Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Christ it's not difficult is it?
|
Sadly, it would appear that it is. You have, as others have pointed out, entirely missed / misinterpreted what I have said.
For the avoidance of doubt let me explain.
At no stage whatsoever did I mention or suggest or bring to the debate the issue of fox hunts killing cats, accidental or otherwise.
What I was referring to was the baseless, and frankly rather idiotic, anology which you introduced of third parties (leisure drivers)
accidentally killing cats whilst out driving ( driving, not hunting) and your question as to whether people would call for the ban of leisure driving.
The difference being that the leisure drivers might
accidentally kill a cat ie, they do not go out with the express intention of killing cats whereas hunts
do go out with the express intention of killing foxes. Note the two different intentions , contexts and animals involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Try to get your brain around it.
|
Indeed, please do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
In which I was making the point that if a group of people went out and "accidentally" killed a cat whilst pursuing a leisure activity would we want to ban the activity they were pursuing.
|
Pierre, with all due respect, you did not mention "accidentally" you posted
"I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned".
It was me who made the distinction between the accidental nature of the analogy you presented and the intentional nature of the premise of a hunt (in killing foxes, not cats I hasten to add).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Understand that bit? Good.
|
Here's hoping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Mr A then replied......Ok now focus on this bit:.........Thereby implying that a hunts express intention was one of killing a cat.
|
No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. That is exactly
not what I was implying.
My statement
"I don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort" was in direct reply to your analogy "
I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned.
Nowhere in your analogy about people being out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike do you make reference to a hunt and, similarily, nowhere in my reply do I make reference to a hunt having the express intention of killing a cat.
What I made reference to, in the context of leisure drivers, is the lack of legitimacy of your analogy. I assumed that you - and indeed everyone else, based on the common knowledge that hunts don't tend to use motorcycles or cars as a primary means of transport during the course of the chase, would have understood that my reference to cats was not made in relation to hunts per se.
Leisure drivers who accidentally run over cats (or any other animal) do not generally do so in a coordinated fashion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
This will be a really long debate if we have to waste several posts whilst their meaning are explained.
|
Quite, hence I hope that my, and others, attempts to explain to you what was actually being said is not in vain.
Let's move along now.