# Help Support The Fox Hunting Ban!



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Okay, fox hunting with dogs has been illegal here in the UK for a few years now, but our current political party is trying to make it legal again. Please, please PLEASE sign this petition to stop the slaughter of these beautiful animals!
Also, this petition stops not only the hunting of foxes with dogs, but also stag hunting and hare hunting as well.
http://www.backtheban.com/


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Where's the support site for the ban to be lifted?  I want to go to that one, OP.


----------



## Aden (May 26, 2010)

Do you have to be in the UK to help support it?


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

It's mostly about class wars.  Rich people vs. working class.  The rich people get jollies from siccing packs of brainless hounds on a SINGLE FOX.  The hounds no doubt eviscerate the hapless fox when they catch him, I strongly doubt there's enough left of the poor bastard to make into a trophy.  Not like they're playing tag with them or anything.  The working class (besides finding the whole thing abhorrent, stupid, wasteful, etc.) resent the fuck out of the rich folks' predilection for idiotic pastimes.  This is as much a class war as a fight for poor little foxies.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 26, 2010)

i always thought thats the most retarded and cruel kind of "sport" ever >.>
so yeah, i hope they keep the ban! halp teh foxxies! =(


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

No, you can be anywhere in the world to help support the ban, I think.
@Term The Schmuk: I'm not sure where the support site for that would be, it's not the sort of thing I would look into. But you have your views, and I have mine. Still, any help supporting the ban would be greatly appreciated


----------



## Tomias_Redford (May 26, 2010)

Hey I just thought of something.  hows about we make a FaF version of that little vid.  We all make a big collaberation of like 20-30 seconds vids, and put it all together into this big massive one.

BACK THE BAN!


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

@Tomias: That sounds like a great idea! But how would we go about making it? I don't have an account on FA, or a working video camera, or any knowledge on how to make videos, or any acting skills, or...(Rants)


----------



## Bianca (May 26, 2010)

What if I support Fox Hunting? :3


----------



## Aden (May 26, 2010)

Bianca said:


> What if I support Fox Hunting? :3



Well

Why?


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

hare and stag population?

if no one hunts them, they'll overpopulate and kill off each other through starvation.


----------



## TashkentFox (May 26, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> hare and stag population?
> 
> if no one hunts them, they'll overpopulate and kill off each other through starvation.



He means the ban on fox hunting, there is no ban on hunting game animals.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> @Term The Schmuk: I'm not sure where the support site for that would be, it's not the sort of thing I would look into. But you have your views, and I have mine. Still, any help supporting the ban would be greatly appreciated



Might suck for the animal, but hey if you're fucking around with a wild animal, chances are shit like this can still happen.

I'm by no means a fan of the rich, but if this is their idea of sport, I really couldn't care less.  :V


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Might suck for the animal, but hey if you're fucking around with a wild animal, chances are shit like this can still happen.
> 
> I'm by no means a fan of the rich, but if this is their idea of sport, I really couldn't care less.  :V



yeah.. whats with the whole "rich versus poor" with hunting? over here in america only the poor hunt. LOL hillbillies.


----------



## Shaui (May 26, 2010)

Only if fox hunting has any legitimate use outside of "the fucking sport of it" (like fur or food), I would support it.

Apparently, rich people with huge tracts of land hunt foxes just for the sake of killing them, well, I wouldn't support that personally.


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

Shaui said:


> Only if fox hunting has any legitimate use outside of "the fucking sport of it" (like fur or food), I would support it.
> 
> Apparently, rich people with huge tracts of land who hunt foxes just for the sake of killing them, well, I wouldn't support that personally.



kinda like hunting for wolves in a helicopter right?


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Might suck for the animal, but hey if you're fucking around with a wild animal, chances are shit like this can still happen.



on a horse
with packs of hunting dogs
and probably a gun

Although, that would be _funny._


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> on a horse
> with packs of hunting dogs
> and probably a gun
> 
> Although, that would be _funny._



lawl, I'd like to see the human accidently shoot the horse or the dogs...


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Although I don't like how animals get hunted at all, I don't think we're going to be able to totally ban fox hunting any time soon. Still, what I do protest about is that the pain the animal has to go through. After an hour or so of terror running from a pack of dog, the fox will be exauhsted, and a few minutes later, have it's guts ripped open by dogs. Not only is it a painful way to die, but it is by no means a quick death either. I know that the animals would overpopulate, but that's where I think a gun would be the best way forward. Though it pains me to say this, a single shot to the back of the head will most likely kill a fox, hare or deer, so is much more humane than ripping the animal to shreds. That, and if the hunters wanted the coat, they would get it in much better condition.


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Although I don't like how animals get hunted at all, I don't think we're going to be able to totally ban fox hunting any time soon. Still, what I do protest about is that the pain the animal has to go through. After an hour or so of terror running from a pack of dog, the fox will be exauhsted, and a few minutes later, have it's guts ripped open by dogs. Not only is it a painful way to die, but it is by no means a quick death either.



WHY DO YOU NOT SUPPORT HUNTING

1) it's alot more humane than horrible factory farms
2) it brings people closer to nature
3) it keeps the population in check
4) the fines surrounding hunting help support the conservation of wildlife
5) the animals are hunted for food and most of the time the whole animal is used.

edit: you edited your post.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Anyone here ever have fresh venison?  Delicious.


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> WHY DO YOU NOT SUPPORT HUNTING
> 
> 1) it's alot more humane than horrible factory farms
> 2) it brings people closer to nature
> ...



1) Not in the case of foxes.
2) what
3) The fox population isn't nearly large enough to need a culling.
4) Break the law and kill foxes to save foxes
5) F-foxes? fox meat pie?

im gonna serious post to everything you post


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> 1) Not in the case of foxes.
> 2) what
> 3) The fox population isn't nearly large enough to need a culling.
> 4) Break the law and kill foxes to save foxes
> ...



I was talking about hunting in general. 
99% of hunting is not fox hunting.

>:V im gonna prove everything you post is wrong and I hate cookies.


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> I was talking about hunting in general.
> 99% of hunting is not fox hunting.
> 
> >:V im gonna prove everything you post is wrong and I hate cookies.



Why would you post that in a fox hunting thread in response to a post about fox hunting ban
other than for _absolutely no reason_

FIGHT

Edit: oh wait i see it
okay
you win
everything i post is wrong


----------



## Zrcalo (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> Why would you post that in a fox hunting thread in response to a post about fox hunting ban
> other than for _absolutely no reason_
> 
> FIGHT



>:V I replying to OP's post about hating hunting.
notice how I start out by saying 

WHY DO YOU HATE HUNTING


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> >:V I replying to OP's post about hating hunting.
> notice how I start out by saying
> 
> WHY DO YOU HATE HUNTING



OKAY
I GOT IT
FUCK

i losed

I didn't see the, like, random "i dont like hunting at all, but..."


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

Signed!


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Don't you think being from the US and signing a UK petition makes it lose some of its credibility in the UK


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Okay, okay. I didn't start this thread to start a fight, merely to collect signatures. 
Zrcalo, though I respect your opinion, I feel I must say that I don't personally think fur farms are humane either, but as I said before, hunting foxes with dogs is by no means humane either. Here is a video of a fox after being attacked by dogs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnsS5DY7Riw&feature=related I don't think this can be called humane.
I don't really think that hunting brings people closer to nature, as they are more damaging it than anything else.
As Jelly said, the fox population isn't big enough to need to be kept under control by humans, and if it was, I would still protest about people doing it in this way.
The problem with fines is, that many hunters are simply let off the hook and it's difficult to procecute them.
Also, the body of the fox isn't used after hunting. Their coat is stained in blood and bitten to shreds, and the meat off foxes is rather dry, so it's not often eaten. The only thing that is usually done with the body, is, if it is a child's first hunt, they mark the child's forehead with the fox's blood.

And thank you for signing Kit H Ruppell


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

She's talking about hunting in general.
Which includes hunting for meat, not just fur.
like hunting deer and deer and deer and rabbits and quails and deer and deer

You said you didn't support "hunting at all," which implies all hunting, not just fox hunting.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Also, the body of the fox isn't used after hunting. Their coat is stained in blood and bitten to shreds, and the meat off foxes is rather dry, so it's not often eaten. The only thing that is usually done with the body, is, if it is a child's first hunt, they mark the child's forehead with the fox's blood.


Filthy savages. Words actually fail me this time. I haven't felt this way in a long time.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

That is true Jelly, I don't support any kind of hunting. Though, hounds are used to hunt rabbits as well as foxes. I'm sorry for causing the confusion.
@Kit H Ruppell: Yeah, I was shocked when I heard that. I try to keep an open mind about things, but when I heard that I instantly thought of it as being primitive.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Absolutely not. The ban never should have been enacted in the first place, I hope they repeal it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Absolutely not. The ban never should have been enacted in the first place, I hope they repeal it.


Reason? Or is it the usual "We're superior to all other forms of life, so we can do whatever the fuck we want"?


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Reason?


Foxes are not an endangered species and there is no practical reason to ban the hunting of them beyond "it is mean" and "I don't like rich people." This law is based on nothing more than sentimentalism, and so should never have existed in the first place.


> "We're superior to all other forms of life, so we can  do whatever the fuck we want?"


'Superior' is a bad word but we are humans and your only obligations, if you can be said to have any at all, is to other humans. Animals really don't factor into it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Foxes are not an endangered species and there is no practical reason to ban the hunting of them beyond "it is mean" and "I don't like rich people." This law is based on nothing more than sentimentalism, and so should never have existed in the first place.


 You can kill anything in any way your perverse little mind can conceive as long as there's enough of them? I suppose compassion _is_ impractical.


----------



## Attaman (May 26, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Filthy savages. Words actually fail me this time. I haven't felt this way in a long time.


Was that time when you read about foxes doing _the exact same thing with their own children_ (See:  Silver Fox Infanticide)?  

I will not support the ban for a few reasons:
1)  I am not a UK Citizen.
2)  I do not see a problem with _regulated_ hunting.
3)  I do not know the full details of the program, but OP's "HUNTING IS TEH EVIL" puts me off in that they see _no_ reason for it to be done (supposedly) and I am not a fan of absolute "This is right / this is wrong" rulings.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

As much as I like the little guys they can be a nuisance. A few killed my grandmothers chickens and roosters and she was devastated. If there's too many of them causing problems then it should be alright to kill them before they kill something of yours. If they're just keeping to themselves they shouldn't be hunted though. I'm sorta sitting on the fence with this one.


----------



## Mayfurr (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Foxes are not an endangered species and there is no practical reason to ban the hunting of them beyond "it is mean" and "I don't like rich people." This law is based on nothing more than sentimentalism, and so should never have existed in the first place.



We are not talking about "one shot, one kill" deerstalking-style hunting with a rifle and scope (where there is at least the attempt to be humane, and requires actual skill), we're talking about "hunting" that is little more than _running an animal to ground through exhaustion and getting it torn apart by a pack of dogs._

It's cruel, it's unnecessary, and *it's not even sporting.* It's *barbaric*.

That's enough to keep the ban on.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> yeah.. whats with the whole "rich versus poor" with hunting? over here in america only the poor hunt. LOL hillbillies.



what

This is a horribly inaccurate statement.  Do you know how many UMC-wealthy people indulge in elk hunting? Hunting is NOT for poor folks.  It's fucking expensive.  The fact that rednecks choose to blow what precious little money they get from their blue collar jobs on it does not mean that it's a poor man's pastime.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

As Mayfurr says: They are being ripped apart. I believe I said this before: I know they can be a problem to many people, but to kill them, at least do it humanely. What I'm saying Comodorekitty, is that think how the fox feels. Rather than tearing them apart, it would be quick and painless to shoot it; the animal would feel nothing, and you could still relax knowing your livestock is safe.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> As Mayfurr says: They are being ripped apart. I believe I said this before: I know they can be a problem to many people, but to kill them, at least do it humanely. What I'm saying Comodorekitty, is that think how the fox feels. Rather than tearing them apart, it would be quick and painless to shoot it; the animal would feel nothing, and you could still relax knowing your livestock is safe.



I agree with this except for the part about no pain. Unless you've been shot to death you really can't say it's painless. Being ripped apart though anyone knows that's pretty fucked up. If one killed any of my pets/livestock I wouldn't have a problem letting it die in a very painful manner.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You can kill anything in any way your perverse little mind can conceive as long as there's enough of them? I suppose compassion _is_ impractical.


"Ur mean" 
"Nu-uh"
"Yu huh!"

Like I said, sentimentalism. Retarded reason for a ban. 



Mayfurr said:


> It's cruel, it's unnecessary, and *it's not  even sporting.* It's *barbaric*.


Yeah and some people see milking cows for cheese as a barbaric practice, enslaving the cows to humanity and whatnot. What is your point? That in your particular worldview fox hunting is more "barbaric" and so worse than how you normally go about killing things? That is your own personal definition and it has no bearing on reality. It is no basis for a ban. 

Laws need to be based on tangible problems and need to offer practical solutions. There is nothing overtly wrong with fox hunting beyond a few people finding it "barbaric." If being "barbaric" is all that is needed to ban something, you wouldn't even be able to eat cheese anymore.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Laws need to be based on tangible problems and need to offer practical solutions. There is nothing overtly wrong with fox hunting beyond a few people finding it "barbaric." Well if being "barbaric" ia all that is needed to ban something, *you wouldn't even be able to eat cheese anymore*.



What? Elaborate, because I'm not seeing it.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I see what you mean phoenix, but being shot in the back of the head is an almost instanty kill. It kills the brain, and a body can only live a matter of seconds without a brain.
Also, though I would be very sorry if a fox attacked your livestock, killing the fox in a brutal and gruesome manner won't bring your chickens back. Instead, another animal will die frightened and in pain, and the fox won't know what it's done wrong.
Although I see what you mean Commodorekitty, I feel I have to say, that cows show very little to know pain while they are being milked. That, and if cows now were not milked (don't quote me on this) their udders would expand and this would be rather uncomfortable. However, in the case of hunting with dogs, the animal is obviously in pain. I've seen foxes literally scream when being hunted, and after collapsing from exauhstion, it's obvious they're not exactly happy about how they're going to die.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> "Ur mean"
> "Nu-uh"
> "Yu huh!"
> 
> Like I said, sentimentalism. Retarded reason for a ban.


 
Almost every law is based on sentiment to some degree. Also, the sky is blue.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Almost every law is based on sentiment to some degree. Also, the sky is blue.


Animal rights comes into it too, if I may be so bold as to say.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Animal rights comes into it too, if I may be so bold as to say.


Try not to express too much emotion. It will be exploited as a weakness; you're setting yourself up.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> I see what you mean phoenix, but being shot in the back of the head is an almost instanty kill. It kills the brain, and a body can only live a matter of seconds without a brain.
> Also, though I would be very sorry if a fox attacked your livestock, killing the fox in a brutal and gruesome manner won't bring your chickens back. Instead, another animal will die frightened and in pain, and the fox won't know what it's done wrong.



"Wrong" is not relevant to the fox.  They don't think "oh no, what did I do to deserve this".  They think "pain oh the pain must escape the pain".


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I agree. Though foxes have been proven to be inteligent animals, they still work on primative instincts As Tycho said, foxes don't have a moral concience. All they are doing by attacking livestock is trying to feed themselves and possibly their young.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> I see what you mean phoenix, but being shot in the back of the head is an almost instanty kill. It kills the brain, and a body can only live a matter of seconds without a brain.
> Also, though I would be very sorry if a fox attacked your livestock, killing the fox in a brutal and gruesome manner won't bring your chickens back. Instead, another animal will die frightened and in pain, and the fox won't know what it's done wrong.



I never said it would bring them back but repentance is repentance. No matter how you put it I believe the phrase an eye for an eye to be just.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I can see where you are coming from. I am in fact a Christian myself, and I know that quote well. Still, I believe this quote was referring to humans, yes? Humans have a moral concience, so know what they are doing, so they know if they are doing something to hurt something or someone. But as I said, foxes don't have a concience. That, and, only 2% or so of chickens die by predation by foxes. Though I would be sorry if you lost livestock, your livestock is your responsability, and it would be up to you to keep your livestock in "foxproof" pens. Since foxes can climb and dig, might I suggest a box-style outdoor enclosure?


----------



## Mayfurr (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Laws need to be based on tangible problems and need to offer practical solutions. There is nothing overtly wrong with fox hunting beyond a few people finding it "barbaric." If being "barbaric" is all that is needed to ban something, you wouldn't even be able to eat cheese anymore.



By your logic, slavery would still be legal because as far as the slave-owners are concerned there isn't a "problem" with the practice...


----------



## Attaman (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> All they are doing by attacking livestock is trying to feed themselves and possibly their young.



Tell that to Harre's chickens.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Tell that to Harre's chickens.



Hare's chickens are fucking dumb though.  They're a step up from a blender on the intelligence scale.

They're prey animals, too.  Their "job" is to become food for other critters.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

As I said earlier, I am sorry for what happened to Harre's livestock, may they rest in peace. But, as their owner, it was Harre's responsability to keep them safe from predators. You can't invite a man into your home, then have him arrested on breaking an entry, so to speak.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> "Ur mean"
> "Nu-uh"
> "Yu huh!"
> 
> ...



Why is caring for something that doesn't benefit yourself in any way retarded? That's a rather selfish way to think. We aren't robots, we are people, humans. We have the ability to understand how other people, and some animals feel. I don't see how not wanting uneccessary pain and suffering for another conscious being is retarded.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> What? Elaborate, because I'm not seeing it.


"babarism" is an acceptable reason to ban something --> hunting foxes is "barbaric" => fox hunting is banned 

"Barbarism" is an acceptable reason to ban something --> milking cows is "barbaric" => cheese gets banned 

If the degree of "barbarity" is all that is needed to ban something, as Mayfurr implies, then it makes perfect sense that cheese could end up banned if enough people got a stick up their ass about it. I bring this up because most people do not consider milking cows to be barbaric or even cruel, and so would have no problem with the production of cheese. When you allow simple emotions to be the impetus behind a law, however, you also allow for one persons opinion to be forced on another person, with no net benefit to show for it. I would be pretty pissed off if entire food groups were denied to me because some people thought it was "barbaric" to collect products from animals. Me eating cheese do not affect the person who thinks it is barbaric but when they ban it it sure as hell affects me. This all goes back to my point that you need a "reason" to pass a law beyond the emotional bullshit because that varies from person to person. 



darkumbreon135 said:


> Although I see what you mean  Commodorekitty, I feel I have to say, that cows show very little to know  pain while they are being milked.


The actual pain of the animal doesn't matter. The only important thing is that people _consider_ it barbaric (which they do) and if enough people did that would apparently be a valid reason to ban it. You see how the reality of the situation is completely different from people's perception of it? Just because you find something cruel doesn't mean that everyone does, and that doesn't give you a right to ban it. 



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Almost every law is based on sentiment to  some degree. Also, the sky is blue.


No, almost every (good) law is _based on practical concerns_ and only touches on sentiment. The reason it is illegal to burn down houses is not because it is "mean" to do so. The reason you cannot dump toxic waste into the ocean is not (principally) because "it makes the ocean look ugly." The reason it is illegal to kill people is not because it is "cruel" to do so. All these laws exist because if they didn't there would be very obvious and very tangible consequences if they didn't. Consequences for people, that is. Fox hunts hurt no one in society at all. They just don't. But when you get butthurt over it and ban it, you have certainly affected someone else. Good laws are not _based_ on sentiment and this law is a terrible law.


Mayfurr said:


> By your logic, slavery would still be legal  because as far as the slave-owners are concerned there isn't a "problem"  with the practice...


And if slaves were animals I would agree with you. Cept, you know, they aren't. 

Oh noes speciesism!


----------



## Tabasco (May 26, 2010)

What about endangered species and stuff? Don't people care about non-murry animals? ):


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> I can see where you are coming from. I am in fact a Christian myself, and I know that quote well. Still, I believe this quote was referring to humans, yes? Humans have a moral concience, so know what they are doing, so they know if they are doing something to hurt something or someone. But as I said, foxes don't have a concience. That, and, only 2% or so of chickens die by predation by foxes. Though I would be sorry if you lost livestock, your livestock is your responsability, and it would be up to you to keep your livestock in "foxproof" pens. Since foxes can climb and dig, might I suggest a box-style outdoor enclosure?



I like how you say they have no conscience. For a person who's trying to defend them you really like saying they are ignorant to the knowledge that they themselves are putting things through pain. They know what they're doing but it's survival of the fittest. That quote may have been only referring to humans when it was first said but it can be applied to everything. Even if it didn't know it did something terrible it still deserves a punishment. If an autistic person breaks the law they still go to jail even though some don't even know they did something wrong.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> "babarism" is an acceptable reason to ban something --> hunting foxes is "barbaric" => fox hunting is banned
> 
> "Barbarism" is an acceptable reason to ban something --> milking cows is "barbaric" => cheese gets banned
> 
> ...



But fox hunting with dogs is not emotion based, it has been proved to be barbaric. The foxes are torn to shreds, they run from the dogs, and they howl and scream as they are killed. I believe this video proves my point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YASMXDWAlG8


----------



## Atrak (May 26, 2010)

Help the foxes?


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> "babarism" is an acceptable reason to ban something --> hunting foxes is "barbaric" => fox hunting is banned
> 
> "Barbarism" is an acceptable reason to ban something --> milking cows is "barbaric" => cheese gets banned
> 
> ...



Oh, a conscious sentient being that can feel fear and pain exists, but as it's amino acid genetic code is a few percent different, it doesn't ,matter?


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Oh, a conscious sentient being that can feel fear and pain exists, but as it's amino acid genetic code is a few percent different, it doesn't ,matter?


yup

---------
Don't you love one line responses? 

They make such convincing arguments.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> I like how you say they have no conscience. For a person who's trying to defend them you really like saying they are ignorant to the knowledge that they themselves are putting things through pain. They know what they're doing but it's survival of the fittest. That quote may have been only referring to humans when it was first said but it can be applied to everything. Even if it didn't know it did something terrible it still deserves a punishment. If an autistic person breaks the law they still go to jail even though some don't even know they did something wrong.




Foxes NEED to kill to eat. We don't NEED to kill them to survive.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> yup
> 
> ---------
> Don't you love one line responses?
> ...



And why doesn't it?


----------



## Atrak (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Foxes NEED to kill to eat. We don't NEED to kill them to survive.



We don't *need *to survive. We *want *to.


----------



## Slyck (May 26, 2010)

I came, I saw, I signed. After that I put on some rock music and heated up some old homemade soup. Soup kicks ass too.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

atrakaj said:


> We don't *need *to survive. We *want *to.



Your point is?


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Foxes NEED to kill to eat. We don't NEED to kill them to survive.



And I could care less. When 2 paths cross the business of one becomes the business of the other. Animals kill things and we kill things too. Sometimes without even a reason, it's life.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> And why doesn't it?


That's a joke, right? 

You aren't Socrates.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Thanks for signing slyck =)


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

BlueberriHusky said:


> What about endangered species and stuff? Don't people care about non-murry animals? ):



what


----------



## Atrak (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Your point is?



Pointy.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> And I could care less. When 2 paths cross the business of one becomes the business of the other. Animals kill things and we kill things too. Sometimes without even a reason, it's life.



1. Animals aren't aware of what they are doing

2. They don't have a choice. We do.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Look, Commodore, all I'm saying is if you're going to kill them, at least do it humanely. Have you any objections to that?


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> what



I'm assuming she's asking if people care about the less cute animals, like endangered fish.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Look, Commodore, all I'm saying is if you're going to kill them, at least do it humanely. Have you any objections to that?


Yeah sure you should try, and if I was going to kill something I would try to make it quick. 

But I don't think it should be a law to only be allowed to have a "humane" hunt.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 26, 2010)

You do realize that your own existence is only worth what value YOU put on it? And that value is meaningless to others?


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I personally couldn't care less if the animal was cute or ugly, in my eyes, all souls are worth the same.
I'm glad that we agree that a humane hunt is best commodore, but why do you want it to be legal to use dogs if you said yourself you would prefer to do it quickly?


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You do realize that your own existence is only worth what value YOU put on it?


Welcome to Existentialism. Enjoy your stay.


darkumbreon135 said:


> I'm glad that we agree that a humane hunt is best commodore, but why do  you want it to be legal to use dogs if you said yourself you would  prefer to do it quickly?


Because while I do not care for killing things in a brutal fashion and think that it is a bit messed up, I recognize that this is just my opinion on the matter and I am not going to impose that opinion on another person by banning their sport.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> 1. Animals aren't aware of what they are doing
> 
> 2. They don't have a choice. We do.



I'm pretty sure my dog can make conscious decisions.  For instance, she knows eating toilet paper is wrong, but if she chooses to do it anyway and I catch her, she knows she did something wrong and runs away with her tail between her legs.

So yeah, I think animals do make choices.  Also choice =/= complex thought.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> 1. Animals aren't aware of what they are doing
> 
> 2. They don't have a choice. We do.



All animals are aware. I love how people keep saying they're not.

And I stand by my choice which in my opinion makes it right. What's morally right is only so to the eye of the beholder. If you don't think it's right that's all fine and dandy but put yourself in the shoes of others and maybe you'll see both sides of the fence. Killing the fox that kills your livestock/pet will lesson the chance of the same thing happening to the replacement.


----------



## Atrak (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Your point is?





Zoopedia said:


> 1. Animals aren't aware of what they are doing



Goat shit.


> 2. They don't have a choice. We do.



Do animals have free will? That is a question that we do not know the answer to.



darkumbreon135 said:


> Look, Commodore, all I'm saying is if you're going to kill them, at least do it humanely. Have you any objections to that?



Humane? Humane is the 'human' way of killing, and yet humans aren't humane.


----------



## Tabasco (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> what



I always see furries complaining about people being meanies to the poor little foxes and wolves, but never anything else. Pets, sometimes.


----------



## Atrak (May 26, 2010)

BlueberriHusky said:


> I always see furries complaining about people being meanies to the poor little foxes and wolves, but never anything else. Pets, sometimes.



They're the most fuckable, so furries care the most about them.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm pretty sure my dog can make conscious decisions.  For instance, she knows eating toilet paper is wrong, but if she chooses to do it anyway and I catch her, she knows she did something wrong and runs away with her tail between her legs.
> 
> So yeah, I think animals do make choices.  Also choice =/= complex thought.




The foxes don't have a choice, as in if they don't kill to eat they die.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

So according to CK's logic, if a more advanced alien race came to earth, and started torturing us for fun that'd be ok. We wouldn't like it, but what they would be doing would be ok.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> If you don't think it's right that's all fine and dandy but put yourself in the shoes of others and maybe you'll see both sides of the fence. Killing the fox that kills your livestock/pet will lesson the chance of the same thing happening to the replacement.



A fox killed five of our chickens in one night and only ate one.
It was _our _fault for not penning them properly. We toyed with the idea of shooting it, but built a superior pen instead.

Parading about on horses and _maybe _catching it is not a practical measure.
I wish they'd at least admit it's just for a jolly, instead of the thin "it was bothering someone" defense. 
They've trespassed on our property with their clearly starved dogs. They didn't warn us to put our pets inside or anything.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I agree with Zoopedia. And besides, even if foxes had a choice, they would still have to eat to survive.

Also harebelle, I'm sorry you lost chickens, and I'm aware that foxes do go on "Killing Sprees". However, I'm glad you decided not to shoot it, as even though it would have been the most humane thing to do, it wouldn't have solved anything. I sincerely hope that your new chickens live a safe and happy life.


----------



## Aden (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> When 2 paths cross the business of one becomes the business of the other.



The only reason our paths are crossing is because *we're hunting them down*


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

BlueberriHusky said:


> I always see furries complaining about people being meanies to the poor little foxes and wolves, but never anything else. Pets, sometimes.



I get pissed when pretty much any critter is getting the shaft from sloppy/greedy/stupid people.  It demonstrates disrespect for something that is far greater than us - the world around us and its delicately interwoven ecosystems and biospheres.  Hell, I get pissed when PLANTS are being annihilated by idiots.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> A fox killed five of our chickens in one night and only ate one.
> It was _our _fault for not penning them properly. We toyed with the idea of shooting it, but built a superior pen instead.
> 
> Parading about on horses and _maybe _catching it is not a practical measure.
> ...



Ever think about the fact that some don't have the things needed to build a better pen? My grandparents are retired of course so what little they have is what they're stuck with. The fox dug under the wire a few feet and killed the chickens/roosters. There were 8 in total. If I found the thing I would've beat it to death. I'm a callous/cruel/whatever you want to call me asshole but pain caused can mean pain coming.



Aden said:


> The only reason our paths are crossing is because *we're hunting them down*



You must have missed my other posts seeing as I'm not talking about hunting them down.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> So according to CK's logic, if a more advanced alien race came to earth, and started torturing us for fun that'd be ok. We wouldn't like it, but what they would be doing would be ok.





(Quoting my own post because CK 'This''d it.)

That's a rather fucked up way of looking at things really. Unless it is the same species (Species are contineous by the way) it doesn't matter? Why is that, because 'Nature' wants us to continue our species and not care about any others?


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

here let me put it this way. basically, no one agree's with ACTUALLY hunting foxes here (maybe... someone I dunno) they just like to be stupid and say it to piss you off. 

besides, the way I see it is, society is so greedy, they'd give anything to have exotic things. they can't just part with a big steak, so they go out and look for alligators and dolphins (>:C) we take and take, and we end up destroying the things that your children adore on disney channel every saturday morning :V


----------



## Tabasco (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I get pissed when pretty much any critter is getting the shaft from sloppy/greedy/stupid people.  It demonstrates disrespect for something that is far greater than us - the world around us and its delicately interwoven ecosystems and biospheres.  Hell, I get pissed when PLANTS are being annihilated by idiots.



Ily a little. :3


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> The foxes don't have a choice, as in if they don't kill to eat they die.



So you're saying that foxes are killing machines that do nothing but kill?  Sounds like something I myself would want to hunt.  :V

BTW, where's all the support for people to stop fishing tuna fish?


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Phoenix, I don't want to offend you but is it really a good idea to keep chickens if you don't have a safe place to keep them? I'm truly sorry for your grandparent's loss, but the chicken's safety was their responsability.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So you're saying that foxes are killing machines that do nothing but kill?  Sounds like something I myself would want to hunt.  :V


But foxes have no choice. You do. That would make you even worse than the foxes, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> Ever think about the fact that some don't have the things needed to build a better pen? My grandparents are retired of course so what little they have is what they're stuck with. The fox dug under the wire a few feet and killed the chickens/roosters. There were 8 in total. If I found the thing I would've beat it to death. I'm a callous/cruel/whatever you want to call me asshole but pain caused can mean pain coming.



Why would you get delicious animals if you can't house them securely?
Foxes live underground, of course they can dig. And if it dug several feet, it must have been starving or digging a little bit for a few nights in a row.

Wild animals are trying to live near humans almost everywhere now. It's not their fault.
The fox isn't bad or evil for trying to eat and it doesn't understand that hens belong to someone.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> BTW, where's all the support for people to stop fishing tuna  fish?



Overfishing = Soylent Green situation.
Shit will be so fun.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> But foxes have no choice. You do. That would make you even worse than the foxes, wouldn't you agree?



Um, not really.  Especially if I can make a profit and help feed my family off of selling fox pelts and the like.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I get pissed when pretty much any critter is getting the shaft from sloppy/greedy/stupid people.  It demonstrates disrespect for something that is far greater than us - the world around us and its delicately interwoven ecosystems and biospheres.  Hell, I get pissed when PLANTS are being annihilated by idiots.



Eh, I don't care about plants really. I'd be sad if a species went extinct, but I wouldn't really care that much. I care about the lives of conscious individuals. If someone asked me whether I wanted every animal of a species made infertile, but they would live a happy live, or to ensure the continuation of the species, but leaving the animal in a life where it would be suffering. I would choose the former.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

On a ligher note, I'm sure the foxes, if they knew that the chicken's belonged to someone, wouldn't hunt them. And as Harebelle says, they must have been pretty desperate to dig into the chicken pen, considering they would even eat berries before doing that.
And term the shmuk, I wouldn't have a problem with you hunting foxes as long as you were doing it for a good reason (To feed your family I can understand) and as long as you do it humanely.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Phoenix, I don't want to offend you but is it really a good idea to keep chickens if you don't have a safe place to keep them? I'm truly sorry for your grandparent's loss, but the chicken's safety was their responsability.



Taking care of chickens makes my grandmother happy so it is a good idea to have some chickens. It happened after a few years of having them but there hasn't been a problem since the fox is gone so safety is restored. It might happen again someday, it might not.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Eh, I don't care about plants really. I'd be sad if a species went extinct, but I wouldn't really care that much. I care about the lives of conscious individuals. If someone asked me whether I wanted every animal of a species made infertile, but they would live a happy live, or to ensure the continuation of the species, but leaving the animal in a life where it would be suffering. I would choose the former.



Thinking this over again, I would care if someone killed a plant, if that plant was important the survival of a conscious species.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Thinking this over again, I would care if someone killed a plant, if that plant was important the survival of a conscious species.



I like you


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> And term the shmuk, I wouldn't have a problem with you hunting foxes as long as you were doing it for a good reason (To feed your family I can understand) and as long as you do it humanely.



If I shoot the animal and it doesn't die instantly, does that make it humane?

The fact of the matter is, the animal is being killed.  Humane death of another living being doesn't exist.  That still doesn't stop me from hunting though.  :V


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I sincerely hope the fox doesn't come back, for the chicken's sake and for it's own XD
But on a serious note, sometimes it's best to think past what you "Want" and think about the well-being of the animal. I, for example, want a fox as a pet, which is possible. However, I wouldn't get one if I didn't have the facilities to look after it, as I know it would just end in tragedy.
In my opinion, if you shot it in the right place to try to kill it as quickly as possible, I wouldn't call you inhumane. But I must protest that even you, a hunter, must say that the fox will be in less pain being shot in the back of the head than it would be having it's organs ripped out, am I right?


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> That's a rather fucked up way of looking at things really. Unless it is the same species (Species are contineous by the way) it doesn't matter? Why is that, because 'Nature' wants us to continue our species and not care about any others?


Nature does not "want" us to do anything. In spite of that what happens in our own species is all that really matters. If I did something to help and animal and that hurt you in some perceptible way, then I am clearly valuing that animal over you in certain respects. It all goes back to the fact that another human can do infinitely more to help me the individual than an animal can. I take care of other humans because they can take care of me and I uphold the rights and freedoms of other humans because they will uphold mine. Animals cannot do this, and even if they could helping animals at the expense of humans hurts humanity, and by extension the individual, as a whole. 

I would expect aliens to hold similar views. If they needed something from us and they had to hurt us to do it (not likely that they would need anything from us but w/e) then I would definitely expect them to do so. If they just wanted to be assholes and blow up some cities because they can then I would certainly hate them for it but I can't really _blame_ them in some kind of moral way. They do not have any obligations to us and I expect would only help us insofar as it can help them.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Thinking this over again, I would care if someone killed a plant, if that plant was important the survival of a conscious species.



How do you know that plants aren't conscious? You're not a plant so you can't really say they are or aren't. They're alive so I'd bat around the idea they may have some form of conscious.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If I shoot the animal and it doesn't die instantly, does that make it humane?




or you could just... NOT shoot? lol


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Thinking this over again, I would care if someone killed a plant, if that plant was important the survival of a conscious species.



How do you feel about redwood trees? I think they should be as protected as stupid, cuddly pandas etc.
They aren't sentient and I don't know if any animals need them, but that doesn't justify cutting them down.

Full respect to that woman who lived in one for about 900 days to protect it. :3


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> or you could just... NOT shoot? lol



Then how do you propose I obtain its pelt for my hypothetical situation?

Lethal injection?

Gas chamber?

Help me out here.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Then how do you propose I obtain its pelt for my hypothetical situation?
> 
> Lethal injection?
> 
> ...



rip out your own pelvis?


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

I feel that redwoods should be protected, as even if they don't have a concience, they are still living organisms.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

ITT:_ So many hippies. _


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> I sincerely hope the fox doesn't come back, for the chicken's sake and for it's own XD
> But on a serious note, sometimes it's best to think past what you "Want" and think about the well-being of the animal. I, for example, want a fox as a pet, which is possible. However, I wouldn't get one if I didn't have the facilities to look after it, as I know it would just end in tragedy.



It wont be coming back I'm sure. And I like meeting my wants as it doesn't happen often. I'm a greedy human being, so sue me.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> rip out your own pelvis?


Whoah Whoah. I can see where you're coming from, and I'm not at all happy that he hunts at all, but the purpose of this forum was to discuss if using hounds to hunt was humane or not. In comparison, a gun can kill quickly and painlessly if used correectly. It is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I would expect aliens to hold similar views. If they needed something from us and they had to hurt us to do it (not likely that they would need anything from us but w/e) then I would definitely expect them to do so. If they just wanted to be assholes and blow up some cities because they can then I would certainly hate them for it but I can't really _blame_ them in some kind of moral way. They do not have any obligations to us and I expect would only help us insofar as it can help them.



I really hope these aliens don't have this attitude. D:

And it reminds me of the religious view that Gawd can be as big a dick as he wants, because he made us, so it gives him the "right" to torture us. FFF-- but that's another subject...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> rip out your own pelvis?



How does that help feed my family?

I think your value system is screwed.  :V


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> ITT:_ So many hippies. _



Redwoods are people too, maaaan...
-hemp-


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

We're getting a little off topic. So can everyone on the forum right now please provide me with a simple answer here:
Is using dogs in fox hunting humane?


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Whoah Whoah. I can see where you're coming from, and I'm not at all happy that he hunts at all, but the purpose of this forum was to discuss if using hounds to hunt was humane or not. In comparison, a gun can kill quickly and painlessly if used correectly. It is the lesser of two evils.



lol I'm not actually serious. 

I've dealt with people who say things like this for the "lulz"


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Nature does not "want" us to do anything. In spite of that what happens in our own species is all that really matters. If I did something to help and animal and that hurt you in some perceptible way, then I am clearly valuing that animal over you in certain respects. It all goes back to the fact that another human can do infinitely more to help me the individual than an animal can. I take care of other humans because they can take care of me and I uphold the rights and freedoms of other humans because they will uphold mine. Animals cannot do this, and even if they could helping animals at the expense of humans hurt humanity, and by extension you, as a whole.
> 
> I would expect aliens to hold similar views. If they needed something from us and they had to hurt us to do it (not likely that they would need anything from us but w/e) then I would definitely expect them to do so. If they just wanted to be assholes and blow up some cities because they can then I would certainly hate them for it but I can't really _blame_ them in some kind of moral way. They do not have any obligations to us and I expect would only help us insofar as it can help them.




See, someone killing or hurting an animal to save the life of another person, is completely understandable to me. Put putting the tiniest bit of human pleasure/enjoyment over limitless pain and suffering of another species just seems very wrong.

Your treating a conscious, sentient being, as something worthless, because of something it did not choose, and has no control over.

Racism is wrong because you are treating somebody different for something they cannot help.

Putting your own enjoyment over an animals life because it is another species, something it has no control over, that just isn't fair, and sure, you may say ''life isn't fair'' and that's true, but why not put the effort towards making it fairer?

Chances are, we only live once, even if you are religious, this is true for animals as far as I know at least. If you kill an animal, you have taken it's ability to be alive, to be conscious. It will never get that back. For a moment of enjoyment you have given an animal a possibly painful moment in it's life that it will never ever get back, and then thrown it's consciousness into eternal oblivion.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Is using dogs in fox hunting humane?



"no"

but that doesn't matter.


> See, someone killing or hurting an animal to save the life of another  person, is completely understandable to me. Put putting the tiniest bit  of human pleasure/enjoyment over limitless pain and suffering of another  species just seems very wrong.


Well that is a pretty arbitrary line. It is okay to kill something to "help" in some way but it is not okay if you enjoy it. In the end the animal is just dead. And not that it matters, but very few animals are "sentient" iirc. 

Racism is wrong because it hurts people, it is not wrong because you are "treating someone differently." Speciesism, which is a more correct term here (I guess) is also not wrong. The very fact that you said it is sometimes okay to kill an animal to save a person proves that you value an animals life less than a persons life. You speciesist asshole. 

But yeah humans only have an obligation to other humans for reasons I have already specified. Animals are simply not included. End of story.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Is using dogs in fox hunting humane?



Not at all.

You'd have to be a jerkass to claim otherwise.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

So is fox hunting with hounds humane or not, yes or no? I vote no.


----------



## Tally (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Whoah Whoah. I can see where you're coming from, and I'm not at all happy that he hunts at all, but the purpose of this forum was to discuss if using hounds to hunt was humane or not. In comparison, a gun can kill quickly and painlessly if used correectly. It is the lesser of two evils.



I thought the purpose of this forum was to let furries discuss matters...

And I thought the purpose of the thread was to help support the ban.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Eh, I don't care about plants really. I'd be sad if a species went extinct, but I wouldn't really care that much. I care about the lives of conscious individuals. If someone asked me whether I wanted every animal of a species made infertile, but they would live a happy live, or to ensure the continuation of the species, but leaving the animal in a life where it would be suffering. I would choose the former.



Now here's a sticky problem: injecting human perception into scenarios of nature.  Suffering IS part of nature.  Nature's a mean bitch.  Making an entire species infertile just to get rid of one of the ugly little facets of the gem called nature is really pretty horrible.  It renders one of their strongest driving instincts pointless - creating offspring and raising them to further the bloodline.  They won't really know or understand the details of the whole thing, though I imagine there would be confusion - they know something should be happening, but it's not.  They should be creating offspring.  Why are there no offspring? Something is amiss.  They can understand THAT much.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> We're getting a little off topic. So can everyone on the forum right now please provide me with a simple answer here:
> Is using dogs in fox hunting humane?



It's not humane but can be justified in some situations.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> "no"
> 
> but that doesn't matter.



Well, this forum was made to decide that, so...


----------



## Willow (May 26, 2010)

I'm not against hunting if it's done in moderation


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

_Eternal oblivion..._ That should be a band name


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> So is fox hunting with hounds humane or not, yes or no? I vote no.



that's just looking for an excuse.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> I'm not against hunting if it's done in moderation



I like this saying "in moderation" because it makes my hunting of deer sound like I'm drinking with friends.

Which oddly enough can be part of the experience.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

In my opinion, hunting isn't okay, but it's understandable if it is to:
Save the life of another.
Is the last possible thing you can do to save something.
Is done humanely.
Is done without using another one of God's creatures.

Because something tells me God wouldn't be too happy about seeing one of his creatures training another to kill a third, if that made sense.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> I'm not against hunting if it's done in moderation



Do you agree with the method, though? 

Poncing about on horseback, with almost no regard to who's land you're tearing up, pets you're putting in harm's way and probably not even catching the animal anyway.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> It's not humane but can be justified in some situations.



LIKE WHAT?


----------



## gdzeek (May 26, 2010)

I backed the ban. if you dont eat it, dont hunt it!


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> that's just looking for an excuse.


I'm not looking for any sort of excuse, I'm not a hunter myself, but the purpose of this forum was simply to get people to make the decision if it was humane or not, and to sign the petition accordingly.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 26, 2010)

Thanks for backing the ban gdzeek, it's much appreciated 
Anyways, I have to go for now, I'll be back tomorrow. Goodnight all.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> LIKE WHAT?



"Bastard fox's been stealin' my cider!"



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I like this saying "in moderation" because it makes my hunting of deer sound like I'm drinking with friends.
> 
> Which oddly enough can be part of the experience.



Guns + alcohol = nothing can ever go wrong.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Now here's a sticky problem: injecting human perception into scenarios of nature.  Suffering IS part of nature.  Nature's a mean bitch.  Making an entire species infertile just to get rid of one of the ugly little facets of the gem called nature is really pretty horrible.  It renders one of their strongest driving instincts pointless - creating offspring and raising them to further the bloodline.  They won't really know or understand the details of the whole thing, though I imagine there would be confusion - they know something should be happening, but it's not.  They should be creating offspring.  Why are there no offspring? Something is amiss.  They can understand THAT much.




Nature, what an abstract word. Nature _*DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST*_. It is not some conscious thing that wants things to be a certain way. The universe just is. There is no way animals are meant to live, they just do in that way because by chance their behaviour is self preserving. How things happen does not matter, which is why I only care that conscious things can be able to enjoy that short blip of existance as much as possible, before they fall into the eternal silence of oblivion.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Guns + alcohol = nothing can ever go wrong.



Damn right.

And I'm still waiting on the "Save the tunafish" bandwagon.  Why are those creatures of God that OP is talking about exempt from his crusade to help living beings?


----------



## Willow (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I like this saying "in moderation" because it makes my hunting of deer sound like I'm drinking with friends.
> 
> Which oddly enough can be part of the experience.


We have regulations and rules and stuff on deer hunting here, and we kind of need the seasonal hunting
Since the deer really don't have many natural predators anymore (thanks to us) and the fact that the environment is ideal breeding grounds, the population is huge, which is dangerous for both the deer and the people


Harebelle said:


> Do you agree with the method, though?
> 
> Poncing about on horseback, with almost no regard to who's land you're tearing up, pets you're putting in harm's way and probably not even catching the animal anyway.


Oh well, I didn't read through the whole thread, but no I don't agree with this method


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> LIKE WHAT?



Think about it.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> I'm not looking for any sort of excuse, I'm not a hunter myself, but the purpose of this forum was simply to get people to make the decision if it was humane or not, and to sign the petition accordingly.



lol AGAIN, I wasn't referring to you. I was backing up your statement

besides, I signed that petition a few days ago, along with dolphins


----------



## Slyck (May 26, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> I'm not against hunting if it's done in  moderation



The only time hunting is okay, in my opinion, is for food. You gotta admit it'd be a hell of a lot less cruel than what they do behind the scenes at KFC.

Other than that, no. Unless you're hunting the wild species of Rushus Limbaughacus...



darkumbreon135 said:


> Thanks for signing slyck =)



No problem.



Harebelle said:


> Guns + alcohol = nothing can ever go  wrong.



Hmm... Better keep it to small arms and light beer for safety.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> We have regulations and rules and stuff on deer hunting here, and we kind of need the seasonal hunting
> Since the deer really don't have many natural predators anymore (thanks to us) and the fact that the environment is ideal breeding grounds, the population is huge, which is dangerous for both the deer and the people



I'm well aware of why we hunt deer.

I just found your phrasing amusing because "in moderation" has so many other connotations attached to it.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Damn right.
> 
> And I'm still waiting on the "Save the tunafish" bandwagon.  Why are those creatures of God that OP is talking about exempt from his crusade to help living beings?



I don't think they're in much of a problem right now? The bigger concern is the dolphins being stupid and getting caught up in the tuna nets.

And those fishing fleets who drag the nets along the sea bed need smacking in the faces, though.


----------



## Willow (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> And those fishing fleets who drag the nets along the sea bed need smacking in the faces, though.


They do realize they're destroying reefs or are they like "hurr hurr the seafloor's flat already"


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> Think about it.



No, fuck you.  Explain it to me.  You make the statement that it is justifiable under certain conditions.  I challenge your statement.  Ball is in your court, asshole.  I'm not doing your work for you.

Did you get all of that?


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Imagine if they did the same to a kitty cat or a puppy...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> I don't think they're in much of a problem right now?



But neither are foxes if you're talking about overfishing/extinction.  :V


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Racism is wrong because it hurts people, it is not wrong because you are "treating someone differently." Speciesism, which is a more correct term here (I guess) is also not wrong. The very fact that you said it is sometimes okay to kill an animal to save a person proves that you value an animals life less than a persons life. You speciesist asshole.



I only think this way because I would find it exteremly difficult to pick anythings life over another, and a human would have the fear of death from the animal. The animal is ignorant to what death is. It feels fear by instinct, but it's not the same terror of death a human has.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> But neither are foxes if you're talking about overfishing/extinction.  :V



Uh-oh.
Um...
Fish just aren't as awesome as foxes? D:

Wait, I've got one: they aren't training sharks to rip up the tuna. THERE.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Racism is wrong because it hurts people, it is not wrong because you are "treating someone differently." Speciesism, which is a more correct term here (I guess) is also not wrong. The very fact that you said it is sometimes okay to kill an animal to save a person proves that you value an animals life less than a persons life. You speciesist asshole.



is this for real?


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> I don't think they're in much of a problem right now? The bigger concern is the dolphins being stupid and getting caught up in the tuna nets.
> 
> And those fishing fleets who drag the nets along the sea bed need smacking in the faces, though.



Pretty much eveyr type of fish we eat has had it's population of the entire earth reduced by over 50%


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> No, fuck you.  Explain it to me.  You make the statement that it is justifiable under certain conditions.  I challenge your statement.  Ball is in your court, asshole.  I'm not doing your work for you.
> 
> Did you get all of that?



Hey, I made a big reply to your reply to my post, don't ignore it. >:C


----------



## Willow (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> is this for real?


I lol'd


Harebelle said:


> Imagine if they did the same to a kitty cat or a puppy...


awwwwww D:

not the puppies ;^;


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> No, fuck you.  Explain it to me.  You make the statement that it is justifiable under certain conditions.  I challenge your statement.  Ball is in your court, asshole.  I'm not doing your work for you.
> 
> Did you get all of that?



No. I think I only got about a quarter.

Fox mauls someone, (would most likely be a child or a really brain dead unaware adult) critically hurting/killing them is one good justifiable reason. I know there's more but I don't want to think about them so you do it.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Pretty much eveyr type of fish we eat has had it's population of the entire earth reduced by over 50%



I blame the population explosion of humbolt squid. Those fuckers are eating everything...
...
Or those baby Canadian seals. Greedy gits.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Uh-oh.
> Um...
> Fish just aren't as awesome as foxes? D:
> 
> Wait, I've got one: they aren't training sharks to rip up the tuna. THERE.



Sharks are fish :Y


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> not the puppies ;^;



you know what I find ironic? most furries on this site have a fox fursona xD


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> I only think this way because I would find it exteremly difficult to pick anythings life over another, and a human would have the fear of death from the animal. The animal is ignorant to what death is. It feels fear by instinct, but it's not the same terror of death a human has.


Well the animal can't help the fact it doesn't fear death, that is a quality it is born with. You are choosing to let it die over a human based on something it has no control over. By your own definition that is "racist."


Milo said:


> is this for real?


Yes.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yes.



you're giving a double standard


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> you're giving a double standard


Do tell.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Well the animal can't help the fact it doesn't fear death, that is a quality it is born with. You are choosing to let it die over a human based on something it has no control over. By your own definition that is "racist."
> Yes.



Right because, In the situation where I have to choose one or the other, choosing the one that will suffer less for it is racist.


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

what the fuck is happening


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Right because, In the situation where I have to choose one or the other, choosing the one that will suffer less for it is racist.


It _is_ according to your definition. The degree of suffering has nothing to do with the fact that you based your decision on something the animal had no control over. You killed it, instead of the human, because the human is born with a trait the animal is not. You don't see a conflict here?


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Hey, I made a big reply to your reply to my post, don't ignore it. >:C



Oh.  Sorry.

Nature itself is not conscious, no.  But animals do possess consciousness and they have a sense of purpose firmly reinforced by instinct.  They're not robots who can not choose whether or not to follow a line of programming, they are creatures who are COMPELLED.  Having sated hunger or slaked thirst feels good or at least feels better than the alternative, and they want to repeat that behavior next time they become thirsty.  They are ALL id and no superego.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> what the fuck is happening



To much for my brain. *blows brain fuse*


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Do tell.



honestly, this whole topic is a double standard

no matter which way we spin it, SOMEONE ends up looking like a monster. the animal is a monster for attacking a human, the human is a monster for hunting down animals. we kill an animal to save a human, we ban hunting to save that animal. 

I have my own opinions, but one thing doesn't justify the other. it doesn't make it OK to kill an animal because he was attacking a human, but you can't just stand there and watch him kill the guy xD


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Oh.  Sorry.
> 
> Nature itself is not conscious, no.  But animals do possess consciousness and they have a sense of purpose firmly reinforced by instinct.  They're not robots who can not choose whether or not to follow a line of programming, they are creatures who are COMPELLED.  Having sated hunger or slaked thirst feels good or at least feels better than the alternative, and they want to repeat that behavior next time they become thirsty.  They are ALL id and no superego.



Infertile animals can still do it.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> It _is_ according to your definition. The degree of suffering has nothing to do with the fact that you based your decision on something the animal had no control over. You killed it, instead of the human, because the human is born with a trait the animal is not. You don't see a conflict here?



I do, but there are these magical things called exceptions.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

pheonix said:


> No. I think I only got about a quarter.
> 
> Fox mauls someone, (would most likely be a child or a really brain dead unaware adult) critically hurting/killing them is one good justifiable reason. I know there's more but I don't want to think about them so you do it.



...YOU DON'T USE PACKS OF DOGS AND TRUMPETERS ON HORSEBACK TO CHASE DOWN AND TEAR ASUNDER A LITTLE RED FOX BECAUSE IT ATTACKED LITTLE BILLY.

Fuck, you are DUMB.


----------



## foxmusk (May 26, 2010)

this is life. animals kill other animals. dogs would be tearing foxes apart if humans hadn't domesticated them anyway. i'm sorry you think it'd different because it's cute widdle foxes, but this is how the world works. no one cares that lions hunt down a gazelle and tear it to pieces, as long as no humans are standing by.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> honestly, this whole topic is a double standard
> 
> no matter which way we spin it, SOMEONE ends up looking like a monster. the animal is a monster for attacking a human, the human is a monster for hunting down animals. we kill an animal to save a human, we ban hunting to save that animal.
> 
> I have my own opinions, but one thing doesn't justify the other. it doesn't make it OK to kill an animal because he was attacking a human, but you can't just stand there and watch him kill the guy xD



The glory of every topic ever created on the internet. The opposing opinions of every individual in the world overpowers all.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> this is life. animals kill other animals. dogs would be tearing foxes apart if humans hadn't domesticated them anyway.



DOGS WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT DOMESTICATION.  It's not like the foxhound is a fucking indigenous species on the British Isles.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> this is life. animals kill other animals. dogs would be tearing foxes apart if humans hadn't domesticated them anyway. i'm sorry you think it'd different because it's cute widdle foxes, but this is how the world works. no one cares that lions hunt down a gazelle and tear it to pieces, as long as no humans are standing by.



A lion will starve to death if it doesn't eat the gazelle, the fox hunters and their dogs won't die if they don't rip apart some foxes.


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> this is life. animals kill other animals. dogs would be tearing foxes apart if humans hadn't domesticated them anyway. i'm sorry you think it'd different because it's cute widdle foxes, but this is how the world works. no one cares that lions hunt down a gazelle and tear it to pieces, as long as no humans are standing by.



we're not STOPPING animals from hunting, we're just adding to the count. 

it's not like we take turns :|


----------



## foxmusk (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> DOGS WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT DOMESTICATION.  It's not like the foxhound is a fucking indigenous species on the British Isles.



gee whiz, sorry you're mad about this. it's what animals do, sorry that upsets you so much.


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> no matter which way we spin it, SOMEONE ends up looking like a monster. the animal is a monster for attacking a human, the human is a monster for hunting down animals. we kill an animal to save a human, we ban hunting to save that animal.


I still don't see where my "double-standard" comes in.



Zoopedia said:


> I do, but there are these magical things called  exceptions.


Yes, they are magical, they "magically" undermine your argument by creating inconsistencies. You have told me, plainly, that you think it is okay to judge living things based on qualities they have no control over. Now you have no leeway to state where the line is on just "how much" you are allowed to judge. I have taken it farther than you have but you still hold the same fundamental belief as I: humans take priority over animals. 

That is what exceptions do.


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Okay.
Well.
I support the Fox Hunting Ban because it is supporting the deconstruction of a very brutal take on killing animals that puts an animal through incredible duress before its extremely painful end. It is very hard to justify as a sport, when you can partake in similar "chase" games that don't require an animal to suffer needlessly.

Foxes are extremely useful at eradicating pests as omnivorous species that specialize in eating small mammals and insect species, their musking habits control population habitat sizes. The tradition of "chase" hunting is relatively minor in the cultures of the area, but the law keeps the tradition limited and (so far as I know) hunting foxes in a more practical manner (without hounds) is still legal; making chase hunting illegal influences what minor hold-outs exist to commit to more "humane" forms of killing the animals or return to alternatives to the tradition of violent chase hunting. So far as I know, the sport continues without the killing of the animal in most places.

So yeah.
But, I personally don't feel I have a say in a country that has quite a bit of conflicting rhetoric of outside influences have a negative impact on their Parliament's ability to govern. Even so, that kind of shit would be just as worthless as far as influence goes without a native constituency.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> ...YOU DON'T USE PACKS OF DOGS AND TRUMPETERS ON HORSEBACK TO CHASE DOWN AND TEAR ASUNDER A LITTLE RED FOX BECAUSE IT ATTACKED LITTLE BILLY.
> 
> Fuck, you are DUMB.



It doesn't have to be exactly as stated but hunting down a fox with a dog that did something like that I really don't see a problem with it. They hunt down gators down here for just being too big. Why not start arguing about that?

That's a matter of opinion...too bad I say the same thing to. XD


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I still don't see where my "double-standard" comes in.



I actually misread part of your statement lol


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> gee whiz, sorry you're mad about this. it's what animals do, sorry that upsets you so much.



What upsets me is your idiotic interjection to an argument.  What upsets me is that you don't seem to realize how idiotic it is.  What upsets me is that you'll likely go to the mat defending your own idiocy.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (May 26, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> On a ligher note, I'm sure the foxes, if they knew that the chicken's belonged to someone, wouldn't hunt them. And as Harebelle says, they must have been pretty desperate to dig into the chicken pen, considering they would even eat berries before doing that.
> And term the shmuk, I wouldn't have a problem with you hunting foxes as long as you were doing it for a good reason (To feed your family I can understand) and as long as you do it humanely.


I agree, it's cruel that everybody just assumes the worst in foxes
GIVE THEM A CHANCE PEOPLE


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Wait, I've got one: they aren't training sharks to rip up the tuna. THERE.



No, but that'd be awesome if we did train sharks to capture tuna.

Someone needs to get working on this...


----------



## foxmusk (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> What upsets me is your idiotic interjection to an argument.  What upsets me is that you don't seem to realize how idiotic it is.  What upsets me is that you'll likely go to the mat defending your own idiocy.



i sure am glad you're mad about this. you should use some more caps lock, i heard that really makes your point. let's try it.

THIS IS WHAT ANIMALS DO. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT IF IT'S NOT FLUFFY AND CUTE. SIMPLE AS THAT.

how's it look?


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> THIS IS WHAT ANIMALS DO. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT IF IT'S NOT FLUFFY AND CUTE. SIMPLE AS THAT.



I do ;3

unlike most people, I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to that. 

no one cares about dolphins, it's always just foxes |:C


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i sure am glad you're mad about this. you should use some more caps lock, i heard that really makes your point. let's try it.
> 
> THIS IS WHAT ANIMALS DO. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT IF IT'S NOT FLUFFY AND CUTE. SIMPLE AS THAT.
> 
> how's it look?




I care about the not cute animals. ;~;


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> I care about the not cute animals. ;~;



What about tuna?


----------



## Milo (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What about tuna?



can't live without tuna eh?


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yes, they are magical, they "magically" undermine your argument by creating inconsistencies. You have told me, plainly, that you think it is okay to judge living things based on qualities they have no control over. Now you have no leeway to state where the line is on just "how much" you are allowed to judge. I have taken it farther than you have but you still hold the same fundamental belief as I: humans take priority over animals.
> 
> That is what exceptions do.




So when you get put in a where you have to say one or the other options,, you can't just back out, choosing one is 'racist'. Seriously If It was my pet dog and a random person, I'd choose my dog. It depends greaty on the circumstances.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What about tuna?



Yep them too.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Milo said:


> can't live without tuna eh?



Nope.  :V

They are the kittens of the sea after all.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> THIS IS WHAT ANIMALS DO. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT IF IT'S NOT FLUFFY AND CUTE. SIMPLE AS THAT.



*This* was never in question, fuckwit.


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Nope.  :V
> 
> They are the kittens of the sea after all.



Yup, and they sing to their mates. :Y


----------



## foxmusk (May 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> *This* was never in question, fuckwit.



you make amazing points with your logic and attitude i really like it


----------



## Kommodore (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> So when you get put in a where you have to say one or the other options,, you can't just back out, choosing one is 'racist'. Seriously If It was my pet dog and a random person, I'd choose my dog. It depends greaty on the circumstances.




----------the point-----------










----------your head----------


----------



## Slyck (May 26, 2010)

Zoopedia said:


> Yup, and they sing to their mates. :Y



Don't get the foxes > serenades.... Topic drift is lovely, ain't it?


----------



## Wreth (May 26, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> ----------the point-----------
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You would like to think so.


----------



## Attaman (May 26, 2010)

First: 


darkumbreon135 said:


> On a ligher note, I'm sure the foxes, if they knew that the chicken's belonged to someone, wouldn't hunt them.


Nobody called dark on this?  Nobody?  People _This_'d it?  


darkumbreon135 said:


> *God's creatures*.
> [...]
> *God wouldn't be too happy about seeing one of his creatures training another to kill*



This (and the above) made me laugh for a few reasons.
1)  Religion / metaphysics used to argue for epistemology.
2)  That if we go by the above, then wouldn't mutualism be bad because one species is using another to be more effective?  I mean, those nasty crabs are using anemone's to harm helpless sea critters attempting to eat them.  Or is it the training itself that's wrong, in which case we could argue why God would make us with that (and in his image, mind) if we weren't supposed to do it?  Just to piss himself off?
3)  God being upset about some of his creations being warped to kill others.  Because, I mean, it's not like he (allegedly) did the exact same thing with human races to make them kill others, all by his command.  I mean, that'd be silly and hypocritical.
4)  That God was actually brought up in this debate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


With that resolved, some people seem to be a bit zealous when it comes to caring about other beings.  Don't get me wrong, that's not necessarily a bad thing: I don't go out of my way to hurt things, human or inhuman, and will often times try to help them as well.  However, some people are caring too much and applying too many "natural rights". 

You know what natural rights there are?  None.  I may not be a fan of absolutes, but - unless there is some higher power out there - there are no natural rights.  They don't exist.  They're a human fabrication, as is the very idea that "Hey, maybe we shouldn't do whatever we want and say 'sod off' to the non-humans."  

Since this has basically boiled away from the main topic (the ban on UK Fox Hunting with Dogs) and into its very own subject (Is hunting alright, and if so must it be humane), I'll put my own two cents in:
+  Hunting is alright.  To say that hunting is _never_ right is a big "FUCK YOU" to any carnivorous or omnivorous animals in addition to humans.  
+  Hunting _humanely_ (with the definition as it stands currently) is alright.  It even puts a leg-up over natural hunting, seeing as most is most-definitely not humane (it's hard to argue a Lion that's slowly strangling a prey-beast with its teeth is being humane as it further wracks the creature with its claws).
+  In-humane hunting is _okay depending on the circumstances._  I'm a big guy into "the needs of the many" schtick, even though I respect individuals as well.  If you're going to sic a pack of hounds on some foxes because their population is growing too high, I'm fine with it.  If you're going to poison an animal because it has been mauling people in the area and is quite-likely rabid, I'm fine with it.  If you're blowing off a deer's limbs one at a time before giving it a Bloody Eagle because _you're just bored_, I'm not fine with it.  


Since using dogs to hunt may be used both for good and negative reasons, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and say it should be allowed but at the same time observed:  Extensive violates revokes hunting rights, occasional violation is fined and discouraged, and so on.


Also, BTW:  Technically, cutting down trees is no different from hunting animals instead of plants. Hunting is, at its basics, killing another living being because of either sport or because you require its fruit, pelt, or a something similar.  While it's not likely to find a guy Extreme Logging for Sport (cross that one out) and cutting a tree for food is counter-productive (Nice going numb-nuts, how's it going to grow apples now?), technically the "wood" could be argued as the "pelt" of a tree.  Furthermore, when logging, you _are_ killing the tree (as within a hunt you do to the target creature).  

Since they're both living creatures, and to go back to Dark's words they're also both "God's creature / creation", why should logging (be it for fire wood, to build a home, clearing a path, remove a diseased tree, or so on) be perfectly fine and hunting an animal not?  Or, to go back to BlueBerri's argument, why is it reprehensible to hunt down wolves but not turkeys or crabs?  Why must we disallow the horrid horrid hunting of foxes but allow the continued practice of fishing?  Are we assigning different "rights"?  Without even using Dark's words, ask yourself the above.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Since using dogs to hunt may be used both for good and negative reasons, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and say it should be allowed but at the same time observed:  Extensive violates revokes hunting rights, occasional violation is fined and discouraged, and so on.



I assure you, they aren't achieving much with this method. 
It's (as said before) a class thing/ location battle. 

It's been observed for years and everyone knows the truth.
Sometimes they block up the fox's den so it can't "go to earth/ground" and spoil the chase. Why couldn't they wait near the den and shoot it or dig it out and kill it?
Because it's just a laugh, not to gain anything. 
Why don't they use whippets/greyhounds which would catch a fox in moments instead of slower dogs built for stamina? Because then everyone has to go home when there's nothing left to chase.

The "population control" is just a term thrown about to justify being rude from horseback while dressed smartly.


----------



## Thatch (May 26, 2010)

Attaman said:


> First:
> 
> Nobody called dark on this?  Nobody?  People _This_'d it?



Oh my fucking god, this is so sad I sat there, unbelieving, for a moment.

Then I didn't lol.


Harebelle said:


> The "population control" is just a term thrown about to justify being rude from horseback while dressed smartly.



Reminds me of South Park.
They can't die of starvation if they're killed :V


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Oh my fucking god, this is so sad I sat there, unbelieving, for a moment.
> 
> Then I didn't lol.



...fuck, I just noticed that.

I wish I hadn't now.


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 26, 2010)

SOCIAL COMMENTARY!

Hunting in general is a fiddly subject, but _to me_ there's a difference between hunting and tormenting an animal for the Hell of it and then lying about why.


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

You should probably fill some balloons with a suitably disgusting/messy but nonhazardous liquid and peg the uppity bastards when they come through the area, Harebelle.

When I say probably I mean you really shouldn't because it's probably illegal but it would be really funny.


----------



## Thatch (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> SOCIAL COMMENTARY!






> Forbidden
> 
> You don't have permission to access /jon/images/calvinhobbes/jon5.GIF on this server.
> 
> Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.



???


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 26, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> SOCIAL COMMENTARY!



A 403 Error?

EDIT: HAHA DISREGARD MY ATTEMPT AT HUMOR I SUCK COCKS


----------



## net-cat (May 26, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> yeah.. whats with the whole "rich versus poor" with hunting? over here in america only the poor hunt. LOL hillbillies.


It's the "hunting for sport" versus "hunting out of necessity" thing.



Zrcalo said:


> kinda like hunting for wolves in a helicopter right?


Predator control.



pheonix said:


> As much as I like the little guys they can be a nuisance. A few killed my grandmothers chickens and roosters and she was devastated. If there's too many of them causing problems then it should be alright to kill them before they kill something of yours. If they're just keeping to themselves they shouldn't be hunted though. I'm sorta sitting on the fence with this one.


Like the "hunting of wolves from helicopters," thing, I find the practice of fox hunting abhorrent. On the other hand, if there's an overpopulation problem, something needs to be done. Ideally, that something wouldn't involve ripping a living being to shreds while it screams in pain, but if it works...



Tycho said:


> This is a horribly inaccurate statement.  Do you know how many UMC-wealthy people indulge in elk hunting? Hunting is NOT for poor folks.  It's fucking expensive.  The fact that rednecks choose to blow what precious little money they get from their blue collar jobs on it does not mean that it's a poor man's pastime.


No, it's a simple matter of economics. After the initial investment in the equipment, (gun, truck, clothes,) the annual cost of consumables (fuel, maintenance, ammunition, license) is a lot less then the cost of buying meat at a grocery store for a year.

It's similar to how my family did heating in when we lived in Eastern Washington. We had a truck. And a chainsaw. And an axe. And gardening gloves. For about $50 in fuel, a $2 firewood cutting permit and a couple days in summer, we could heat our house for an entire winter.


----------



## Apollo (May 26, 2010)

Signed it, animal hunting makes me sad


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

net-cat said:


> No, it's a simple matter of economics. After the initial investment in the equipment, (gun, truck, clothes,) the annual cost of consumables (fuel, maintenance, ammunition, license) is a lot less then the cost of buying meat at a grocery store for a year.



Huh.  Wouldn't have thought it.



net-cat said:


> It's similar to how my family did heating in when we lived in Eastern Washington. We had a truck. And a chainsaw. And an axe. And gardening gloves. For about $50 in fuel, a $2 firewood cutting permit and a couple days in summer, we could heat our house for an entire winter.



Wish this house had a wood-burning stove.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 26, 2010)

There's enough foxes as there is. Shoot them dead.



What's wrong with animal hunting? It's part of nature's way, lol. Honestly guys... Some animals kill for fun too, if you did not know that.


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Ranzun the Dragon-Shark said:


> There's enough foxes as there is. Shoot them dead.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with animal hunting? It's part of nature's way, lol. Honestly guys... Some animals kill for fun too, if you did not know that.



read thread, make relevant comment to topic





or go away?


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> read thread, make relevant comment to topic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Nu? Someone is butt-hurt? Gasp


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Ranzun the Dragon-Shark said:


> Nu? Someone is butt-hurt? Gasp



GASP
YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD AND YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT
GASP

suqq my nutz


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

Ranzun the Dragon-Shark said:


> Nu? Someone is butt-hurt? Gasp



You're a moron and your post was so bereft of intelligence and insight that it was actually INSULTING.  You should reconsider your career as an amateur freelance shitposter and go back to whatever pond you oozed out of.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> GASP
> YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD AND YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT
> GASP
> 
> suqq my nutz


I think it's quite obvious that I really don't care =)



Tycho said:


> You're a moron and your post was so bereft of intelligence and insight that it was actually INSULTING. You should reconsider your career as an amateur freelance shitposter and go back to whatever pond you oozed out of.


Okay


----------



## Jelly (May 26, 2010)

Why would you want to be thought of as an idiot that posts 15 times a day? =(


----------



## Tycho (May 26, 2010)

Ranzun the Dragon-Shark said:


> I think it's quite obvious that I really don't care =)



So you won't care when the mods get as tired of your bullshit as us, and bring the moderation/banhammer down on you?  Good to know.  They're more patient than most of us, but I don't know by how much...


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 26, 2010)

Jelly said:


> Why would you want to be thought of as an idiot that posts 15 times a day? =(


 I actually post 15 times a day once a week. If you notice, I get on sporadically (Not on for a week or a month) when I'm bored and have nothing to do. Anyways, tis the easiest thing to do to get people to notice you =P



Tycho said:


> So you won't care when the mods get as tired of your bullshit as us, and bring the moderation/banhammer down on you?


Someone is butt-hurt. Chill out, geez lol. I actually do bring sentimental value to threads, I'm actually being SARCASTIC and not putting in my two-cent as I have no knowledge of such a situation and be ignorant. But please do go on, feed the "troll."


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 27, 2010)

pheonix said:


> No. I think I only got about a quarter.
> 
> Fox mauls someone, (would most likely be a child or a really brain dead unaware adult) critically hurting/killing them is one good justifiable reason. I know there's more but I don't want to think about them so you do it.


The only recorded attack a fox has made on humans was in 1995, where it attacked a baby in a pram. The baby had some minor scratches and lived without a doubt.


----------



## Conker (May 27, 2010)

Humans > Mother nature

KILL EM TO FUCK AND BACK I SAY


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 27, 2010)

Conker said:


> Humans > Mother nature
> 
> KILL EM TO FUCK AND BACK I SAY


Don't you know mother nature controls humans? Tis true


----------



## Conker (May 27, 2010)

Ranzun the Dragon-Shark said:


> Don't you know mother nature controls humans?


Psh. America owns the planet. Mother Nature can't do shit cept throw the occasional earthquake at a 3rd world country.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 27, 2010)

Conker said:


> Psh. America owns the planet. Mother Nature can't do shit cept throw the occasional earthquake at a 3rd world country.


 Blasphemy D8


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 27, 2010)

Dragon shark, I repspect your views, but the original reason I created this topic was to ask the question if fox hunting WITH DOGS was humane or not, not to ask if fox hunting should be banned period. It's just that people are getting rather off topic.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (May 27, 2010)

darkumbreon135 said:


> Dragon shark, I repspect your views, but the original reason I created this topic was to ask the question if fox hunting WITH DOGS was humane or not, not to ask if fox hunting should be banned period. It's just that people are getting rather off topic.



I apologize. I was just making stupid jokes earlier, I knew they were lame, but not this dumb. I'll just limit myself to a lot less dumb jokes. Usually, I'm more mature, but I wanted to experiment something out which did not go quite as planned.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 27, 2010)

It's fine, no need to apologize.


----------



## darkumbreon135 (May 27, 2010)

I'm just going to get this topic locked now. The whole purpose of the topic was to ask people to sign the petition, not start arguements. I'm going to end this thread by saying please sign and thanks to everyone that posted.


----------

