting - but it just doesn't register in their heads. It is beyond their emotional intelligence capabilities. And this is why they just can't grasp why people are against fox hunting. They really don't understand, and this is why reasoned argument will not get thjrough to them. And they take children on these hunts - just how appalingly bad is that! What kind of person would do that? I think most of us know the answer to that question.
sharpy
says...
7:39pm Thu 31 Mar 11
1) do you know anyone who participates in hunting? yes/no
2) have you ever followed a hunt?
yes/no
3) do you condone the violent and criminal activities of the animal rights
movement yes/no
economist
says...
8:20am Fri 1 Apr 11
So sharpy, do you take part in Fox Hunting - a simple yes or no will suffice.
economist
says...
8:37am Fri 1 Apr 11
Sharpey - do you condone dog fights (you know the fight to the death dog fights?)? Yes or no? Do you condone children being taken along to witness fight to the death dog fights? Yes or no.
Of course, it is exactly the same type of people, psychologically, that participate in dog fighting events and fox hunting.
tub_thumper
says...
9:12am Fri 1 Apr 11
.
Mr Burgess continues to pigeon ever hunt saboteur out there. Where did these events happen? Who were the people involved?
.
Come on Sharpy! You haven’t answered economists questions yet!
crowquill
says...
1:33pm Fri 1 Apr 11
economist
says...
1:55pm Fri 1 Apr 11
That aside - what are your views on fox hunting?
economist
says...
2:23pm Fri 1 Apr 11
And you crowquill?
gemma6
says...
3:57pm Fri 1 Apr 11
pudniw_gib
says...
5:54pm Fri 1 Apr 11
The old lady's corpse was dug up as part of a protest against a lab animal breeding centre and nothing to do with hunting.
Burgess is obviously an obsessive animal cruelty supporter, I am surprised the paper continues to publish his bile filled letters. Probably to wind people up.
I hope a fox sneaks in tonight and bites his face off.
pudniw_gib
says...
6:03pm Fri 1 Apr 11
Maggie Would
says...
6:17pm Fri 1 Apr 11
pudniw_gib wrote:I know a good butcher that would take those off his hands.
And a badger eats his testicles
New Kid on the Block
says...
6:24pm Fri 1 Apr 11
Do you think that the grave robbing criminals actions were acceptable because of the cause they were supporting?
I have been threatened merely for politely asking questions at a town centre animal rights demonstration. What would have happened if there hadn't been a Police Officer standing a few yards away I don't know.
pudniw_gib
says...
6:47pm Fri 1 Apr 11
sharpy
says...
8:30pm Fri 1 Apr 11
You will not have heard any noise from a fox, what you claim to have heard was the hounds. No master or huntsman will allow the field to over ride their hounds which they would have to do to witness a kill.
back to the questions - name the hunt the day and date. Do you condone the violence used by some in the animal rights movement. yes / no ?
I do not condone or support dog fighting and would be the first to report it the police, check out your history it was an MFH who brought about a ban on dog fighting.
economist
says...
7:29am Sat 2 Apr 11
A friend of mine witnessed a different occasion (I was not there) where the fox hunters with their hounds had cornered a fox. It was a female fox - one that was pregnant. Apparently the hounds ripped the fox open and the little baby foxes spilled out. This apparently delighted the fox hunters.
Why are you so afraid and anxious about the brutal, sadistic, bloodlust reality of fox hunting being spoken about? And that's a real problem with the fox hunting debate - the pro fox hunting brigade never want to engage in open honest debate about the issues and what fox hunting involves and what it is actually all about. The fox hunting brigade are completely dishonest and churn out propaganda, myths and lies by the bucket load. They just don't have the decency or guts to be open and honest about fox hunting. Your statement that the master or huntsman wouldn't allow the field to over ride the pack and witness a kill is a good example of the dishonest nonsense the pro fox hunting brigade churn out.
Your stance on dog fights and fox hunting reveals the utter hypocricy of the pro fox hunting brigade - but I don't expect pro fox hunters to understand that - as I explained above they lack the emotional intelligence to do so.
Fox hunters and hunting are a disgrace to the British Nation.
So sharpey - how about you answer the questions put to you and how about being honest and truthful about fox hunting?
economist
says...
7:51am Sat 2 Apr 11
I am sure you will agree that most people identify the people that arrange and participate in dog fighting events are psychologically disturbed, psychologically damaged people. Do you understand that fox hunters are viewed in exactly the same way? My guess is that you don't - but then that is the power of self-denial isn't it sharpey .... But it raises so many questions. Psychologically why would someone want to engage in chasing an animal and witness it being ripped apart? What causes a person to pursue sadistic pleasure? What kind of adult/parent takes a child to participate in an activity which has at its psychological core - sadistic pleasure? What kind of adult/parent gets upset with a child for showing empathy and distress about an animal being ripped apart in front of their eyes, and gets upset with a child for not displaying sadistic pleasure about the spectacle of an animal being ripped apart whilst alive?
Is this what you call good parenting sharpy? Do you understand why there are people who would describe this as child abuse?
economist
says...
4:14pm Sat 2 Apr 11
economist
says...
4:19pm Sat 2 Apr 11
New Kid on the Block
says...
7:13pm Sat 2 Apr 11
Has economist discovered another long drawn out way to kill? Boring people to death.
tub_thumper
says...
8:02pm Sat 2 Apr 11
.
{Did you detect the hint of sarcasm in my tone there? Thought I’d join the club}.
.
Everything economist has said there is true, New kid. But instead of justifying your sick pleasure, you wind people up. No answers – just sarcasm. You join in at the most relevant time and then splutter out some irrelevant gibberish! Kind of like when Sharpy and I were arguing about the meaning of ‘Snob’. I finally ended the debate, (and so did Sharpy), and then you come in with attacking the list, which I created, which fired Sharpy up again! (And they were naïve enough to be encouraged by you). Do you have a girlfriend/wife?
Vox populi
says...
8:05pm Sat 2 Apr 11
My mates, brothers, sisters, cat once walked on water too........ honest...
Economist - you are an ad-mans dream.
Ever heard chickens scream when a fox tears them apart? Pain and suffering exists in nature too, get over it and yourself.
tub_thumper
says...
9:28pm Sat 2 Apr 11
.
I would put forward some simple yes/no questions to you, but why bother? You wont be here again until you feel the time is right.
.
All animals would scream in pain if a predator attacked it. This is for food and for survival. It’s cruel – but it’s gotta happen! Hunting for pest control and human pleasure is wrong. It was you pro’s that said that a fox doesn’t scream in pain! So you shouldn’t be having a go at economist!
.
Here’s a simple question: Another fellow human breaks into your house and steals your food for survival. Would you kill them in a savage attack?
Vox populi
says...
11:36pm Sat 2 Apr 11
I wasn't having a go at anyone but maybe yourself and others need to take a look at your rather extreme views.
Do you agree with foxes being poisoned or shot for example? It's a form of pest control.... Which seems the most wasteful to you? Foxes being poisoned and left to rot or foxes hunted keeping alive a tradition and employing 1000's of people with skills and trades?
I am neither pro hunting or against it - infact I couldn't care less but I do find some peoples views that border on fundamentalism difficult to grasp.
economist
says...
7:42am Sun 3 Apr 11
Vox populi - no my comments aren't sensationalist, nor made up. They do however bring much more of the reality and truth about fox hunting and the people that take part or support it. I'm not surprised that your response says nothing at all and is simply at the level of a playground jibe. Fox hunter and there supporters use all kinds of diversionary tactics, lies and myths to try and avoid the actual sadistic, cruel, bloodlust nature of fox hunting being talked about out in the open. They know that this core truth disgusts and repulses the vast majority of people.
You use one of the tired old bits of nonsense that the fox hunting brigade churn out just about every time they are challenged. Like you they say - well, animals hunt each other in nature and kill each other. On this basis fox hunting is just a part of nature, etc. Which of course is spurious argument and doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny. In nature it is not natural for a fox to be chased by a pack of hounds, and torn limb from limb until dead. In the wild this simply does not happen to foxes - it is not part of nature, not part of the natural order.
When the fox kills a chicken it does so for food and survival. Fox hunters on the other hand engage in their activity for sick, sadistic pleasure, and they drag children into this psychologically sick and damaging arena.
All that I have stated and reported is true, and don't the (pro) fox hunters just hate it being out in the open. But then they have never had the guts, nor decency to be open, honest and truthful about fox hunting with the public.
The truth is that the two lads that goaded their dogs to kill the young cat and the people who engage in fox hunting are psychologically and behaviourally of the same ilk - it is therefore not surprising that fox hunters are viewed and responded to by the vast majority of the public as the two lads are. But due to their low emotional intelligence, and hence low capabilities of empathy they don't understand why this is so - they don't have sufficient emotional intelligence to understand.
economist
says...
10:56am Sun 3 Apr 11
sharpy
says...
6:02pm Sun 3 Apr 11
Your continued chant about hunting people being obsessed with witnessing the kill is a lie, plain and simple. The mounted field would have to override
(get in front of) hounds every time to witness the kill. The Lakeland or Fell packs are followed on foot so often the nearest follower might be a mile away when the hounds kill. Not very exciting if bloodlust is your thing, better a job in a slaughter house. Your references to screaming is a load of bunk designed to mislead and upset people. Be assured when half a dozen hounds descend on a fox it's like a pedestrian being hit square on by a 44 ton truck traveling at 60mph. Hounds kill a fox quicker than your average shotgun cartridge and with NO chance of wounding.
warrior boy
says...
6:11pm Sun 3 Apr 11
tub_thumper
says...
8:41pm Sun 3 Apr 11
.
Sharpy wrote: “Be assured when half a dozen hounds descend on a fox it's like a pedestrian being hit square on by a 44 ton truck travelling at 60mph”.
.
So, it’s cruel and outnumbering then… You wouldn’t want that happening to a person, so why should it happen to an animal?
.
warrior by: when has fox hunting been involved with producing meat, fish, eggs and milk? And when did it affect the use of conventional medicine? Also, you seem confused in thinking that an animal has sacrificed its life to produce eggs and milk (!?)
Biggles
says...
10:11pm Sun 3 Apr 11
.
What I am against is people like economist, tub thumper, etc, the namby pamby do gooder brigade, telling others what they must/must not do.
.
My annoyance with the do gooders would lead me to support the pro hunting brigade.
.
If the anti's don't like fox hunting, I'd suggest they don't do it, simples eh ?
Vox populi
says...
11:09pm Sun 3 Apr 11
Nobody has yet answered my question either... Foxes are vermin and their population needs to be controlled as with rats etc so do you guys agree with poisoning and other culling methods also likely to be painful and cruel?
As for the comments about emotional intelligence that made me laugh. Fox hunting does not create cruel murderers as you suggest...evidence please?!?!
The emotion you suggest is back to the fluffy little animal syndrome so please answer my question - do you agree with other ways of controlling fox population?!
I comment because I like a rational debate.
economist
says...
7:44am Mon 4 Apr 11
Sharpy, no I haven't told any lies and that's what you hate about my comments here. Again, your comments are full of the 'oh so obvious' diversionary tactics that the fox hunting brigade try to use to divert attention away from the core sick sadistic nature of fox hunting.
And you trundle out the direct lie that the deaths foxes experience from the pack hounds is a quick one. That is just a plain out and out lie. I have witnessed far too many, as have other people I know who give honest accounts of what happens, to know that the reality is dreadful drawn out process in which the fox goes through a massive amount of distress, terror and pain. What do you imagine it is like to be shook so violently that one of your eye balls falls out of its socket whilst you are alive? Then dropped but still with one hound chewing on one of your back legs whilst another hound rips off one of your ears? And you are still alive.
According to you sharpey the fox doesn't suffer and has an instantaneous, painless death. The fox hunting brigade really do think that the public are utter idiots. You really think your claim sounds plausible for one moment? It doesn't even pass the plausability test, but of course doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of reality.
Lets push the plausability test a little bit - lets say you have a daughter who for some reason is given a death sentence (assuming for a moment that the death penalty has been reintroduced). As far the execution of your daughter goes you would be fine with the execution being carried out, not by lethal injection, but by having a pack of hounds set on your daughter until they had killed her. I mean you are convinced that it would be a painless instantaneous death aren't you sharpy? Mind you to grasp the nature of this mind experiment you need a decent level of emotional intelligence and ability to empathise.
The fox hunting brigade will be going - 'whats the point of that mind experiment? I don't get it.'
warrior boy (yes, I have no doubt that you are a boy. Do you fantasise about being a warrior?). I didn't realise that pigs, sheep, etc. were killed by chasing them with pack hounds until exhausted and then ripped apart whilst alive by the dogs until dead ..... and then sliced up into bacon, etc. Again you trundle out a completely spurious argument that the fox hunting brigade like to use and which convinces no one except the fox hunting brigade and emotionally intelligence challenged.
Biggles, no of course your not pro fox hunting, no never have been ... no, no really you're not. Definately not. Opps, we are told not to engage in bear baiting - gosh that will just make you pro Bear baiting now won't it. And we are told not to drive whilst drunk. No doubt that makes you pro driving whilst drunk. Well done Biggles.
The truth is that the vast majority of the population are against fox hunting - this has been evidenced time after time, but the fox hunting brigade have no respect for democracy or the public, let alone animals and children.
And boy don't they get hot under the collar when the sick sadistic cruel nature at the heart of fox hunting is brought out into the open.
Their self-denial and the churning out of their totally unconvincing propaganda, myths and lies goes into over-drive.
Vox populi
says...
8:07am Mon 4 Apr 11
Foxes are vermin and their population needs controlling. I wasn't going to stoop to you sensational propaganda but here goes:
Remember the story on the BBC 18 months ago? A poor innocent baby that was terrorised by a rabid, drooling vicious fox. The fox sneaked into the babies house and tore it's face off in a moment of blood **** covering the walls in blood and scaring a poor innocent child for life....
True story and easy to dramatize isn't it?!? Hmmm naughty naughty foxy woxy!
ITwo sides to every coin - fact is I don't care therefore am capable of a rational debate. Economist you are not only over dramatics and preaching.
Whilst I understand your passion for being against hunting -
Honestly I have not seen such dramatic rubbish since I went to church, just read your posts !
economist
says...
8:37am Mon 4 Apr 11
How many reports of dogs attacking, and even killing children have there been? According to your logic that would justify a bunch of people getting on horses, taking a pack of hounds and chasing any dog they can find, and get the pack of hounds to rip it apart. I mean following your logic ALL dogs need to be dealt in this way. The hounds can be dealt with once the rest of the dog populatyion has been hunted down and ripped apart until dead.
If you are going to put forward arguments, vox populi try to provide ones that have internal and external logical consistency.
And still you, sharpy, and others have not yet engaged with discussing fox hunting honestly, and have yet to put forward any justification for the continuation of fox hunting.
An earlier comment trundled out the tired old - killing foxes by having them ripped apart alive is justifiable because itsadition. Again more baloney from the fox hunting brigade that only ever convinces the pro fox hunting brigade. Bear baiting used to be a tradition in this country so should we allow it? No, of course not.
I see that Catalonia in Spain has voted to ban bull fighting from next year onwards, and it looks like other regions of Spain are set to follow. Surveys in Spain consistently find that the majority of the public are against bull fighting because it is cruel, sadistic and barbaric and want it to be made illegal. The same is true about the public and fox hunting in the UK. Time for the fox hunting brigade to show respect to the public, democracy and British values.
economist
says...
9:02am Mon 4 Apr 11
According to them fox hunting can be debated but the debate must not talk about (and if raised must be denied at all costs):
- the sadistic pleasure that is the core psychological motivation in engaging in fox hunting
- the cruelty involved (in any other scenario other than at a fox hunting event people would be prosecuted and sent to jail for animal cruelty for doing what fox hunters do - e.g the two lads who goaded their two dogs to kill the kitten)
- the way in which they emotionally brutalise children by involving them in fox hunting as an activity and involving them in witnessing the bloodlust, drawn out, spectacle of the hounds ripping apart the fox whilst alive, and then getting angry with any children that become visibly upset by the spectacle, and for not showing sadistic pleasure
- the suffering, terror and pain that the fox goes through being chased to exhaustion and then the horror of being ripped apart, torn open, etc. until dead
These core realities and truths about fox hunting are syystematically denied and lied about by the fox hunting brigade. Unfortunately for them, however, their denial is so obviously not true whilst the truths and realities I have reported and talked about are equally obviously true. In terms of a plausability test, in regard to what I have said and what the pro fox hunting people have said people just need to do the mind experiement of thinking about - what would it be like to be killed myself by a pack of hounds, or if you have children, what would it be like for my son or daughter to be killed by a pack of hounds. Would it be quick and painless or as I have described what I have seen happen to foxes? I know how people with decent levels of emotional intelligence and abilities of empathy will respond to these questions. And no doubt the pro fox hunting brigade will come out with their highly predictable and implausible lies, myths and (self) denial.
Vox populi
says...
9:05am Mon 4 Apr 11
Read my post carefully - I did not use the fox attacking a baby as "logic to have foxes killed" as you suggest. That would be stupid. I simply used it as a illustration of how you sensationalise your stories and posts.
How did you rationally get from foxes to bears ?!? Are they another fluffy cute animal?
Please answer my question: How would YOU control the fox population?
economist
says...
9:29am Mon 4 Apr 11
You really can't see the link between foxes and bears - yep that says it all really, and confirms what I say about emotional intelligence and empathy.
Is this your little trump card - how would you control the fox hunting population? Really that's it, yopur trump card that will justify the pursuit of sadistic pleasure via animal cruelty and involving children in those disturbed psychological environments and activities? Really? And no doubt your trump card leads to the conclusion that fox hunting is a kindness to the fox really.
Og coursde that really passes the plausability test - not. It would appear that you have been taken in by the propaganda and lies of the fox hunting brigade despite the blatant obviousness of their lies.
The kindest and most humane way to kill a bull, and control the bull population is to put it in the bullring - no really, its true, honest. And no, of course there isn't any cruel sadistic pleasure involved in participating or attending a bullfight. Please don't say there is because that is just rubbish. Rubbish I tell you!!!
Vox populi
says...
10:01am Mon 4 Apr 11
Your constant reference to other animals suggests that your opposal to hunting is to the death of animals and nothing else.
Remove all the emotional rubbish and explain how you would control fox population....
I am part of no brigade "pro" or not.
economist
says...
10:04am Mon 4 Apr 11
Again looking at plausability - we have a situation of needing to control the fox population in a locality. Best solution? Lets get 20 - 40 people. Buy or hire a horse for each of them. Dress them up in a silly red and black outfit. Opps, costs getting mighty high already! We'd better buy 20-40 hounds (how much are they each?). Better buy a silly squeeky little horn as well. Then there are the costs of getting everyone to the starting point, the costs of kennels, costs of keeping the horses, etc., etc. You get the drift.
It is so effective, cost efficient, etc. we really should be using this as a model for controlling other animal populations.
Utter, utter rubbish. The fox hunting brigade really do think the public are complete idiots - just tell them some lies, they will believe anything.
economist
says...
10:15am Mon 4 Apr 11
You say - 'remove all the emotional rubbish'. Thank you for illustrating the point I made at the outset about pro (fox hunters) lacking the emotional intelligence and ability to empathise which leaves them unable to grasp and understand the objections to animal cruelty and pursuit of sadistic pleasure through this avenue.
Everything I have said and reported is of central importance to the fox hunting debate. And because the issues, truth and reality that I have reported tears apart all and every justification put forward for fox hunting the pro fox hunting brigade do everything to avoid, push out and fail to engage with these core realities about fox hunting. They are too scared to engage with these truths and realities. It reveals far too much about the true nature of fox hunting and of them as people (and unfortuanately as parents for some of them!).
It would appear that you are not up for open, honest truthful debate about the realities of fox hunting vox populi - no surprise there then.
economist
says...
10:27am Mon 4 Apr 11
Yet these other countries effectively control their fox populations without utilising the cruel, sadistic based fox hunting method. Yep, these other countries don't believe the lies that the fox hunting brigade churn out either.
tub_thumper
says...
10:54am Mon 4 Apr 11
.
The fox population is governed by the year round availability of food in defended territories. Where humans persecute foxes, more cubs are produced to restore their population levels. Hunting does not control fox populations. Nature will restore the balance. Hunters are aware of this, which gives them more of an excuse to hunt for pleasure. Take a look at Australia for example. Foxes appear to be a major ecological ‘pest’. Their government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage states, “hunting does not seem to have had a significant or lasting impact on fox numbers”. Well, in my eyes, they’ve only got their self to blame. The fox was introduced to the country a couple of hundred years ago merely for sport. Only now it has become a problem. Oh dear…
.
I say that no animal population should need controlling. We should take extra; personal measures to make sure livestock are secure. If that involves more time and cost then why not?
.
It really irritates me to think that we humans need to kill anything that gets in the way of our duties. Our own population has resulted in overcrowded cities, pollution etc… We are destroying the earth (for ourselves and for nature) and then we will kill animals that are ‘pests’ too! The mind boggles! I’m not trying to wind people up here. I just don’t understand why people are blinkered to everything that’s being said. Economist is not over dramatising – I believe speak the truth. You can call me naïve but I truly believe that the fox’s “bad press” is psychologically imprinted onto people’s minds from childhood stereotypical villains in cartoons and stories.
.
Scarcely a quarter of a century ago, farmers and hunters had us believe the badger and the otter were vermin and needed to be controlled. Everyone now knows this is untrue. Foxes are no threat also. The Minister of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union consider the fox to be no significant threat. The most common complaint against the fox today is the digging and fouling in urban gardens (which Sharpy and I have discussed before). This is only a minor nuisance – one that hardly calls for the death penalty…
.
Also, as for fox attacks on humans. The media are to blame for dramatisation. There have only been three major attacks on humans in 9 years. This has been discussed before between Sharpy and I. In November 2008, an incident in the United States was reported in which a jogger was attacked and bitten by a rabid fox in Arizona. In July 2002, a 14-week-old baby was attacked in a house in Dartford, Kentucky. In June 2010, 9-month-old twin girls were bitten on the arms and face when a fox entered their upstairs room in east London.
Vox populi
says...
12:17pm Mon 4 Apr 11
Erm did I ever say fox hunting was an efficient method of population control? - No, I asked how you would do it?
Your issues and conspiracy theories seem to be with the people who perform the hunting not the actual hunt itself, rather losing sight a bit here aren't we?
Tubthumper -
I disagree, animal populations do need controlling - foxes carry disease for starters, scientific fact. (don't tell me, conspiracy theories on a par with the Roswell incident)
Get over the fox attack issue, it was merely an aside to show dramatization of these issues - comparing 2 Chavs on a housing estate setting their dogs on a domestic cat to what has been described as rich people in silly outfits chasing a fox is another ridiculous example.
While it does not excuse any behaviour, human beings are animals too and will derive pleasure from chasing or killing etc. Why do you think horror films and violent video games are popular? Should these be banned too?
Foxes, bad press, etc laughable, Basil Brush was great. More conspiracy theories.
I can accept your argument if you say you believe foxes should not be killed in a cruel painful fashion and you believe that hunting is cruel and painful (which is still debateable) but stay away from the descriptive propoganda and the extreme that animals should never be killed, it's just plain silly.
I lack emotional intelligence because I can accept that animals get killed both in nature and by humans? How naïve! I hope you can be found in our town centres protecting the rights of pigeons and rats too.....
Biggles
says...
12:47pm Mon 4 Apr 11
.
Whilst I respect your feeling towards animals, which makes you feel passionate about this subject, can you not understand most of us couldn't give a stuff ?
.
Foxes (as this is a debate about "them"), don't really figure in my life, if they did, and they became a nuisance to me, I'd kill them, or have them killed, as whatever law allowed.
.
I'd do this because I'm at the top of the food chain ........ I control them, I've no interest in altering my life to suit any particular species.
.
This arguement/discussion regarding an animal that isn't very important to most of us, is rather pathetic
.
We have mass starvation in this world, fellow humans dieing for all sorts of reasons, a lot of these people are dieing so we can continue to control third world oil supplies.
.
These are the real issues, not foxes.
.
I also dispute that most people support you views, I'd suggest that most people have never been asked (I for one have never been asked officially), I'd suggest that most people never think or worry about the issue.
.
The only ones really concerned are those that wish to hunt foxes, those that need them controlled, and do gooders who should go away and worry about something that really matters.
economist
says...
1:10pm Mon 4 Apr 11
You are the one trying to avoid 'intelligent' discussion/debate about fox hunting by trying to remove from the debate the central issues at the core of fox hunting - animal cruelty and sick sadistic pleasure. As with others who are members of the pro fox hunting brigade you are unable to engage with a holistic analysis of what fox hunting entails and is about. Instead you try to sanitise the debate of the full reality of fox hunting and try to reduce it side issues about population control, (and others have tried 'tradition'), and so on - anything to avoid the reality being out in thev open. It just reveals too much and the pro fox hunting brigade are aware that open honest discussion of this reality will diminsh what little public support they have. They are scared about the reality of the fox hunting activity being revealed and scared about the reality of their own psychological and behavioural make-up being out in the open for the public to see.
Vox you really must stop putting words in my mouth - where have I identified fox hunters as only being rich people (I haven't made any statements that refer to income or social class). However, your display of trying to divert discussion to 'safe' issues away from the blood and gore reality of fox hunting and the cruel sadistic nature at its heart combined with putting words in peoples mouths is typical of the pro fox hunting brigade when engaged in open debate. Dishonesty is another common trait. Do you think that your claim to be neutral about fox hunting is believable? Really? Yep, it really adds up in terms of what you have said and your claim to be neither pro or against fox hunting. No really, it is convincing.
Thus far you haven't provided one valid reason as to why fox hunting should continue and should not be banned.
People getting dogs to attack, rip apart and kill a young cat - people getting dogs to attack, rip apart and kill a fox - you can't see that the people in these 2 situations are psychologically and behaviourally of the same ilk? Amazing, indeed amazing. What did I say earlier about low emotional intelligence and low abilities of empathy and understanding the realities involved in fox hunting?
You have provided the perfect example to illustrate the points I made in my opening comment on this webpage - well done vox.
So, as I said above - you have yet to provide any valid reasons why fox hunting should continue, and should not be banned. Not even one reason so far.
economist
says...
1:25pm Mon 4 Apr 11
It does seem peculiar that you are making comments here one way or the other if you really don't give a stuff. Very odd indeed. If you really don't give a stuff you wouldn't mind if it was made illegal and you wouldn't care whether you had been asked or not.
Still, I have to say that being someone who doesn't really care makes you come across as someone who is really tough. Is that how you mean to come across? Are you as tough as you seem?
economist
says...
1:35pm Mon 4 Apr 11
Three in four of the British public (76%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while just one in six (18%) want it repealed, according to a new Ipsos MORI survey published today (this is in December 2010). The poll found that over eight in ten think the ban on deer hunting, hare hunting and coursing should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten people (71%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 81% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 84% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Time for the fox hunters to hang up their breeches and respect the democratic majority and respect British values.
Vox populi
says...
2:00pm Mon 4 Apr 11
Zzzzzzz How many times do I have to say this - I am not a "pro hunter" "hunt supporter" "landed gentry" or "land owner." so please stop refering to me as such in your rants just because I challenge your opinions.
I have just as much distain for both parties - those who dress up and chase foxes and the idiots that want to save the world and try to sabbotage such events should both have better things to do with their lives in my honest opinion. I don't feel the need to have either banned as I am tollerant.
What is important is:
NEITHER has the right to project their opinion forcefully on the other as nobody appointed them as judge and jury. - My annoyance is purely those who do…...
What seperates humans from animals is free will and if somebody wants to hunt foxes on their land or with a land-owner's permission then why shouldn't they? What has it really got to do with anyone else just because it offends their sensibilities?
There is far worse cruelty to both humans and animals from pest control to genocide in certain countries...
I believe that Biggles and I come from the same angle here..... why should your sensibilities errode or affect anyone's rights as long as their actions are within the law?
economist
says...
2:39pm Mon 4 Apr 11
And you don't seem to understand your own position either. You say that you are tolerant - tolerant of people fox hunting which is being tolerant of sadistic animal cruelty. And that is not a neutral position by any sense or measure. Clearly you are not up to date on the philosophy and science of animals - your statements about what separates humans and animals is about 30 years out of date. Both science and philosophy have moved towards accepting that animals are far more sentient, and that they experience suffering and pain in much greater depth than was previously realised.
You then go on to try and justify fox hunting with the illogical - 2 wrongs make a right argument.
Ultimately your stance is complete nonsense - it leads to: and why should any animal cruelty be banned, if someone want to be sadistic and cruel no other person should act to ban or stop them; and no one has the right to stop child cruelty; and no one has the right to ban or stop a person who want to get drunk and then drive; etc., etc.
One the one hand you don't think people should force their will on others, as in banning fox hunting, just because it offends their sensibilities but then at the same time you want to ban banning because it offends your sensibilities.
Well done though, in this last comment you really have revealed your inconsistencies and lack of understanding in all its glory.
You may not understand or accept it vox but you are not neutral in this debate - you are about a million miles away from being neutral.
And your argument and justification is stunningly weak - but again I suspect you won't understand why. Never mind.
Vox populi
says...
4:21pm Mon 4 Apr 11
I don't care enough to want to ban banning - it's the preaching I want banning :-)
tub_thumper
says...
8:07pm Mon 4 Apr 11
.
Why do you keep putting "zzzzz" in your comments. You have probably left the same amount of comments as economist. You appear to be board by his views yet you must read them to reply. I think, maybe, the "zzzzz" means that you are ignorant to the truth... I dont see him (or myself) for that matter doing that.
.
Biggles:
.
The ratio of this online debate (with over 100 comments since this debate started back in Janurary) is around 60% against hunting and 30% for hunting - and thats from local people living in this 'rural' town...
Vox populi
says...
9:05pm Mon 4 Apr 11
Biggles
says...
10:49pm Mon 4 Apr 11
.
Sharpy wants hunting allowed, Vox and I don't care either way, but find the situation that you , economist, maggie, & others I'm sure, want to stop sharpy intolerable.
.
It has nothing to do with you what sharpy & his mates do in their spare time, as long as their actions do not impact upon you ..... I guess hunting wouldn't impact upon you, as you don't like it so will keep away.
.
Having ballots on issues and banning things on numbers would be fun ...... not, it'd be like the USA
.
Hunting has no impact on me, either way, it's your holier than thou attitude that concerns me.
.
It's only a fox, ........ "it" doesn't matter much.
economist
says...
7:47am Tue 5 Apr 11
Labelling foxes as vermin is just that - a label, not an objective fact. Foxes are part of Britain's beautiful wildlife and are part of the natural landscape here in the UK and like all animals have a right not to be subjected to cruelty.
Do you have children? Do you teach them that sadistic cruelty to animals is acceptable? Fox hunters do.
What next vox? The elephant is just a circus animal so animal cruelty is acceptable - no one should be able to ban the elephant owner from treating the animal in any way that they wish to?
Again, whether you understand it or not your stance on the issue of fox hunting is not neutral.
Unfortunately for you, biggles and the fox hunting brigade the vast majority of the public do want fox hunting to be banned, made completely illegal, and are sickened, disgusted and repulsed by fox hunting and fox hunters and have no respect for what they do or their views.
And no doubt the pro fox hunting brigade with continue to be too scared and cowardly to be open, honest and truthful in the fox hunting debate and will continue to churn out their propaganda, myths and lies. They show zero respect for the vast majority of the public, the democratic process, British values, and the truth. They really can't expect any respect from the public in light of this but even more so because of the sick sadistic pleasure they pursue through barbaric animal cruelty and the way that they involve children in this sick psychological and behavioural environment and activity.
Vox populi
says...
8:15am Tue 5 Apr 11
Fox hunting being banned is not unfortunate for me as you state....I don't care.
What I do care about is sanctimonious people dictating to other people how they should live their lives whatever the issue.
economist
says...
9:10am Tue 5 Apr 11
You are just as guilty of what you are accusing me of - but you can't get your head round that can you? Or are you just too embarrased to admit it?
Vox populi
says...
9:42am Tue 5 Apr 11
It's the attitude of others who feel the need to tell me how to live my life. I do practice what I preach - I let both hunters and hunt protesters get on with it staying well away but I will not be dictated to by either of them. Get it?
I hope you now understand and I will leave the arena open for your next sermon. Goodbye.
economist
says...
10:05am Tue 5 Apr 11
You are a libertarian who does not understand libertarianism.
tub_thumper
says...
2:22pm Tue 5 Apr 11
tub_thumper
says...
2:30pm Tue 5 Apr 11
Besides, Biggles. You can’t really say “if you don’t like doing something then don’t do it”. Do you agree with mugging old ladies? If no – how do you know if you’ve never done it...?
New Kid on the Block
says...
5:32pm Tue 5 Apr 11
I have far too much of a life away from here to have time to read some of the more verbose comments.
We seem to have a number of experts presenting their views as fact all unable or unwilling to listen to each other.
Carry on folks I shall leave you to it. Life is too short to spend it all on this forum. I may pop back in a day or two but don't expect me to bother reading any huge repetetive rants that are all opinion presnted as fact.
Please don't be afraid to share the source of your "facts" with us. With no provenance I shall rate them as opinions not facts.
angels_soar
says...
6:58pm Tue 5 Apr 11
tub_thumper
says...
8:49pm Tue 5 Apr 11
.
Biggles thinks he is “top of the food chain” because humans have guns, hounds etc to outnumber a defenceless animal. This is the common misconception that fills the void of the egotistical ‘power’ to which man has created for himself. But this debate is not about killing for food. It’s about killing for pleasure and ‘pest’ control.
.
Biggles is a contradictive preacher hater. He doesn’t care about animals or their rights. He doesn’t even like the ‘freedom of speech’ of his fellow humans on this very website. If this is his thinking then he clearly hates everything and will die a sad and lonely person. As he reads this, he will probably be copying and pasting his past comments in the hope that I have conveniently forgot that he has already repeated himself a number of times before.
.
Survival is one thing. But killing for pleasure is not my bag. I am by no means a vegetarian or vegan. But I know that an animal has had a good life, has been killed humanely and has been sacrificed for my survival. This is not the argument here. My biggest gripe is the ‘man in control’ attitude and having the audacity and self-proclaimed arrogance to think he is ‘the best’. I am not a tree-hugging hippy nor do I stare naively into beautiful sunsets and starry night skies. There are a lot of animals out there which I don’t think are ‘fluffy and cute’ but I still feel that they have a right to live without feeling the wrath of mans sick pleasures.
.
As New Kid says - fact not opinion. The above is most definitely ‘fact’ from where I’m coming from. And I have presented to you the facts from relative governing bodies from across the UK and the rest of the world.
.
A Buddhist proverb states, “I seek not to know all the answers but to understand the questions”. This surely happens here but none can give me any answers. Oh the irony of Vox populi “The voice of the people”….
warrior boy
says...
12:09pm Wed 6 Apr 11
economist
says...
12:35pm Wed 6 Apr 11
economist
says...
12:50pm Wed 6 Apr 11
pinkfluff
says...
1:25pm Wed 6 Apr 11
Vox populi
says...
2:52pm Wed 6 Apr 11
I don't think you find I have any of my posts have been made up of insults directed at anyone. Please feel free to correct me with an objective opinion as I believe my lack of emotion on this subject enables me to have…..
Tub thumper - "I run away.??! " Really? where are we? The playground?
Please list your questions and I will answer them for you which will hopefully satisfy your typing finger
economist
says...
3:18pm Wed 6 Apr 11
jovialcommonsense
says...
6:54pm Wed 6 Apr 11
ps I think pinkfluffs comment sums up my view.
tub_thumper
says...
7:02pm Wed 6 Apr 11
Vox populi
says...
10:44pm Wed 6 Apr 11
tub_thumper
says...
11:17am Thu 7 Apr 11
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with