I didn't say that it should include all possible reforms either. I used angling as an illustration.
The reality is that the government is bankrupt over the whole issue and it should be exposed for what it is.
... or in Nulaber government......
I'd rather a government that allowed some reform - rather than one that denied all reform. Your view reminds me of some entrenched Socialist Worker supporters who opposed any minor reforms on the grounds that they merely put off the revolution. I'l support the minor reforms (though push to help make them a touch larger than the 'powers that be' originally intended. ;-)
Absolutely. I would start with repeal of part P of the Building Regulations and this hunting rubbish. We could then move on to the NHS, but there I would go for euthanasia.
How in your wildest dreams you could imagine that I could be anything like a Socialist Worker support amazes me.
But when you say exactly the same nonsense ... ;-)
What? Where.
??
The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:
No it is torturing for fun which to my mind is as bad if not worse. It is also much more prevelant than fox hunting so banning it make a much bigger contribution to animal welfare than banning fox hunting.
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
You are but what is at issue is that you attribute human thoughts and emotions to foxes.
Clutching at straws? You know very well that I was using animal in the colloquial sense.
Yes you did. How else am I supposed to interpret " I don't see how an ability to think gives you the right to murder" a few paragraphs above. I can only assume that you think I shoot foxes myself. FWIW I have never shot a fox and haven't shot anything at all for more than 40 years.
It is in the nature of extremism that those at the extremes consider themselves mainstream. The sickness is all in your head.
So you think you do, but you're insane.
From a fruit and nutcase like you I take that as a compliment. I have often thought it odd that those who are particularly clever or even those who think they are particularly clever are so often lacking in commonsense. You can no doubt argue the hind leg off a donkey but your basic proposition that foxes and humans are equal singles you out as demented and the more you to plead your case the more ridiculous you appear to those who do not share your delusion.
You stated as a fact a few days ago that fox hunting hadn't been around for centuries. If you had had a bit more concern for the truth and a bit less for your ego we wouldn't have started arguing again and your reputation wouldn't be quite so threadbare as it is now.
If you try reading the thread you should find that I don't do that.
[Snip]
I use the term correctly. You betray a false claim of superiority.
You can claim a right to do 'something' without ever actually doing 'something'.
I object to animal cruelty. You call me extreme. Yes I do consider myself to be in the moral right; where you are I make no judgement.
I've studied Descartes at Post-Graduate level. I know I don't understand his work! ;-)
That's where you are up the creek. I make no such claim. I've deliberately avoided any such claim and it's not necessary. I've concentrated on demolishing the claims of H. sapiens to have rights over other animals without any responsibilities. You have failed to respond to that and have chosen instead to attack claims that I never made.
I didn't do that either. One Hunt claims a long (200 years +) pedigree and this may be correct - but I know of no confirmation of the claim. Fox Hunting in general became 'respectable' with officers in the Napoleonic Wars when Wellington was keeping his troops hanging around before the push into france from Spain. It didn't 'catch-on' generally until after those officers returned home and it mushroomed in the last half of the 19th century.
It's easy to attack someone if you distort their comments.
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
You might consider the rest of the animal kingdom superior to mankind but most of us don't.
Answer the question you ignorant arse.
And the right to shoot vermin (and various other animals with certain restrictions) is still the law of the land.
Lying again no doubt. I bet you don't actually object to animal cruelty per se, just to humans being cruel (in your eyes) to non human animals. ISTR you are on record as saying fox hunters should be shot which certainly is cruel and firmly puts you in the moral wrong.
Of course not, that garbage was written by someone else who just happened to have the same name, etc. as yourself.
You are just a lying toe-rag. The message has expired on my machine and I can't be bothered to go looking for the original but when Andy said fox hunting had been around for centuries you denied it and you're still trying to cast doubt on it having origins as early as the 1750s. Even your soul-mates at the league against cruel sports accept that it has been around for 250 years.
You should know, you're for ever doing it when the argument doesn't go your way.
Sorry, Roger, but you don't give the impression you're interested in animal welfare.
Fish that are caught and returned seem to do rather well. They continue to put on weight. Even if caught many, many, times. A fox ripped apart by hounds not.
BTW, I don't fish. I'd rather watch paint dry.
You're working really hard to get that ad hominem irrelevancy to stick! ;-)
Your insults and bad language don't help your case, Roger.
As for whether humans and foxes are equal, that's all a matter of viewpoint. Homo sapiens is the most destructive and rapacious species this planet has ever seen and will probably exterminate itself given another 200 years.
And it's "tow-rag"!
o to the right land at the right time and you find the right to shoot a diverse bunch of animals - including Welshmen at one time. Was that intended as some form of justification?
Of course I did. I get the impression that you struggle with your understanding of the English language. If you (or the law) apply the word 'vermin' with no reason (other than to animals that you take a dislike to) then there is no moral reason for you (or the whole of our species) to be added to that list. Can you think of any reason why foxes wouldn't stick H. sapiens on the list of 'vermin'?
Oh dear! I mentioned the early history in my original mailing. Some people have hunted foxes for a long time but what we now regard as Fox Hunting with Hunts and packs of dogs was very rare until the 19th century. The 'It's part of our heritage' claim is pure bunkum.
The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:
You could say I am disinterested. What gets my goat* is the hypocrisy of the likes of Tony Banks whose opposition to fox hunting was driven by class hatred rather than genuine welfare considerations and that of those who think foxes should be protected because they look nice and cuddly but cheerfully support the slaughter of other vermin because they do not.
But they suffer every time they are caught. Foxes frequently evade capture and in doing so probably suffer less than a hooked fish. The foxes that are caught are frequently those that are old and infirm and heading for a nasty death anyway. Being killed by a pack of dogs cannot be a pleasant experience but neither is dying a lingering death from untreated disease or starvation. For wild animals a comfortable death is very much the exception.
Ditto.
*And of course those who put animals on an equal or superior level to humans.The message from Bob Martin contains these words:
I can't stand dishonesty. I try and resist answering insults with insults these days but occasionally it seems justified.
A pretty strange viewpoint that has the life of a fox, or indeed of any other animal, as valuable as the life of a human.
I'd agree with you there apart from the actual extermination. The species will probably survive but not civilisation as we know it.
Except that it isn't.
A tow-rag would be useful (not that it appears in my dictionary). A toerag (no hyphen apparently) is not. According to Collins the derivation is from pieces of rag beggars or tramps wrapped round their feet.
Possibly. I often wonder what the response would be of a member of the anti-hunt brigade, faced with a rabid fox, a pack of dogs and a child with its face half ripped off.
Presumably kill the child, and the dogs....and take the fox to hospital..
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.