UK General Election 2017

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because, every time I see you I remember seeing those small lambs your kin killed and left in our field.

I don't want to kill you, but I don't want any other small boy to have to suffer a trauma like that at your hands.

[Elmetiacos]

Foxhunting FFS. The Tories never change no matter what they say.

[Strike For The South]

There are too many foxes. They need to be culled. I don't understand the pomp and the dogs though. Puppers should be protected. Natures way of "taking care of things" is ecosystem collapse. Like you don't have to take joy in it to recognize the importance of good stewardship.

Beskar have you ever left London?

[Beskar]

Beskar have you ever left London?

Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.

Distance Wise to London:
Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Philippus & Idaho (South-West)
Furunculus
Me (North West) InsaneApache (North East)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)

[Strike For The South]

Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.

Distance Wise to London:
Idaho and Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Phillippus (South)
Furunculus
Me & InsaneApache (North)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)

Aren't the Northerners supposed to be manly men, raised in the mines, clothes made out of tin, grew up on a steady diet of earl grey and coal? Truth be told, I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.

The more you know, I suppose.

[Beskar]

I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.

Used in the context of Ancient name of the Island of Great Britain. (the landmass which contains England, Scotland and Wales).

We have the delights such as Yorkshire Puddings. Go to London.. the blasphemers cannot even serve a proper Roast Dinner with them. Severely disappointing.

[Strike For The South]

Used in the context of Ancient name of the Island of Great Britain. (the landmass which contains England, Scotland and Wales).

We have the delights such as Yorkshire Puddings. Go to London.. the blasphemers cannot even serve a proper Roast Dinner with them. Severely disappointing.

London is the dropoff for all Americans. Its our first impression.

[Beskar]

London is the dropoff for all Americans. Its our first impression.

I live near as area called the 'Lake District'. Probably one of the most beautiful natural areas of the country.


If I travel east, I have got the Yorkshire Dales. (Picture: Bolton Abbey)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.

Distance Wise to London:
Idaho and Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Phillippus (South)
Furunculus
Me & InsaneApache (North)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)

OK, first off, I'm in the South-West, my family is from the South.

Second off, unless he's moved Idaho and I live within walking distance of each other and within the same Electoral Constituency.

Third off, my given name has three "p"s, two "i"s and one "l".

Aren't the Northerners supposed to be manly men, raised in the mines, clothes made out of tin, grew up on a steady diet of earl grey and coal? Truth be told, I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.

The more you know, I suppose.

Tin is from Cornwall and Earl Grey is drunk primarily by, well, Earl Grey and his friends.

You're right though, they are meant to be manly men covered in coal dust.

As to fox hunting - answer me this:

Why is it apparently OK for the fox to slaughter lambs and no eat them, or a whole hen house, but it's not ok for hounds to rip the fox apart?

It is, after all, primarily the hounds which "enjoy" the killing. Once upon a time every huntmaster carried a long barrelled pistol to finish off the fox before the hounds caught it - he shot it from horseback.

Guess why that stopped?

[Greyblades]

He kept accidentally shooting his dog?

[Beskar]

OK, first off, I'm in the South-West, my family is from the South.

and I am North West and InsaneApache is North East, which I simply shortened to 'North'. I changed it for you.

As for Foxes, from Google on a site by Conservatives (Tories) against Fox Hunting It argues it represents 2/3rds of Tory voters and 84% of the Population on this matter:

One of the great myths that the hunters peddle is that foxes are a terrible problem for sheep farmers. It is rubbish of course, but as ever they don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of their supposed justification for fox persecution.

It says Foxes primarily prey on Carrion (dead animals). Goes on to say that Foxes are used as a scapegoat for bad farming and how Ewes are fiercely protective of their lambs, even headbutting sheepdogs to death if they approach during lambing session.

Goes on to say that Fox hunting is a highly ritualised social event where they set hordes of dogs onto wild animals 'for sport', classifying it as a bloodsport and not exercises in pest control.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

and I am North West and InsaneApache is North East, which I simply shortened to 'North'. I changed it for you.

I do not pretend to understand the North, but here "South" and "South West" are different, as it "South East."

More annoyed you got my name wrong and placed Idaho in teh wrong city, though.

As for Foxes, from Google on a site by Conservatives (Tories) against Fox Hunting It argues it represents 2/3rds of Tory voters and 84% of the Population on this matter:

It says Foxes primarily prey on Carrion (dead animals). Goes on to say that Foxes are used as a scapegoat for bad farming and how Ewes are fiercely protective of their lambs, even headbutting sheepdogs to death if they approach during lambing session.

Goes on to say that Fox hunting is a highly ritualised social event where they set hordes of dogs onto wild animals 'for sport', classifying it as a bloodsport and not exercises in pest control.

Hunting is a Field Sport, as the primary activity is the hunt, not the kill. Feel free to argue all Field Sports are cruel, though.

Anyway...

*Head. Ripped. Off*

One of the lambs was headless, another had it's throat ripped out. I'll never forget the image of that tiny animal just killed and left for dead.

I suppose it might not have been foxes, could have been a particularly angry badger but the multiple kills in close proximity and only one missing lamb suggest "fox".

The Farmer down the road did lose two of his dogs to something evil though, with the third found the next morning huddled in the corner. That was probably a badger.

You haven't addressed my question - why is it OK for the fox to kill wastefully but not for the hounds to kill the fox?

[Montmorency]

Why is it OK for hunters to send dogs into a situation where they must kill the fox?

You really need to step back here Phillip, you sound frantic.

[Husar]

You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-...predators.html

Reprogramming Predators

A biosphere without suffering is technically feasible. In principle, science can deliver a cruelty-free world that lacks the molecular signature of unpleasant experience. Not merely can a living world support human life based on genetically preprogrammed gradients of well-being. If carried to completion, the abolitionist project entails ecosystem redesign, cross-species immunocontraception, marine nanorobots, rewriting the vertebrate genome, and harnessing the exponential growth of computational resources to manage a compassionately run global ecosystem. Ultimately, it's an ethical choice whether intelligent agents opt to create such a world - or instead express our natural status quo bias and perpetuate the biology of suffering indefinitely.

[Montmorency]

You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-...predators.html

There's nothing more inside-the-box than "parasidism". It's just the logical conclusion of imbuing suffering with so much meaning - not a smart one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why is it OK for hunters to send dogs into a situation where they must kill the fox?

You really need to step back here Phillip, you sound frantic.

I assume you're trolling me as you also miss-spelled my name, like Beskar.

I fail to see how I sound "frantic" though - and I have to say I take exception to that.

I'm really not joking though, that image has stayed with me. It left me traumatised and is probably why, as I grew older, I didn't take up sheep farming. This is why I have no sympathy with the fox as a "cute and cuddly" animal. It's just an animal, it kills to eat, if it gets caught it kills all the witnesses.

I honestly do not understand - why is the fox still a "defenceless animal" even though we know every fox is a born killer, and a wasteful one at that? The hound is also a born killer, it chases the fox, it catches the fox, it kills the fox. So, why is is permissible to allow the fox to kill lambs and rabbits, and attack babies, and nobody even wants to talk about culling them - let alone hunting then - yet everybody is horrified at hunting and maybe catching and killing a fox with dogs?

It's a double standard - the fox keeps its "cute and cuddly" tag no matter that it hunts and kills every day, yet the hound is a horrible, abhorrent, thing that must be penned up and prevented from hunting or killing.

It's not like humans don't kill all the time, either, we're horrible to the things we eat - we pen them up in huge barns that stink of offal and death, we lead them up a ramp one by one, torture them to make them insensible and then we kill them.

So, that's OK, but getting on a horse and riding out behind a pack of hounds isn't?

I do not understand this bizarre selective cruelty.

I favour hunting with dogs because done properly it weeds out the weak foxes, after they'd had their cubs for the year. I consider man and dog hunting foxes to be the same as wolves hunting deer or foxes killing hens. If you actually take pleasure in the pain of the animal as it dies you're sick in the head, and if you dig the fox out after he's gone to ground I think that's unsporting. I see nothing inherently wrong with hunting with dogs, however, and letting the dogs have the kill.

What really does frustrate me, though, is that nobody will try to explain to me why this is wrong. I hear things like "It's cruel" which makes no sense because cruelty is an intention, not an action. I also hear people say "the animal suffers needlessly" but this is true of a hen house full of hens where the fox takes only one and leaves the rest dead.

For me, the fox is a pest. I have no desire to kill foxes but if I were still on my father's farm, hunting ban in place, I would need to go out and find the dens with a brace of dogs, dig them out and kill everything inside if we had a fox problem.

That, to me, sounds more horrific than hunting foxes with a pack of hounds. At least if the hunt catch wind of Mr Fox he might get away, and if he is caught and killed it's only him, not his entire family and the destruction of his home. Digging out the den is also a far more deliberate act, it requires thought and planning. So you're planning how best to kill something. If we're talking about the human psychology of this that seems much "crueller" than hunting with hounds. Without a Hunt many farmers will dig out a den as soon as they see any sign of a fox, regardless of the season.

I could go on and on, but the point is I don't get why hunting with dogs is worse than anything else, if you actually sit down and thing about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-...predators.html

I am as horrified as you would expect me to be.

We would, of course, all have to become Vegans.

The proposals only appear to apply to vertebrates - so back to "Cute and Cuddly" here too.

What do you do with the parasite whose life cycle requires it to eat another creature's eyes? Given the relative primitiveness of the organism it's unfair to imbue it with any real degree of responsibility but it's also not really feasible to reprogram every parasitic insect and their predators. Then you have the problem of insect over-population as well, and as they've all been re-programmed to eat greens they're essentially locusts.

This is a great example of an idea designed exclusively around the affective sensibilities of human being with too much time on their hands. Having reached the top of the food-chain man feels guilty. The suffering of other animals distresses him, and so he decides HE will REMAKE THE WORLD to please HIM.

This is actually the best example ever of a secular "God Complex" I have personally been exposed to - please tell me it isn't real.

[Montmorency]

I assume you're trolling me as you also miss-spelled my name, like Beskar.

I just removed the suffix; it's spelled as you wish otherwise.

It's a double standard - the fox keeps its "cute and cuddly" tag no matter that it hunts and kills every day, yet the hound is a horrible, abhorrent, thing that must be penned up and prevented from hunting or killing.

is it about the hound, or the hound's master?

So, that's OK, but getting on a horse and riding out behind a pack of hounds isn't?

I believe most who oppose the hunts would say it is not OK.

I favour hunting with dogs because done properly it weeds out the weak foxes

Setting aside the findings that this isn't a very effective practice toward that end, why wouldn't you want to consider all the other common means of fox control that are in use in context? If keeping the foxes under control is the objective, then even effective hunting could not be taken as the only solution worth discussing.

I see nothing inherently wrong with hunting with dogs, however, and letting the dogs have the kill.

Whether or not it's "inherently wrong", it's a matter of public policy and is subject to numerous other considerations.

cruelty is an intention, not an action.

I've never heard that perspective before. Apparently here are differing common ideas on the nature of cruelty.

I also hear people say "the animal suffers needlessly" but this is true of a hen house full of hens where the fox takes only one and leaves the rest dead.

Why would that matter?

That, to me, sounds more horrific than hunting foxes with a pack of hounds. At least if the hunt catch wind of Mr Fox he might get away, and if he is caught and killed it's only him, not his entire family and the destruction of his home. Digging out the den is also a far more deliberate act, it requires thought and planning. So you're planning how best to kill something. If we're talking about the human psychology of this that seems much "crueller" than hunting with hounds. Without a Hunt many farmers will dig out a den as soon as they see any sign of a fox, regardless of the season.

Proponents might argue the opposite, that deliberate and constrained killing is both more humane and and practical. But fundamentally what you should recognize is that critics of the hunts consider them as having more to do with the enjoyment of the hunters in the exercise, rather than threat control or ecological stewardship. You would find firmer ground in arguing for the retention of certain rationalized constructions of the hunt that mitigate the factors opponents find most objectionable than in opening a debate about what constitutes cruelty and animal cruelty.

[Montmorency]

I am as horrified as you would expect me to be.

We would, of course, all have to become Vegans.

The proposals only appear to apply to vertebrates - so back to "Cute and Cuddly" here too.

What do you do with the parasite whose life cycle requires it to eat another creature's eyes? Given the relative primitiveness of the organism it's unfair to imbue it with any real degree of responsibility but it's also not really feasible to reprogram every parasitic insect and their predators. Then you have the problem of insect over-population as well, and as they've all been re-programmed to eat greens they're essentially locusts.

This is a great example of an idea designed exclusively around the affective sensibilities of human being with too much time on their hands. Having reached the top of the food-chain man feels guilty. The suffering of other animals distresses him, and so he decides HE will REMAKE THE WORLD to please HIM.

This is actually the best example ever of a secular "God Complex" I have personally been exposed to - please tell me it isn't real.

That's philosopher David Pearce.

Here's his response to your complaint:

et if the world's 4000 species of cockroach were no longer extant outside a handful of vivariums, then their absence in the wild would be accounted no great loss on any plausible version of the felicific calculus. Nor would extinction of the swarming grasshoppers we know as plagues of locusts. A swarm of 50 billion locusts can in theory eat 100,000 tonnes of foodstuffs per day. Around 20% of food grown for human consumption is eaten by herbivorous insects. A truly utopian future world would lack even minuscule insect pangs of hunger, and its computational resources could micro-manage the well-being of the humblest arthropods - including the Earth's estimated 10 quintillion (1018) insects. In the meantime, we must prioritise. On a neoBuddhist or utilitarian ethic, the criterion of value and moral status is degree of sentience. In a Darwinian world, the welfare of some beings depends on their doing harm to others. So initially, ugly compromises are inevitable as we bootstrap our way out of primordial Darwinian life. Research must focus on how the ugliness of the transitional era can be minimised.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just removed the suffix; it's spelled as you wish otherwise.

You wrote

Phillip

Not

Philip.

See? My Forum name is "Philippus" not "Phillippus".

The spelling is the same as HRH.

is it about the hound, or the hound's master?

Probably both, which is at least unfair to the hound.

I believe most who oppose the hunts would say it is not OK.

I the majority of the anti-hunt lobby still consume meat irrc. Supposedly the majority of the population opposes hunting with dogs, and the majority of them certainly eat meat. It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them. In the former case they are hypocritical, in the latter case I don't think they're entitled to comment.

Vegans would be entitled to comment, though.

Setting aside the findings that this isn't a very effective practice toward that end, why wouldn't you want to consider all the other common means of fox control that are in use in context? If keeping the foxes under control is the objective, then even effective hunting could not be taken as the only solution worth discussing.

You assume, wrongly, that those who support hunting support only hunting. Hunting can be conducted only during part of the year - in fact it cannot be conducted in the spring when foxes have cubs and ewes have lambs, so other methods of control are also required.

Those who support hunting support it as the primary method of killing foxes.

Whether or not it's "inherently wrong", it's a matter of public policy and is subject to numerous other considerations.

The justification for the ban, then and now, is that the practice is morally repugnant.

I've never heard that perspective before. Apparently here are differing common ideas on the nature of cruelty.

No? Well, then consider that "cruelty" is an attribute almost exclusively applied to human beings. To be cruel is, therefore, clearly a moral state and not an actual.

Why would that matter?

Because, in essence, man and fox and hound all act in the same way - but only man and hound are criticised.

Proponents might argue the opposite, that deliberate and constrained killing is both more humane and and practical. But fundamentally what you should recognize is that critics of the hunts consider them as having more to do with the enjoyment of the hunters in the exercise, rather than threat control or ecological stewardship. You would find firmer ground in arguing for the retention of certain rationalized constructions of the hunt that mitigate the factors opponents find most objectionable than in opening a debate about what constitutes cruelty and animal cruelty.

I do not believe it is possible to win a moral debate through rational application of logic.

What you are describing, however, is essentially a class-issue. One class sees the activity of another class as morally repugnant and therefore seeks to ban the activity.

As I asked - what is wrong with enjoying the hunt? Not the kill, but the hunt? Nothing, apparently, as drag hunting is permitted. Interestingly, I don't think anyone has ever tried to test to see if the hounds experience any catharsis when they catch and kill their prey. Note that on the hunt the humans do not do the killing the dogs do, the humans are essentially along for the ride. However, in the case where the den is dug out it is the humans who do the killing, not the dogs. Whilst some hunts do illegally set out to hunt foxes in many more cases (the ones that never come to caught) the hounds are out to track a scent-trail left by a drag and catch a live fox's scent instead. Then they hunt and kill the fox - because that's what Hounds do. So, even when humans set out NOT to hunt foxes and just to have a thrilling ride quite often the hounds conspire to killing a fox anyway.

[Montmorency]

You wrote

Phillip

Ok Ok

I the majority of the anti-hunt lobby still consume meat irrc. Supposedly the majority of the population opposes hunting with dogs, and the majority of them certainly eat meat. It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them. In the former case they are hypocritical, in the latter case I don't think they're entitled to comment.

Have you previously voiced the opinion that in matters of animal cruelty all methods of killing for food are cruel, or equally cruel? IIRC in a topic on Kosher killing you found only some methods to be unacceptable and not the practice in principle. Otherwise, abbatoirs have little relevance to this topic.

As for hunting with dogs, I wonder what those people say on other hunting with dogs, such as large game. For the anti-fox-hunters, is it more to do with the one practice or with dogs' violent instrumentality in general (as STFS apparently represents)? It is admittedly likely to be related - in the United States, deer-hunting with dogs is almost universally outlawed and has been for around a century.

Those who support hunting support it as the primary method of killing foxes.

So, that would be the problem, as it would have to settle for tertiary even in the best cases.

The justification for the ban, then and now, is that the practice is morally repugnant.

The justifications have been a little more specific than that.

Well, then consider that "cruelty" is an attribute almost exclusively applied to human beings.

Not really - according well with an understanding of cruelty as referring to acts just as well as intentions. If you rule out the former, then of course you would be more likely to apply it to humans than other animals in frequent usage.

Because, in essence, man and fox and hound all act in the same way - but only man and hound are criticised.

Well, "same way" is a rather dubious contention, but if it were the case - would it be alright for me to raid your abode, strike you down, devour your livestock, and forcibly mate with your children - as often goes on in the practices of living things? Trying to maintain an identical standard between human affairs and non-human affairs (which are so manifold in kind anyway) seems to handicap one's philosophy in ways that conservative types like you have long considered resolved.

As I asked - what is wrong with enjoying the hunt? Not the kill, but the hunt? Nothing, apparently, as drag hunting is permitted.

When the hunt is practiced for recreational reasons over the professed practical ones. With some relevance here, Faroe islanders in the northern sea enjoy a tradition of mass killing whales far in excess of what can be consumed or processed. That's a clear-cut case of a tradition that only exists for its own sake, against urgent ecological motivations. You could condone hunting of whales for meat and parts, but extermination and enforced waste defeat that purpose. Drag hunting on the other hand involves no game or prey - it's just running around with dogs, no?

[Strike For The South]

In Texas it is becoming popular to outfit pitbulls in padding and send them after Hogs for big trophy kills. The sound the pig makes as it is being bitten by a dozen dogs is spine chilling. It is almost exactly the same as a pupper being bitten,. There is no honor in that kind of kill. It maximizes suffering and minimizes utility. Totally unethical.

That's where Im coming from.

[Pannonian]

Hang on Philippus, you're making non-mutual arguments here. IIRC you earlier made the argument for conservation, to which I responded. You now make the argument for pest control. But how is hunting with dogs effective pest control? Also, there is something else to be considered. Hunting with dogs was banned by Parliament some years ago. Hence it is now the status quo. Why the urgent need to change this? Is there a measurable difference in livestock keeping before and after hunting with dogs was banned?

[Furunculus]

the only point that matters:

Burns could not demonstrate that hunting with hound with any worse for the welfare of the fox than the other methods assessed.

[Pannonian]

the only point that matters:

Burns could not demonstrate that hunting with hound with any worse for the welfare of the fox than the other methods assessed.

But fox hunting with dogs is not allowed. That is the status quo. Why change the status quo?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok Ok

I could make a whole topic on how people keep making this mistake...

Nevermind.

Have you previously voiced the opinion that in matters of animal cruelty all methods of killing for food are cruel, or equally cruel? IIRC in a topic on Kosher killing you found only some methods to be unacceptable and not the practice in principle. Otherwise, abbatoirs have little relevance to this topic.

Actually, I think I have voiced the opinion that all killing is horrible - and everything suffers when it dies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't kill animals and eat them. If I recall the point I made about certain forms of slaughter was that they caused needless suffering.

My contention here is that if you need to kill foxes then I don't believe the hunt is worse for the fox that being dug out and either gassed, shot or having their head stoved in.

As for hunting with dogs, I wonder what those people say on other hunting with dogs, such as large game. For the anti-fox-hunters, is it more to do with the one practice or with dogs' violent instrumentality in general (as STFS apparently represents)? It is admittedly likely to be related - in the United States, deer-hunting with dogs is almost universally outlawed and has been for around a century.

It does seem to vary, a lot of people (including Lefties I know personally) will say "It's a bunch of post people getting on horses in fancy red coats and tearing round the countryside".

[Idaho]

Second off, unless he's moved Idaho and I live within walking distance of each other and within the same Electoral Constituency.

Bradshaw was knocking on doors on my street earlier in the week. Can't stand the man - traitorous blairite tosser. I'm in Heavitree.

As for foxes killing sheep. Those sheep were going to be electrocuted, bled and evicerated any how.

[Greyblades]

It is a foxes' fate to die as well and there are few quick easy deaths in nature; without the intervention of man they would mostly meet their fate at the jaws of dog's wild counterparts. I see little practical reason to alter this fate for a creature of little utility and high destructiveness.

On an emotional level I must admit a increasing distaste for the sources of protest being either "fuck the rich" communists and "population control, who needs it?" Enviromentalists. The "my only exposure to foxes is through disney" urbanites who back them while less offensive tend to be disconnected from the whys of the practice, being about as convincing as a greek banker.

[Idaho]

Parading your ignorance again Greyblades. Predators are most likely to die of starvation. They live on the edge of starvation - a few bad weeks, an injury, an illness and they are done for.

[Gilrandir]

As for foxes killing sheep. Those sheep were going to be electrocuted, bled and evicerated any how.

Predators are most likely to die of starvation. They live on the edge of starvation - a few bad weeks, an injury, an illness and they are done for.

So, following your logics, why feel pity for hunted foxes, they are all likely to die anyway.