Part P conudrum.....

[John Cartmell]

So you agree that you have no objective definition. Your 'other vermin' can just as easily (actually far easier!) refer to you.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

Don't be stupid. Of course I am questioning it.

But as I thought you don't have any evidence.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

Vermin is quite adequately defined by law.

You really are totally insane if you think for a moment that there is any truth in your latest statement. Odd really as not so long ago you were pontificating on philosophy and now you are fantasizing about a world in which foxes have rational thought, not to mention the right to murder. Anthropomorphism gone mad.

[Roger]

The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:

I see our self-important self appointed net nanny has finally flipped.

[Chris Bacon]

More blah blah blah, roger. Got anything interesting to say? Probably not.

[John Cartmell]

And defined entirely subjectively. Try to make the definition objective and what follows is inevitable.

Truth? The definition is based on the fox's relationship to man. Only by your overwhelming self-aggrandisement can you fail to appreciate that the definition could just as well be swapped around.

Well you're struggling with that rational thought bit so I'm not pushing the fox too far ahead. Even if you did fit the Homo sapiens tag I don't see how an ability to think gives you the right to murder. If you justify something on the grounds that you are 'better' - and those are the only moral grounds that you can claim - then you need to start justifying that 'better' tag too. If you're claiming the right simply because you have better weapons (and that

*is* the truth) then I find your claim to be without any moral value.

You need to justify your 'sapiens' tag before you start complaining that I'm seeing foxes as human.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

All of a sudden you value the PM's opinion?

The percentage of the population that ride to hounds or enjoy viewing this 'spectacle' is tiny. Yet the opposition to this legislation was way out of proportion to this - but not surprisingly mainly from the Lords.

It would be nice to seeing them spend so much time debating issues that effect the majority of the country.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

There is free daycare for kids in your area? Do tell where.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

All public transport is subsidised. Some routes more than others.

[John Cartmell]

Which bit? If you're seriously questioning one, because you seriously haven't heard of it and cannot find a reference, then you'll say which. If you're simply being brain-dead awkward then you'll pretend that it's all beyond your comprehension.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (2000) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales London: HMSO.

Ward, N. (1999) 'Foxing the Nation: the economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds in Britain'. Journal of Rural Studies. Vol 15, 389 -403.

Elias, N. (1986) A Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising Process Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Let me know when you have read those...

[John]

Are you sure you want us in t'country to restrict your take of "our" water, mineral workings, power stations etc etc? I reckon if we declared an independant republic of Yorkshire we would be in an excellent trading position. We could charge enough for our natural resources to forget altogether about taxation within the zone

[John]

It's a change from SNIP DRIVEL and just as ridiculous

[John]

I need to justify nothing to you. You justify what the F... you like. You are I suggest a fully entrenched bigot about this matter and as with others could be faced with any number of pure facts but continue to recite the party line.

More party lines from the anti brigade. As to the video evidence unless it was produced, processed and edited by certified sources (i.e. Absolutely not a single hint of fakery or creative editing) I wouldn't give it any credence whatsoever never mind attempt to refute it.

As I said before I don't hunt but I get heartily sick of being subject to preaching by those who don't either. I "do" shoot foxes or any other vermin to get rid of them from my land but I certainly will not attempt to justify this to you or any others with your opinions or viewpoint.

[Andy Hall]

I didn't say free. There is subsidy, however. The current euphemism is "early education".

[Andy Hall]

Not at all. However, one does have to question the behaviour of a government whose leader does not fully support a piece of legislation but uses the Parliament Act to get it through.

Exactly. As I've already explained, much of the opposition is not because of wanting to participate but because of use of a very heavy parliamentary procedure to address something that only a small number of people do and which does not involve or limit the freedoms of the majority.

I'm still left with the same question. Why wasn't angling banned as well?

It would be nice to see the government spending time and my money on things that really matter.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

You don't find the law of the land adequate? Your problem, not mine.

And no doubt you have spent endless hours discussing the finer points of philosophy with your friendly neighbourhood fox quite forgetting that it is sentient only in the most basic sense and any of its thoughts are figments of your deranged imagination.

You seem to have lost all sense of perspective where animals are concerned. Animals don't have morals nor the thought processes to consider the question. Murder is a human construct and confined to humans. Given your extreme views I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you were a leading animal rights terrorist.

'I think therefore I am' but h*mo sapiens is label that applies equally to everyone from moron to genius and even includes Drivel. Sanity OTOH is a judgement call and you are obviously insane.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

I will if I ever find the time but as you haven't actually cited any particular passages to support your claims I suspect that any evidence is going to be both tendentious and tenuous.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Because at the end of the day you eat the catch. Or, as is far more likely these days, put it back alive. It's not just killing for fun. That's the big difference.

[John Cartmell]

In article , Roger wrote: [about the legal definition of 'vermin']

I thought I was discussing the matter with a member of my own species.

Some of us do. Apparently you don't consider yourself to be an animal. That's a fault in your perception and doesn't reflect reality.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

You have a sick idea of 'extreme'.

And you do not understand Descartes - so don't pretend.

Homo sapiens

You still fail to live up to the 'sapiens' part.

[John Cartmell]

Would you have a moral objection to someone placing the label 'vermin' on you and shooting you? What then would be your *moral* objection?