mkpdavies

Trying to equate killing animals with harming small children is pretty lame, in my humble opinion.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Julian Morrison

I concur with mkpdavies. Comparing or analogising fox-hunting with child molesting implies that the best case you can put forward is an emotional primal-scream.

Let me point out the difference for you, as if it weren't bloody obvious:
- fox hunting affects foxes, which are animals
- child molesting affects children, who are people

I say: rights only apply to people. Rights are reciprocal, and animals are not capable of reciprocating. For the same reason we do not charge the fox with theft in a court of law, he has no valid legal recourse against the hunters. And, the hunters do have a right to protection from saboteurs, whether or not they reside in parliament.

Can you make any countercase that doesn't amount to "YAAAAAA! I don't like you! Foxes are cute! Killing them is nasty!"?

The closest I've seen is an appeal to democracy. Which I counter by saying: democracy cannot validly override rights. Constitutional limited democracy (as we used to have) recognised that. The mob may not dispose of your property as it pleases, and that includes land and the foxes on it. If parliament says otherwise, it's wrong. If legislation says otherwise, it's contrary to natural justice and should be repealed.

The UKIP is AFAIK the only party which genuinely believes in constitutional democracy (the others more or less believe that "vote makes right"). That's a major reason I like UKIP. And, if followed with consistent logic, this stance means UKIP must support repeal of the hunting ban.

Bobby-Veritas's Boy

With regard to those who molest children, in the past I have fallen out big time with our local police because I've given locations of those who are on the sex offenders list to the local press. I have to respect the law and allow these animals to live in peace, but I also feel very strongly that parents should be allowed to know where these parasites are.
Here's a true story. I heard two boys aged about eight years old and they were saying let's go and visit a certain place, they'll give us biscuits and then they ran off. As I knew this place contained perverts I went to the local school to speak to the staff and then hopefully they could warn parents. Imagine my suprise when the school doubted what I was saying and their reply was, there can't be any problem there because the police would have told us! This place was a residential care home for men, I knew some of the staff there and they were well aware of the problems of the residents. To cut a long story short, I managed to let people know that we had molesters in our community through the local press. The law as it stands at the moment is designed to protect the molester and not the child, the potential victim and something needs to be done.
Having said this, there's no reason is this world why fox hunting can't be banned at the same time! I'm capable of doing far more than one thing at a time, so please give up this limp and pathetic excuse. Fox hunting is either wrong or it's right, that's the choice, I choose to believe that it is totally barbaric, out-dated and inhumane in the 21st century that educated adults need to chase a small animal to exhaustion before setting a pack of hounds on it to painfully rip it to pieces and then tell the world that it's sport!

Julian Morrison

No, there's a third option: that it's outside the valid scope of the law.

As an example, is being rudely ungrateful to your parents wrong? Yes on most people's moral scales. But should it be illegal? No, plainly not. The law doesn't interest itself with right and wrong, but with rights and liberties - or otherwise, you basically have a theocracy.

Because the fox is a dumb animal without rights, I say that the right and wrong of it is tangential.

kernow

I'm sorry bobby's boy your knowledge of hounds killing a fox has been taken straight out of the 'tabloids'. I know this because if you had actualy seen hounds kill a fox, you wouldn't write such rubbish on the subject. Foxes aren't" Painfully ripped to pieces" they don't feel pain because the first hound to reach the fox kills it pretty damn quick,( terrier and rat scenario) sorry I doubt if you've seen that happen either! So for the uninitiated I will explain. The fox is dead when" It is broken up" ( broken up is the the correct term') for what the tabloids call, ripping apart.

Bobby-Veritas's Boy

Kernow, If you had taken the trouble to read what I had said earlier in the debate you would have read about the story which was in my local newspaper about a pack of hounds that ripped apart an exhausted stag in a school playground on Exmoor, so foxes and stags do get ripped to pieces. You're arguement that it's okay to hunt foxes because only one hound kills the frieghtened fox holds no water whatsoever. You sad pro hunters and those who sit on the fence really have no arguement, you really should try toget a life, there's much more to life than killing defenceless animals for fun.

Nic

BB I actually do have an argument and it is this.

My position is that I do not support a ban on fox hunting because I do not believe that it constitutes cruelty to animals. And before you rush INTO phpbb_print denouncing me as a child molester, consider this.

I have been a vegetarian for over 25 years. This is for many reasons, one of which is that I find the concept of eating animals nausea-inducing. I accept that it is possible to kill animals for food in non-cruel ways, but also believe that mostly it is not done that way.

However, you will not find me denouncing all people on this site who do eat meat (including I suspect your good self) as paedophiles for one very good reason. There is no connection between having sex with children and eating meat, any more than there is one with hunting foxes.

It is all about that funny thing called 'Freedom of Choice'. You choose to abhor fox hunting; I choose to abhor meat eating. That doesn't make either of us right. We do have the right to our opinions but I don't believe we have the right to try and force our opinions onto everybody else.

To those who claim that the UKIP have to have a position on this, or any other issue, a question. Why can we not say to people who ask the question that the party believes that it is a matter of personal conscience, not party policy? What if someone asks what our policy is on, say, music? The answer surely is that we don't have a party policy on it, just our own views. [Mine is that Babyshambles will implode btw in case Gemma is reading this.]

Can we please stop arguing about this because we are never going to persuade anybody else to our own individual points of view on this site, we are simply giving ammunition to our opponents to brand us as "divided".

End of sermon.

Bobby-Veritas's Boy

You seem to be very short sighted and you must have a short memory, I was not the one who introduced the comparison with the molestation of childrern I simply answered. This seems to be the problem with you UKIP people, quick to condem and full of themselves.

mkpdavies

Funny how true colours come out in the end. It's "you UKIP people now" is it! Good to see you have come clean about your standing with the party!

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Bobby-Veritas's Boy

I think that's more a case of wishful thinking on your part, I'm still a member of UKIP! Lucky me and lucky UKIP