Fox hunting, banned.

[Lurch]

I'm quite sure someone has already trotted out the phrase that 'true' democracy is tyranny of the majority.
We don't quite have true democracy in the UK, and to be honest I'd rather we didn't. It is important that a society which hopes to be free and fair has certain checks and balances against the aforementioned tyranny of majority. When a government of any hue has a large majority one of the things it likes to do is remove those balances, hence the Parliament Act and the destruction of the Upper Chamber.
I think it was J.S. Mills that said by a free and fair society he does not mean a society in which six men may make five men do exactly as they please. I'm paraphrasing as I cannot remember the whole quote, but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[Ginja]

Yeah I do take your point, Lurch. And yes, I agree that in some cases, the majority may be wrong - and someone needs to stand up and let 'em know!

But ...

The last 'objective' poll, conducted by MORI in November last year, found 76 per cent of the population want hunting with dogs to be made illegal. So it's not nearly as fine a line as "6 people taking on 5", rather "7 or 8 people taking on 3". And yes, "damn lies and statistics ..." - I appreciate that such numbers don't always mean much - but when the majority of the country want something done, and a minority are in opposition, you have to ask the question - just where is the line drawn, exactly?

I suppose - admittadely - it winds me up that there are literally hundreds of other 'minority' issues that deserve the same kind of support and attention - but don't get it - because in the current socio-political climate, the majority rules otherwise ... issues such as other forms of hunting and bloodsports, legal euthenasia, gun law, gay rights, legalisation of cannabis, martial arts weaponry - just to name a few off the top of my head. I actively support some minority issues myself, but I don't for one minute expect to have my opinions accepted by the majority of people, and neither would I be so indignant as to try and force my minority beliefs on other people ... "because I'm right and everyone else is wrong!" ... it's a case of sticking to your guns and hoping that one day the rest of the world will see sense (!).

Hence ... if it was a more close-run argument then I'd be less inclined to support the ban on the grounds of 'majority rule' (not that that's my only reason, of course). But the hunts people are in a minority in this case, and rather than blindly (or proudly?) fighting till the bitter end, I think it better for them - and everyone else - to accept their minority status on this issue and look to means of reaching a compromise (or a near-compromise), rather than simply screaming and shouting about how 'hard done by' they are - that's always going to get the goat of people like myself.

And no, I don't particularly like our 'democracy' either! But at the moment, that's what ALL of us belong to - the long, and the short and tall, the rich and the poor, the quick and the thick. And not one of us is above it - though there are times when I sorely wish otherwise ...

G :?:

PS: I do empathise with ANYONE who is fighting for something they personally believe in, and I know how frustrating it can be when people tell you to tow the line, simply because you're outnumbered. So apologies if I'm coming across as devil's advocate here! I'm not asking hunts people to 'accept' or be happy with the upcoming ruling, I'm just asking them to accept that they ARE in a minority, and to start using their heads instead of their hands (and horns, for that matter ...!). No hard feelings

- END OF RANT -

 

[Metala Cabinet]

Ah democracy - the worst form of government apart from all the others.

 

[Rob]

Ah democracy - the worst form of government apart from all the others.

Blimey! I didn't know that Oscar was posting on here

 

[Tantalus]

Ah democracy - the worst form of government apart from all the others.

lol aren't we just trying to make the most out of an already imperfect world?

Tant

 

[Lurch]

Ginja, I know where you're coming from. I don't know where the line could be drawn in a majority terms. I really believe though that it doesn't matter if the whole world is against one person, it just isn't acceptable to outlaw someones activity just because a lot of people don't like it. (Danger of talking 'round in circles here!)

Copernicous (sp?) said the world was not the centre of the universe when the majority believed it was and he was banned from saying it.
Was that right, just because he was in the minority?

Getting a bit off-topic perhaps!

 

[Wayne]

I still think the issue that is being over looked in the later posts is that a fox is being unecessarily torn a part for peoples amusement. That is the only reason it should be banned. it doesn't matter to me if 99.9% thought it was right i would still be against it. the other activities cited such as gay rights cause no one harm. Some people could argue otherwise but thats up to them.

The issue for me is one of cruelty pure and simple. The earlier posts about dogs being destroyed etc ignores the fact that many are killed each year anyway. If the hunts are so callous as to destroy perfectly healthy animals out of spite then i feel that just reafirms my beleif that these people should not be in charge of animals.

I feel its a shame that many well meaning people have joined the CA. there are many issues that effect rural communities more severly than losing fox hunting ever will. the loss of affordable housing. government plans to introduce road pricing etc. Its essential to own a car if you live miles from the nearest bus stop. the EU and the common agricultural policy that needs urgent reform. times have changed and rural people must accept that somethings will change.

 

[Ginja]

All I can say is god help the government (or whoever) should they ever try and take us lot on!!! ):

Not only can we debate with the best of 'em, but we're also good at starting fires, sharpening knives ... they wouldn't stand a chance (joke!)

G

 

[Metala Cabinet]

The position of the Earth vis a vis the Sun is a verifiable fact; the rightness or wrongness of fox hunting is an opinion.

Oscar eh? (though definitely without the interest in 'chickens')

'There is one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about'.
or was it
'Your Majesty is like a stream of bat's p*ss'

 

[Lurch]

MC, yeah I know it is, but at the time not so much. Everyone 'knew' the world was the centre of the universe - obvious innit.
As previously two government inquiries failed to find fox hunting "cruel".
So with the lack of firm evidence, is it right to outlaw something on an opinion?

 

[Wayne]

Is the position of the sun a verifiable fact? We are a long way off a unified theory of everything. There is string theory etc but therotical physics is a long way fron being fully factual. Opinion often facts are debatable.

 

[Ginja]

One more thing ... (sorry!)

I really believe though that it doesn't matter if the whole world is against one person, it just isn't acceptable to outlaw someones activity just because a lot of people don't like it

Lurch - I'm not trying to play tennis with you here, honestly! (I'm sh*t at tennis anyway ...). But I can think of a few cases where the whole world might be 'justifiably' against one person (or a group of people), and want their activites outlawed because the majority don't like it - murder, rape, paedophilia, fascism, etc - not trying to be sarcastic here!

And NOT that hunting with dogs is in the same league, in my opinion (I'm not even suggesting you can compare it to the above). But if I was, say, a vegan or an animal rights protestor, then maybe it would make my blood boil to just the same extent - bad choice of stereotypes there perhaps, but I hope it helps illustrate my point.

G

 

[Lurch]

Lurch - I'm not trying to play tennis with you here, honestly! (I'm sh*t at tennis anyway ...). But I can think of a few cases where the whole world might be 'justifiably' against one person (or a group of people), and want their activites outlawed because the majority don't like it - murder, rape, paedophilia, fascism, etc - not trying to be sarcastic here!

Ah, yes but those are crimes against people. i.e. we have a human victim.

 

[Wayne]

Ah, yes but those are crimes against people. i.e. we have a human victim.

Does that mean we can commit crimes as long they are not against people?

Senseless barbarism is still immoral whether the victim is an animal or a child. Many studies have shown the child abusers etc started on that road first by breaking boundaries with animal cruelty first. i am not saying that fox hunters are on the same level as that but once you break one boundary of decency break another doesn't seem so hard.

 

[Tantalus]

hmmmm but it is in a dogs nature to form packs and hunt

without human interference they would be doing this anyway

are we to discourage all animal instincts now?

who is gonna tell the fish to stop peeing in the water?

Tant

 

[tenbears10]

Senseless barbarism is still immoral whether the victim is an animal or a child. Many studies have shown the child abusers etc started on that road first by breaking boundaries with animal cruelty first. i am not saying that fox hunters are on the same level as that but once you break one boundary of decency break another doesn't seem so hard.

I promised I would just read this thread but I can't so sorry. Wayne you are comparing vermin control of foxes, rabbits and rats to child abuse. This is not fact but emotion.

I read a quote recently that simply stated:

"if foxes looked like rats there would be no ban"

There seems to be a feeling that is that if it cuddly you can't kill it. Rubbish. As Lurch has said the report comissioned to investigate this ban did not find hunting cruel, what more do you want? It was an independent government inquiry.

That is my last post I promise (is there a smiley with its fingers crossed?)

Bill

 

[Ginja]

who is gonna tell the fish to stop peeing in the water?

That really tickled me ...
:rolmao:

G

 

[TheViking]

hmmmm but it is in a dogs nature to form packs and hunt

without human interference they would be doing this anyway

are we to discourage all animal instincts now?

who is gonna tell the fish to stop peeing in the water?

Tant

I agree. People cannot and should not stop an animals instincts...!

 

[Wayne]

I promised I would just read this thread but I can't so sorry. Wayne you are comparing vermin control of foxes, rabbits and rats to child abuse. This is not fact but emotion.

I read a quote recently that simply stated:

"if foxes looked like rats there would be no ban"

There seems to be a feeling that is that if it cuddly you can't kill it. Rubbish. As Lurch has said the report comissioned to investigate this ban did not find hunting cruel, what more do you want? It was an independent government inquiry.

That is my last post I promise (is there a smiley with its fingers crossed?)

Bill

Bill i was referring to several studies on serial killers etc that show that a lack of control with animals can be an incidator of future behaviour. i was not stating that vermin control was on par with child abusers. As already stated in this long thread there is a difference between population control using a gun. Attempting to limit the amount of suffering of the quarry to fox hunting which has a sole purpose of glorifing a creatures destruction.

Can you have an independant goverment inquiry?

I would be interested in knowing how the subject of cruelty was defined in and quantified in that study. There are many examples of poor science these days that are toted as fact. i cannot say if that particular study is valid as i have not had access to it.

 

[Simon]

hmmmm but it is in a dogs nature to form packs and hunt

without human interference they would be doing this anyway

are we to discourage all animal instincts now?

who is gonna tell the fish to stop peeing in the water?

Tant

Hmmm .. is the denial of an animals instincts a projection and extension of our denial of our own animal instincts?