|
Post by aakfish on Sept 16, 2004 16:18:38 GMT -5
It seems pretty usless arguing about it. Seeing as the government are going to probably force this law through if the House of Lords tries to stop it. In about 18 months it will be completly illegal to fox hunt and then anyone who does it will face prison. I'm very glad about that.
|
|
|
Post by teghan62 on Sept 16, 2004 16:19:10 GMT -5
I trust the BBC very much, I'm not talking about some tabloid rag or anything. Obviously they were from the country, they are the ones that want to kill foxs for fun. Okay, then you trust them all you want. But you have yet to show me proof that everyone wants to just kill them for fun. I agree with Oily completely, it's only a few foxes and are three or four foxes more important than several chickens, families' money and welfare, and the lives of thousands of hounds and horses, not to mention the money and welfare for everyone else involved? It ahs a huge effect on whether or not some are killed. You're all, "Oh, the foxes go through SO much pain!" Yeah, well, even if hunters just sic their dogs on them first it's still a quicker death than poison. And a quicker death is better for the foxes.
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Sept 16, 2004 16:21:23 GMT -5
I trust the BBC very much, I'm not talking about some tabloid rag or anything. Obviously they were from the country, they are the ones that want to kill foxs for fun. Um. Yeah. That's what hunting is about. Some people find it fun. I would like to go hunting once - I enjoy handling guns and would like to see what it's all about. What's so bad about people enjoying themselves? Some people like to have pets. I think that shouldn't be allowed as the animals are forced to live outside their natural habitat and are put to sleep on the whim of the person who owns them. A lot of things that people enjoy can have downsides. Smoking for one - I have to breath that second hand stuff and I'm allergic to it. Makes it extremely difficult to breath. But it's still around. So why is fox hunting such a horrible form of entertainment? You've yet to provide proof that it is done in a manner other than shooting the fox first.
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 16, 2004 16:23:57 GMT -5
Um. Yeah. That's what hunting is about. Some people find it fun. I would like to go hunting once - I enjoy handling guns and would like to see what it's all about. What's so bad about people enjoying themselves? Some people like to have pets. I think that shouldn't be allowed as the animals are forced to live outside their natural habitat and are put to sleep on the whim of the person who owns them. A lot of things that people enjoy can have downsides. Smoking for one - I have to breath that second hand stuff and I'm allergic to it. Makes it extremely difficult to breath. But it's still around. So why is fox hunting such a horrible form of entertainment? You've yet to provide proof that it is done in a manner other than shooting the fox first. I would love to see Oilys proof that they shoot the foxs first before setting the hounds on them. Because I think it is wrong to kill an animal just because you want to have fun. It's sick to take a creatures life because you want some entertainment. And Teghan, fair enough maybe not all people who want fox hunting to remain legal want it to just for fun. However I do think the majority of people only want to do it for fun.
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Sept 16, 2004 16:25:38 GMT -5
Because I think it is wrong to kill an animal just because you want to have fun. It's sick to take a creatures life because you want some entertainment. Are you a vegetarian?
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 16, 2004 16:26:08 GMT -5
yes. However I do think its fair that people kill animals for FOOD. Killing them for entertainment is totally different and wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Sept 16, 2004 16:27:03 GMT -5
I love steak. It's a lot of fun to go out to a nice steakhouse with my family. But it kills animals. Should we ban that as well?
|
|
|
Post by teghan62 on Sept 16, 2004 16:27:57 GMT -5
I would love to see Oilys proof that they shoot the foxs first before setting the hounds on them. And I would love to see YOUR proof that they don't shoot them first.
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 16, 2004 16:28:07 GMT -5
I love steak. It's a lot of fun to go out to a nice steakhouse with my family. But it kills animals. Should we ban that as well? I changed my post before.
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 16, 2004 16:29:50 GMT -5
And I would love to see YOUR proof that they don't shoot them first. My point was that although I didn't provide proof neither did Oily. So why believe Oily over me. Neither of us have shown proof so neither is more believable (sp?) than the other.
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Sept 16, 2004 16:29:57 GMT -5
I changed my post before. I noticed that. How is it different? I've heard that it's possible to live without meat. So the only reason we still eat meat is because it is somethign we enjoy, right? So again, how is that different? Besides, again, when my dad went hunting he brought the wild pig home and we had food for a week off that thing. So I guess that makes hunting just fine then because many hunters eat what they kill.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Sept 16, 2004 16:31:51 GMT -5
I would love to see Oilys proof that they shoot the foxs first before setting the hounds on them. Because I think it is wrong to kill an animal just because you want to have fun. It's sick to take a creatures life because you want some entertainment. And Teghan, fair enough maybe not all people who want fox hunting to remain legal want it to just for fun. However I do think the majority of people only want to do it for fun. When you say these people talk out their arse saying they do it to keep down the population, their could be some semi truth in that. Yes, I know alot do it for fun, but at the same time, they DO keep down the population. Taking something out of the eco-chain like that could really devastate it. I'm not so much pro-foxhunting with the hounds and such, but I am pro hunting. People enjoy hunting, they can eat what they kill (so it's not really wasted) or even their dogs get to eat it, so it's still not wasted. My dog eats rabbits my dad shoots. So what? It's barely any different from rabbit-in-a-can dogfood. Hunters generally don't leave animal corpses scattered around. And the populations of some creatures would be ridiculously high if not for huntin. These creatures could kill other creatures, or eat all the -insert crop here-, making the crop more expensive, or driving farmers out of business. So, that's my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 16, 2004 16:32:25 GMT -5
I noticed that. How is it different? I've heard that it's possible to live without meat. So the only reason we still eat meat is because it is somethign we enjoy, right? So again, how is that different? Besides, again, when my dad went hunting he brought the wild pig home and we had food for a week off that thing. So I guess that makes hunting just fine then because many hunters eat what they kill. Thanks Kiddo for changing my mind. I have decided to take my sisters hamster out of its cage and tie it to a stone and then drown it in a bucket. Its fun to kill animals for no purpose. Don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Sept 16, 2004 16:33:34 GMT -5
My point was that although I didn't provide proof neither did Oily. So why believe Oily over me. Neither of us have shown proof so neither is more believable (sp?) than the other. Because Oily didn't charge in here with guns blazing. I'm actually quite nuetral on this issue. I'm American so it doesn't direct me. One of the nice things about being removed from the arguement is I'm not emotionally involved. You are. And it's showing. To be effective in an arguement you need to be able to keep your head and use logic instead of emotions. Dissassciate yourself from the topic and if you can't, bow out. These are all tried and true debate techniques. I'm not just making stuff up here.
|
|
|
Post by teghan62 on Sept 16, 2004 16:33:54 GMT -5
My point was that although I didn't provide proof neither did Oily. So why believe Oily over me. Neither of us have shown proof so neither is more believable (sp?) than the other. I believe Oily over you because she has good, logical points that make a lot of sense. Yours, on the otherhand, honestly sound like those of a rabid animal lover. I love animals too. However I understand that they have to kill the foxes in order to benefit most others.
|
|