Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[guzzi]

LDV you are putting the rights of animals ahead of those of humans. You are advocating telling indigenous people that their way of life is immoral because it requires the killing of animals, and to abandon their ancestral homelands in favor of some region where vegetables can be raised. I am pretty sure they would not comply, and so you would have to compel them. This sounds akin to cultural genocide, or actual genocide when one considers how indigenous peoples usually fare in larger, more powerful, cultures.

 

In the case of a these inhospitable regions, human ingenuity allows a small human population to flourish through the exploitation of suitable animals.

 

Grazing sheep allows a living to be made from marginal land, in very much the same way that Reindeer herding does for the more northern populations. Again, why should the hill farmer be put off his or her land in order to comply with your moral code?

 

It is possible to synthesize Omega3 fatty acids from plant sources, but the product is different to the naturally occurring substance and does not gave the same benefits to humans. So, no, humans can live without fish, but their diets would be less beneficial to them

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I keep trying to reply to your first paragraph but you seem to want to put all the hard work on me considering I have never said anything about compelling people and the fact that you ignore the almost universal principle of killing animals for meat being wrong.

 

People can allow sheep to do what they like on the hills. Is that all you meant?

 

You do not need to synthesis Omege3 from plant sources. Some plant sources are naturally abundant in them. Alpha linolenic acid isn't as good as fish oil omega 3 for cardiovascular disease and heart problem, but so what? Just because it isn't as good doesn't warrant eating them. (It might be worth bearing in mind that people don't eat fish primarily for Omega 3.)

[guzzi]

I keep trying to reply to your first paragraph but you seem to want to put all the hard work on me considering I have never said anything about compelling people and the fact that you ignore the almost universal principle of killing animals for meat being wrong.

 

People can allow sheep to do what they like on the hills. Is that all you meant?

 

You do not need to synthesis Omege3 from plant sources. Some plant sources are naturally abundant in them. Alpha linolenic acid isn't as good as fish oil omega 3 for cardiovascular disease and heart problem, but so what? Just because it isn't as good doesn't warrant eating them. (It might be worth bearing in mind that people don't eat fish primarily for Omega 3.)

 

I think you find it hard work because you put forward a very extreme view in relation to indiginous people, that is intrinsically difficult to justify. It is by no means a universal principle that killing animals for meat is wrong, in fact I think many more people accept the reverse of this principle. Why should you be able to impose your moral framework on (say) the Innuit and in so doing end their culture and traditional way of life?

 

As regards sheep on the hills, be sensible ....

 

I was aware of the differences between fish s

[guzzi]

.... sorry, editing on the iPad can be difficult. That last sentence should read " I was aware of the differences between fish sourced lipoproteins and vegetable sourced ones, which is why I said that it was more beneficial to eat fish."

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

 

I think you find it hard work because you put forward a very extreme view in relation to indiginous people, that is intrinsically difficult to justify. It is by no means a universal principle that killing animals for meat is wrong, in fact I think many more people accept the reverse of this principle. Why should you be able to impose your moral framework on (say) the Innuit and in so doing end their culture and traditional way of life?

As I said, you are wandering off from what I am saying and dreaming up some idea of what is meant by my comments when you talk of cultural genocide and coercion. I never mentioned anything about force.

 

I do not put forward an extreme view in the least. I have stated that the issue of killing animals is a serious moral matter and ought to be taken as such. Applying utilitarian points of view to the killing of cows, sheep, seals, dogs, horses, rabbits, chickens, etc for food means that only exceptional reasons behind the motivation to kill will mean it is not immoral and wrong.

 

I HAVE already mentioned that in many circumstances some people depend on meat as a food source depending on their location. That COULD be something that can be changed.

 

I don't accept that cultural traditions surrounding meat ought to be taken as more important that the live of animals.

I think you are wandering into the foolish realms of cultural relativism, where people from other cultures cannot criticise or moralise on the lifestyles and behaviours of others. I think you'll find that cultural relativism puts you on very dodgy ground indeed.

 

But were it to be the case that some people do not actually need to eat meat and the only reason why they do is because of tradition, why are those traditions more important than the life of the beings that are killed for food?

 

As regards sheep on the hills, be sensible ....

I don't know what you're getting at.

[manxy]

I would amend the law so it is workable and enforcable!

 

If hunting is the only/best way to control fox numbers then I would propose that hunting is allowed but that say with a maximum of 4 or 5 participants. I do not have a rose tinted view of the countryside and animals and appreciate that some have to be controlled but I do not agree that controlling and killing animals should be by way of a spectator sport/social occasion. So if necessary, yes hunt with dogs and huntsman on or off horseback but not with all the hunt followers participating

I'm not personally keen on using dogs that chase and harry the fox until it's cornered then torn apart by the hounds.

I do agree that the killing of foxes is a necessity to save livestock, but they're a bit like cats, who would do the same thing in a hen house, but the cats are kept as wandering pets.

[guzzi]

LDV how would you achieve the change you propose to the eating habits of indigenous peoples who depend on hunting animals and eating meat? How would you feed them? Do they effectively become reliant on food aid where previously they supported themselves?

 

My comment about sheep was because I thought you were choosing to be obtuse regarding my earlier comment about denying hill farmers a living.

 

I think you really have to concede that whist your personal morality is praiseworthy, there are instances where it simply is not applicable to the world we find ourselves living in.

 

Incidentally, I hope you are a vegan, because dairy farming and egg production both involve the routine killing of countless animals.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV how would you achieve the change you propose to the eating habits of indigenous peoples who depend on hunting animals and eating meat? How would you feed them? Do they effectively become reliant on food aid where previously they supported themselves?

Why are you asking that? It is a completely separate matter than the moral argument I am making. For instance, I am could look at something that you do, such as (possibly) smoking and recognise that you throw your stubs everywhere that you go because there are no bins. I think the discarding on the ground is an immoral act. I recognise that you would be addicted and can't find a bin, but your act is still immoral. And how you stop doing that is a different concern. It might very well be your job to change your behaviour. You may have to learn why I consider it immoral first.

My comment about sheep was because I thought you were choosing to be obtuse regarding my earlier comment about denying hill farmers a living.

I don't know what you were trying to ask now. Exactly what does the ownership of the sheep involve?

I think you really have to concede that whist your personal morality is praiseworthy, there are instances where it simply is not applicable to the world we find ourselves living in.

It is very applicable. Most definitely to people on the Island, the UK, Europe and most societies. You haven't demonstrated why it is not applicable other than a silly comment about eating fish being good for us (regardless of my mention of plant sources and omega 3; your reference to the inuit - one of many small communities who would have difficulty with stopping the eating of meat; and something about sheep grazing, which I haven't understood yet.

 

Glad you hope I am a vegan. I wish I was too. And I do agree agree and it is immoral.

Incidentally, I hope you are a vegan, because dairy farming and egg production both involve the routine killing of countless animals.

[guzzi]

LDV OK I realise that whatever argument I put forward in favor of the utility of eating meat in certain circumstances you will be able to defeat because you hold an absolute view that it us wrong to kill animals for food.

 

 

 

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't hold an absolute view. I have said, more than once, that are exceptions to that. In exceptional circumstances, killing animals for food is moral. I don't think you are reading my posts to understand why I have my moral stance on this. It is quite simple and I have explained it.

But if you are going to confront me with reasons for eating meat because some are nutrient rich (but not essential) or the changes to some people's culture then I will reject them because they are not good enough reasons.

[Endovelicus]

Every argument in favour of vegetarianism can be defeated by a gorgeous bacon bap!

[P.K.]

Even with the best computer modelling in the world you would still have to test on animals.

As I said, you really do not understand the argument, do you?

 

As for morality I suppose you object to this announcement from the summit in Davros - "Microsoft co-founder Gates pledges $750m to the Global Fund to fight aids, TB and malaria" because clearly a lot of this money will be spent on animal experiments and obviously you would prefer the poorer nations of the world to have high mortality rates. You don't seem to have thought this through...

Why should I object to it? Perhaps this money may not be used to conduct experiments where animals suffer - unlike you, I do not profess to know. We are back to the same question I posed above, actually - why should I care if people in poorer countries die if preventing those deaths involves experiments which cause inordinate suffering to animals? I certainly have thought this through, which is why I am posing the questions I do. In essence I am asking why you (or anyone else) thinks that humans should be regarded as some sort of special case in these matters - if experiments on humans will lead to great benefits to mankind then why do we not perform them on humans - after all, if we did, the results would be all the more reliable and relevant, wouldn't they?

 

Ooops! They do perform experiments on humans. Fancy you not knowing that either. So I do understand the arguments that you are putting forth - from your position of ignorance that is.

 

I ought to fess up here that someone I have known very well for many, many years has spent their entire working life as a research micro-biochemist.

 

I have to admit that I was torn between treating your position as either facile or trolling. Glad we've cleared that up.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Whether you think his argument are trolling or facile, I don't think you have addressed the points we have made. You have only stated that much useful stuff has come out of such work. But you have not address why animals must be used and why it is acceptable to use animals. It would also be interesting to understand what you think is acceptable and not.

[P.K.]

For me it's very simple.

 

If you never eat meat, eggs, fish and so forth, wear plastic shoes and a plastic belt and always avoid doing anything that might have resulted in animal suffering I'll certainly admire your dedication but I'll still think you're bloody daft!

 

I view eating meat as being no different to using animals in experiments. In both cases for the vast majority of times an animal has been bred and killed specifically to prolong the lives of humankind.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why do you believe it is acceptable to cause suffering and/or use animals for the sake of prolonging our lives?