Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week.
From: Oz (oz_at_farmeroz.port995.com)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: BAC: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Previous message: Paul Rooney: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- In reply to: Martin Willett: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Next in thread: Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Reply: Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Reply: Martin Willett: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:37:36 +0100
Martin Willett <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com> writes
>Oz wrote:
>> Martin Willett <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com> writes
>>> Oz wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 6) In general the anti-hunt people seem not to be country folk
>and
>>>>>> do not seem to understand nature at all well.
>>
>> Eh? It was a statement of fact. I have no idea how you got
>'inferior'
>> and 'vote' into it, probably from your own prejudices.
>
>You expect me to believe it was just meant to be a statement of fact
>with no implications at all?
Yes, whyever not?
>You didn't make any implications of that
>supposed fact clear so how can it be our fault if we thrash around and
>land upon an implication you didn't want to be seen to be suggesting?
There are no implications, just a statement of fact.
How easy is that?
>> Eh? You really do have a brain full of prejudices, don't you?
>> I have no idea why you think fashionable and trendy should come into
>> owning, or renting, land. I farm the land because its my job, its
>> what I do, and it brings me a living.
>>
>> Being a class warrior is inciting divisions in society that should
>not
>> and in general do not exist. The few snobs I have come across have
>> been people from modest backgrounds now, for various reasons, into
>> lots of money; and the rabid communists seem to come from very
>> comfortable backgrounds but now fallen on harder times. Fairly
>> understandable on both counts, but not, IMHO, very laudable.
>
>My point was you were trying to put me down by saying my ideas were
>dated,
They are. Bringing them to the fore is a retrograde step that moves us
backwards.
>which implies that only new and fresh ideas are good, which
>might be seen as a tad shallow,
Eh? Just a statement of fact.
>rather Hello! magazine than Horse and
>Hound or Country Life.
You obviously have some experience of these publications,
I've never read any of them so I have no idea.
>>> That's a fine set of
>>> morals you have there. Who did you borrow them off, Dale Winton or
>>> Tara Palmer-Tomkinson?
>>
>> You are simple stating your morals. Its hardly my fault if you
>aren't
>> happy with them. Try a change.
>
>I don't change my morals or beliefs with the whims of fashion.
No, that's pretty clear.
Still in the early 20C by the sound of it.
>>>>>> 7) Given the many and unpleasant ways that foxes would die in
>the
>>>>>> wild I believe the hunt is more humane than nature, and by a
>long
>>>>>> way. The natural way for a fox to die is slowly, thirsty and
>>>>>> starving, of disease, injury or old age. Quite frankly this is a
>>>>>> very slow and unpleasant way to die.
>>>>>
>>>>> So chasing them and tearing them apart is a mercy?
>>>>
>>>> In truth, yes.
>>>> Nature tends to go for rather inhumane methods,
>>>> hunting is significantly more humane than nature.
>>>> Of course you already know that.
>
>That was very nearly funny.
True none the less.
>>> Perhaps you should recommend it to members of the voluntary
>>> euthanasia society?
>>
>> Its a tad tricky doing much else with wild animals like foxes.
>> Livestock are put down humanely when the suffering becomes
>pointless,
>> and the same happens with pets. I don't have a problem with
>voluntary
>> euthanasia for much the same reasons. In practice it happens all the
>> time. You can't force a terminally ill person to take medication
>> other than pain relief for example.
>
>I can't imagine many people would actually choose being set upon by
>dogs rather than being shot. Suicide by hounds is not something I have
>ever come across, have you? In contrast there is the real phenomenon
>of "suicide by cops" where people deliberately provoke the police to
>shoot them dead.
I don't think animals have much of a grasp of the concept 'death'.
They are programmed to survive as long as they can, pain and suffering
notwithstanding. We humanely kill livestock, because we are in a
position to do so. Some countries humanely put down people on request.
Unfortunately doing the same for wild animals requires some self-
selection by the wild animal, and the death needs to be fast and humane.
'Being torn about by dogs' is emotively nasty, I am interested in the
reality, which is that death is very rapid indeed.
>>>>> Can you tell me, off the top of your head, you needn't be too
>>>>> precise here, how many countries have introduced hunting with
>dogs
>>>>> as a humane approach to culling problem wildlife?
>>>>
>>>> It happens elsewhere. Of course in the wild (eg see african
>>>> savannah), predators incl hunting dogs do precisely this. Damned
>>>> sight easier to catch the old/injured/infirm than the healthy.
>>>
>>> So basically your answer is no, you can't think of any concrete
>>> examples, you just think there probably are some.
>>
>> Hunting happens in the states and in france and germany.
>> Hardly surprising, its been done for millennia all over the world.
>
>But has it been introduced as the most rational and humane response to
>a vermin problem or has it been introduced as a bloodsport? I think we
>all know the answer.
The effect is a humane response to a vermin problem.
That's all that interests me, to be honest.
>>> as if shooting a bigger animal requires the possession of
>>> a bigger willy.
>>
>> You really do have a lot of hangups, don't you?
>> It would probably be better if you didn't keep bringing them into a
>> logical argument.
>
>Better for what? I debate for fun not profit, I am not employed to win
>the debate for one "side" or the other, I just get stuck in and enjoy
>myself. There's no harm in it, the cruelty is very modest, there's no
>blood shed and all participants are volunteers. Most are even of sound
>mind.
Your original comment above is hardly an argument.
It says more about you than the argument.
>It is a real phenomenon, men do seem to make out that the shooting of
>a larger prize specimen implies some greater quality in themselves.
Maybe, I wouldn't know.
I expect the same thing applies to cars and houses, yet we don't ban
these.
>Larger stags should be easier to shoot because they are bigger and
>more likely to be stood on a ridge bellowing or looking out for
>rivals, so they should be the easiest deer to shoot. Also culling very
>often consists of shooting males and leaving females alone. Why
>reducing males within a polygynous species (most of whom are surplus
>to requirements in terms of breeding stock) would be of great benefit
>to the population numbers is never explained. If numbers need to be
>controlled then it should be the females that are shot as each female
>also removes one potential fawn per breeding season. You'd have a lot
>of explaining to do before you convinced me that stag hunting/shooting
>doesn't involve any Freudian undertones.
I suspect those involved with the deer know more about it than you do.
Females are certainly shot.
>>> Remember I'm smarter than you are.
>>
>> Really?
>
>That was just to get your attention.
Pathetic. See below.
>>> Don't try "the remember trick" on me. If something is a new piece
>of
>>> information I cannot be reminded of it and therefore skip the stage
>>> of examining the evidence. If it is fresh evidence I have not
>already
>>> accepted the truth of it and you cannot simply "remind me" of my
>>> previous acceptance of your "fact".
>>
>> I'm surprised you were not already aware of this, its been the case
>> for over a decade. Given you seemed to claim plenty of knowledge of
>> the countryside, and have pontificated enthusiastically on it, it
>> didn't occur to me you were not aware of it.
>
>I was making a general point there, it is a shoddy rhetorical trick
>(although often unconscious) to introduce new information into a
>debate disguised as a call to remember a point, as if already agreed.
>You edited the quoted reply to remove your call for me to remember.
I assumed that one pontificating would already know the basics.
Which is a very reasonable assumption.
>I have not claimed plenty of knowledge of the countryside I have just
>allowed you receive that impression without exceeding the facts of the
>case. I never lie in debates but I do employ a little spin in the way
>I present my case and credentials.
<cough>
>>>> If the farms
>>>> stopped producing then an awful lot of people would starve to
>death
>>>> of course. Then, I guess, farmers would be in a majority.
>>>
>>> Ah, but they wouldn't have any bloody Range Rovers bought with EC
>>> subsidies, would they?
>>
>> Hmmm....
>> Is that so?
>>
>> In my village there are about 20 rangerovers, absolutely none of
>them
>> owned by farmers (I don't have one for example). That is, from
>> discussions we have had over the years on uba, the usual situation.
>> Given the rather small number of farmers (defined as earning 50% of
>> their income from farming) and the number of sales of rangerovers
>let
>> alone similar deluxe 'utility vehicles' from other manufacturers,
>its
>> hardly surprising.
>
>Why was it Range Rovers and not EC subsidies that you argued about
>there?
It seemed to be your major point.
>Do all the EC subsidies in your village go to the non-farmers
>and incomers?
Yes, they get food sold below the cost of production.
Given your statement you will already know that the average farmer has
essentially been running at break-even for several years.
>>> If modern society collapsed the land would be
>>> farmed and there would be barons running the place and controlling
>>> all the land, but I doubt very much they would have titles granted
>by
>>> Elizabeth Windsor or that the records of the UK land registry would
>>> be of any great significance.
>>
>> Indeed so. Knowing how to farm would be a most valuable commodity,
>> owning a fair number of guns would also help. I would suggest
>farmers
>> would be in quite a strong position, wouldn't you? No shortage of
>> manual labour happy to work for food alone, or starve.
>
>Yes, and no shortage of unskilled labour happy to work for whatever
>they could steal.
Tends to be frowned upon.
A hungry person will do almost anything for food.
>Knowing how to farm might make you valuable enough
>to be spared, but then again, that isn't the Zimbabwe experience, is
>it?
It will be, but too late, the farmers are all being given land in
neighbouring countries.
>'Don't criticize farmers, with your mouth full' is a good bumper
>sticker, but it doesn't do to push the concept too far.
Have you ever been *really* hungry?
>>> At least I don't dress up in fancy dress and blow a horn
>>> so everybody for miles around can know I'm taking a little sadistic
>>> pleasure from vermin control.
>>
>> Hmmm. Mor of your hangups surfacing.
>> Please don't assume that because you would feel a sadistic pleasure,
>> that others do to.
>
>No, it is far more rational to assume that my experience is the
>opposite of what the rest of my species would feel. errrr... No. It
>isn't. My experiences as a particular man cannot be taken to be the
>case for all men but as a general starting point it makes sense. I
>have a spleen, men have a spleen, people have spleens. In the absence
>of evidence to the contrary looking into my motivations is a
>reasonable starting point for modelling the motivations of other
>people, I know I have far more in common with other people than I have
>differences. To acknowledge the similarities is not to deny the
>differences.
As I said, more of your hangups surfacing.
>I can see some satisfaction in killing slugs and wasps.
Eh? Hmmmmm
>I don't think
>that is the best aspect of my character but I have no reason to
>believe that I am abnormal,
Really?
>I see the same expressions on the faces of
>other people when they swat flies as I have. When I see that
>expression on the faces of people who have run over a rabbit or seen
>their dog kill a rat I get very uneasy. If I think about people having
>those expressions on their faces when they machine-gun a crowd or ride
>to hounds that disgust crosses the threshold and I feel I must
>respond. I am against sadistic pleasure in killing but not because I
>think I'm too good to express it and they are too beastly to repress
>it.
I would suggest these are perhaps somewhat unbalanced people.
>I am against men sexually exploiting teenagers not because I find
>the prospect of having sex with teenagers repulsive, quite the
>opposite. Last night I went to collect my daughter from an evening
>event and I found her friends very attractive. I understand the urge
>very clearly but I also understand why it must be suppressed,
>understanding how difficult suppressing that urge is is what gave me
>the motivation to be waiting outside to walk her safely home in the
>first place. To be against hunting without acknowledging a streak of
>sadism within oneself is sanctimonious puritan prigishness of the
>worst kind and as absurd as pretending that as red-blooded males your
>attraction to females begins from a standing start on her sixteenth
>birthday.
Given that, as I understand it, people have been on hunts for years and
never seen a kill, I rather doubt hunting would be very satisfying to
the people you describe. Try angling.
>>> Either.
>>
>> 1) If its land owned in common, then the council of those commons
>can
>> ban them from access and sue them for damages if they trespass.
>>
>> 2) If its public land and the relevant has the power then they can
>be
>> banned from access and sued if they trespass.
>>
>> This is all very simple and can easily be done if the authority
>> wishes. If the authority doesn't ban them, and/or they have
>> permission then they can hunt over these lands. Nothing difficult
>> here.
No answer?
>>> support. The fact that some of the hairiest hunt saboteurs are
>vegan
>>> shock troops does not mean that in six months time there will be a
>>> vote to ban eating meat and drowning worms on hooks. Even if such a
>>> bill were to find a sponsor it would be thrown out. The slippery
>>> slope argument is intellectually dishonest: fight today's battle,
>>> don't cloud the issue with what might (but almost certainly will
>>> not) follow.
>>
>> Much of this is a stated aim of many.
>
>"Many" by the standards of a pressure group, a vanishingly small
>number compared to the number of people who watch Emmerdale or
>Manchester United.
Or who really oppose foxhunting with any sort of knowledge of what it
is.
>Have some perspective. Many women would like to see
>all men put in custody to prevent rape. The numbers are small and
>there is no prospect of them gathering significantly more support.
>This slippery slope argument is simply a way for the minority who
>really care about hunting to cynically try to recruit supporters from
>the larger group who shoot and fish and live in the country.
OK, so morality has nothing to do with it,
just make sure you attack a minority.
>My take on this is that I think hunts are sadistic and an excuse for
>the gentry to make out they are being philanthropic. The days of
>noblesse oblige are dead and gone. Vermin should be destroyed by the
>council not the squire and the rector and his chums.
I am not remotely interested in your early 20C, no 19C, class battles.
They are over and done with, and have been for years. The days when
'squires' and 'rectors' hunted was before my time, I've never even come
across a 'squire'.
I am interested in maintaining the fox population so it can co-exist
with humans and be healthy and fit.
>I am fed up with my country tugging its forelock. Of my country's
>national anthem I can wholeheartedly sing one single word from the
>first verse: happy. The rest is thoroughly objectionable, even before
>you move on to the verses even Tories find too objectionable to sing.
Jesus. I haven't heard such antiquated class-conscious twaddle since the
early 1950's and that was by activists born the previous century.
You should be put in a museum.
You do nicely prove one of my original points though.
Your truly splendid lack of knowledge on the subject proves another,
too.
Squires and rectors indeed.... brikkies and chippies (and their
daughters) more likely.
>The commons has expressed its view, yet again, by a huge majority.
>It's time to face up to the reality: you lost.
I haven't lost. It doesn't bother me, I don't hunt and don't let the
hunt on my land remember. Its the foxes that have lost, which is where I
came in.
-- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use. >>Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com<< ozacoohdb@despammed.com still functions.
- Next message: BAC: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Previous message: Paul Rooney: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- In reply to: Martin Willett: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Next in thread: Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Reply: Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Reply: Martin Willett: "Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
