Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[Ruger]

"First they came..."

 

P.K., Don’t ever expect those you slag off now, to ever come to your defense the day when sport/recreational fishing comes under similar scrutiny. Quietly having you reservations is one thing but this...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My understanding of anti-fox hunting campaigners mention of cruelty relates to the chase of the animal, where you essentially wear the animal down until it is caught. Would this not be considered cruel?

 

Ruger - I will answer your points about grouse populations and other animals later.

[P.K.]

I find it strange that PK can take the moral high ground with hunting (perhaps because he can't afford to participate?) but defends fishing for "sport", as he takes part .

 

When I go fishing I've no intentions of killing anything for sport. Kill to eat, yes, but not for some kind of perverse enjoyment. Fishing for fun I use barbless hooks, hence our extremely low catch rates. Fishing to eat I dispatch the catch as quickly and humanely as I can and only take what I need. Not so very hard to understand, is it?

 

I also wondered when the old, tired, well-worn "fox in a henhouse" cliche would turn up. Thanks for not disappointing. A fox has instincts that react to hunt prey. It's hardly the foxes fault that millions of years of evolution has programmed it to behave the way it does. Mind you, millions of years of evolution also produced Chris Evans! So here's an idea to get hold of - don't force chickens to use henhouses where they're sitting ducks for foxes. Doh! (Sorry - couldn't resist that one!)

 

That social activity is entirely subsidiary to the purpose – complaining about the practice being undertaken by people who say Tallyho and drink from hip flasks is pure class politics and nothing to do with the ethics of cruelty. But then again P.K. is the classic class warrior, who sees no irony in defending his “working man’s” sport will attacking the “rich” for doing essentially the same thing – killing an animal in a manner where the pleasure of the activity is of equal, if not greater importance than the need – there is a fish and chip shop round the corner, as they say, so why fish, for the pleasure.

 

Dear me Mr C but you do spout some pure BS at times. A blanket ban on foxhunting with dogs will hardly bother the incomes of those who pay for it now will it? But the so-called "working class" as you call them who are employed by the hunts would lose things like their livelihoods, tied cottage if they have one and so forth. You know you really should think these things through before you sound off.

[paswt]

"I find it strange that PK can take the moral high ground with hunting (perhaps because he can't afford to participate?) but defends fishing for "sport", as he takes part ."

 

"When I go fishing I've no intentions of killing anything for sport. Kill to eat, yes, but not for some kind of perverse enjoyment. Fishing for fun I use barbless hooks, hence our extremely low catch rates. Not so very hard to understand, is it?"

 

Fishing for fun (?) ,for you perhaps ,thats not hard to understand.

 

 

"I also wondered when the old, tired, well-worn "fox in a henhouse" cliche would turn up. So here's an idea to get hold of - don't force chickens to use henhouses where they're sitting ducks for foxes. Doh! (Sorry - couldn't resist that one!)"

 

Perhaps there is some truth in a cliche. Sorry not too keen on taking any of your ideas too seriously.

[Ruger]

My understanding of anti-fox hunting campaigners mention of cruelty relates to the chase of the animal, where you essentially wear the animal down until it is caught. Would this not be considered cruel?

 

Ruger - I will answer your points about grouse populations and other animals later.

 

Partridge actually..

 

I'm no expert, but find this understandable with regard to the chase being cruel.

 

Advances in comparative neuroscience argue convincingly against the

anthropomorphic claim that hunted wild animals run in terror of their lives. Rather

than being traumatised, as is so often suggested, the animal remains alert at all

times, which is crucial to its survival and health in the wild.

 

6.5 The neuroscientist Susan Greenfield says, “Anxiety is a state of mind that is initiated and

perpetuated with very little external assistance. Anxiety, one might think, is far closer to

fear than is pleasure, but in brain terms, it could be the exact opposite. After all, pure fear,

as pleasure, is very much in the here and now. Anxiety, on the other hand…depends on the

ability to forsake the present moment and anticipate an uncomfortable future. It is hard

to imagine that the rabbit in his burrow dwells on past times when it manages to escape a

fox and is now worrying about whether a fox is going to pass that way once more.” (16)

 

Also a good point about the alternative, natural method of ending a life in the wild,

 

4.9 Though a kill by hounds may be unpleasant in the eyes of some people, it should be

appreciated that death in the wild, in the absence of natural predators and without

hunting, involves pain, sepsis, gangrene, starvation, hypothermia for days or even

weeks before death supervenes.

 

Again this is the source for those reasonable enough to see the argumant from both sides, http://www.irishfoxhunting.ie/pdf/ukbooklet09.pdf .

[P.K.]

Sorry not too keen on taking any of your ideas too seriously.

 

Me neither right now. After a good few overs in the doldrums the Pakistani batsmen are starting to go after Panesar and Swann. Strauss has used a review more in frustration than anything else it seemed to me. He'll have to go back to the seamers I think.

[Evil Goblin]

Firstly these animals simply wouldn't exist unless they were needed for medical research.

That may well be true but the fact is that once they do exist they are living, feeling animals - the fact that they have been deliberately bred is irrelevant to the moral question we are dealing with.

 

Secondly animals are needed for research because simply put lifeforms, especially mammals, are so complex that you can't use modern tools like computer modelling to test experimental results - it simply can't be done.

True or not what has this to do with the morality of the matter? Far from being "guff" my previous comment that "we do it simply because we can" sums up your view pretty well - no concern for morality at all. On that basis it is but a small step to using humans in medical experiments. You appear to hold to the view so beloved of the Left that mankind will be delivered to nirvana by scientific advance in which the earth and its' other animals are simply here to be used - if that sounds familiar it should, precisely the same view as Christianity that humans are intrinsically special and that the world exists purely for our use.

 

It's not nice but it's necessary - just like the abattoir producing bacon.

It may be necessary in purely scientific terms but is it acceptable for us to behave without any thought for the welfare of the animals involved, most especially those who we know are so like ourselves?

[Evil Goblin]

We do use people and nature as a means to an end - we do it every single day in so many instances that if we were to make this a moral failing and hence prohibit it it would invalidate such a large swaive of human life as to make it impossible to know how to better behave as would have to reject so much of our current life.

I do not regard our use of animals (and each other) as being a moral failure. The moral failure arises from the way in which we treat them causes them suffering and from some of the ways we use them.

 

I find it deeply ironic both LDV and EG shrug their shoulders about past wrongs, wringing their hands, but taking the benefits - that is why I directly challenged LDV to go all the way back to the begining of human attempts to overcome nature. If he'd had his way we'd still be sitting in the cold worrying about the consequences. Both he and EG seem not to be rejecting leather shoes, soaps and the thousand and one products which are a result of our present (not past) exploitation - if some chimp dies to provide in the future they'll accept that sacrifice.

My previous posts will have given you my views on this.

 

At present it is simply beyond our ability to reduce these impacts without consequences which would also bring multiple harms - if you tried to ban .......... or animal experimentation the unintended consequences would be massive

.

Would they? You seem to have a very utilitarian approach to things, China. We are capable of doing all sorts of things - but shouldn't we stop to ask ourselves if we should do some things of which we are capable or not do them? Is human convenience justification enough?

 

no method of maintaining sustainable fox populations seems obviously superior to any other.

It is not just a question of the physical effectiveness of various methods of population control - should we be permitting an undoubtedly cruel method which has as its'main purpose the "pleasure" of chasing an animal and ending with it's death by being torn apart alive. The control of fox populations is, I suggest, merely an excuse to cover the real purpose - assuaging the blood-thirstiness of some people.

[P.K.]

Firstly these animals simply wouldn't exist unless they were needed for medical research.

That may well be true but the fact is that once they do exist they are living, feeling animals - the fact that they have been deliberately bred is irrelevant to the moral question we are dealing with.

Fine by me, so let's put it in simple terms. Would you rather a few rats died or your mum?

 

Secondly animals are needed for research because simply put lifeforms, especially mammals, are so complex that you can't use modern tools like computer modelling to test experimental results - it simply can't be done.

True or not what has this to do with the morality of the matter? Far from being "guff" my previous comment that "we do it simply because we can" sums up your view pretty well - no concern for morality at all. On that basis it is but a small step to using humans in medical experiments. You appear to hold to the view so beloved of the Left that mankind will be delivered to nirvana by scientific advance in which the earth and its' other animals are simply here to be used - if that sounds familiar it should, precisely the same view as Christianity that humans are intrinsically special and that the world exists purely for our use.

What are you mean with "True or not" - or is that an admission that you don't know what you're talking about? As for this " Far from being "guff" my previous comment that "we do it simply because we can" sums up your view pretty well - no concern for morality at all." Even with the best computer modelling in the world you would still have to test on animals. 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...

 

[quote name='P.K.' timestamp='1327592667' post='675920'

]It's not nice but it's necessary - just like the abattoir producing bacon.

It may be necessary in purely scientific terms but is it acceptable for us to behave without any thought for the welfare of the animals involved, most especially those who we know are so like ourselves?

 

The welfare of the animals used in experimentation is paramount. After all, you can't have stress levels skewing the results.

[Evil Goblin]

Fine by me, so let's put it in simple terms. Would you rather a few rats died or your mum?

That is a silly question to ask, PK. Of course I would rather a few rats died rather than my mother but then by the same token I would rather you and your whole family died rather than her. A more pertinent question would be "why should I care if you die rather than a few rats"?

 

What are you mean with "True or not" - or is that an admission that you don't know what you're talking about?

I fear that it is you who does not know what is being talked about.

 

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?

 

The welfare of the animals used in experimentation is paramount. After all, you can't have stress levels skewing the results.

And, in general, experiments then do not cause animals to suffer?

[Evil Goblin]

Fishing for fun I use barbless hooks, hence our extremely low catch rates.

I'm intrigued, PK. How do you catch any fish with a barbless hook? How does it work?

[Evil Goblin]

The issue is not simply one of treating them kindly whilst alive, but asking ourselves how we can justify ending the life of intelligent and self-aware animals for the sake of taste.

As natural omnivores, we need the high-grade proteins which meats provide. We should only kill animals out of dietary necessity.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

No, we don't need the protein from meat. Where did you get that idea from? Biologically, we are not really suited to eat meat and the distribution of amino acids from breaking down meat proteins is very different from the quantity of specific amino acids we require.

But I agree, animals can be killed out of biologically necessity in many instances, where the person faces starvation for example. But certainly not as some staple for our diet.

[guzzi]

LDV there are regions where a meat and fish based diet is the only practical option, at least historically. Sub polar regions, for example, where the growing season is so short that crops aren't a practical proposition. It makes sense to eat the animal that are able to exploit the vegetation in that habitat. In terms of land use, surely it also makes sense to graze upland pasture which isn't capable of supporting any other crop than sheep.

 

Although I agree with you that high grade proteins can be sourced from vegetable products like pulses, there are lipids in our brain and nervous system that exist naturally only in fish and which are essential to our well being. Oily fish are a very helpful part of our diet, and I assume your position extends to fin as well as fur and feather.

 

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes, there are small regions where some people live and must eat fish and meat even today. There's is a situation where we ought to find that it would be more moral to abandon their dietary habits and move to where non-animal sources are more abundant. Such a move would be relatively easy for some to undertake and for some it would be very difficult, if they were to accept the argument against eating meat.

 

It doesn't make sense to eat the animal eating the vegetation because in areas where people are dependent on meat and fish there there aren't the forms of vegetation that would sustain many people anyway, as it would be limited to grasses.

 

I don't understand your point about it making sense to use upland pasture for sheep just because it can't sustain crop. Why use it for anything?

 

Are you talking about Omega 3? That doesn't exist only in fish. Only particular forms of it do. Were you of the thinking that humans need fish?