Bring Back Fox Hunting

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

The irony of this is, if you live near a hunt location, and legally own a shotgun, (Clay pigeon shooting use) and was to shoot any hunt dogs who were in your garden ripping to pieces your pet. You would get done for animal cruelty.

Go figure

Is it cruel to kill an animal humanely now as well? Jeeez the RSPCA have been doing that for years now and for reasons a lot less valid than having your pet ripped to pieces.

[Mr Angry]

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Try to get your brain around it.

Indeed, please do.

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).

Originally Posted by Pierre

Understand that bit? Good.

Here's hoping.

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

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

The irony of this is, if you live near a hunt location, and legally own a shotgun, (Clay pigeon shooting use) and was to shoot any hunt dogs who were in your garden ripping to pieces your pet. You would get done for animal cruelty.

Go figure

Would be an intresting test case, I wouldn't be so sure that you would end up being prosecuted for it.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Would be an intresting test case, I wouldn't be so sure that you would end up being prosecuted for it.

Well it's a pit of a poser for the animal lovers who so want to prevent cruelty to the poor old foxes..by shooting a defenceless animal that is only doing it's masters bidding...seems a tad hypocritical to me.However when I think of Hunt saboteurs of the past who attacked the horses used in the hunt one wonders what their motives really were..but if you are doing it because you hate 'toffs' remember this.The majority of people who are involved in foxhunting aren't toffs.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

On the contrary

You posted a link to a family pet being attacked by hunt dogs

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35025576-post342.html

I said that it was:

Originally Posted by Pierre
An unfortunate incident, where an innocent pet was killed by people undertaking a pastime.

I then offered the analogy of other people undertaking a pastime and accidentally killing a pet

Originally Posted by Pierre
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.

The issue being discussed at this point was about pets being accidentally killed by hunts.

you then countered that statement with

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

We were talking about pets not foxs at this point, and you what you posted is clear.

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".

And immediately before that on the same post. I wrote:

Originally Posted by Pierre
An unfortunate incident, where an innocent pet was killed by people undertaking a pastime.

Do youn think by that I was implying it was deliberately????

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)

Eh, it is clear the whole thrust of my point was that the killing of a family pet by a hunt was an accident. Therefore, the unfortunate event of an accident is not reason enough to be calling for the hunts to be banned.

That is all.

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. That is exactly not what I was implying.

Well that's how it read.

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.

Well if you can't join the dots in your head that the point I was making that going on a hunt or going for a leisurely drive are two recreational pastimes.

And if during one recreational pastime using horses a family pet is killed invokes one reaction

and if during another recreational pastime using cars or bike a family pet is killed invokes another kind of reaction.

Let's move along now.

Gladly

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

On the contrary

You posted a link to a family pet being attacked by hunt dogs

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35025576-post342.html

Pierre, at no stage did I mention, suggest or bring to the debate the issue of fox hunts killing cats, accidental or otherwise. You introduced the cat analogy.

The animal referenced in the link I provided is what is known as a "dog".

Allow me to elaborate in order to assist you with your particular quandary; cat and dog.

They are two very different species.

Evidently you are still having issues with the interpretation of statements made in basic english and relating same to the time / order / context in which those statements are made.

This seems to be an issue peculiar only to you in this thread. You are entirely, and I suspect intentionally, continuing to miss the point in an attempt to save face.

You said....

"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".

And I replied...

"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".

Others have also pointed out the fact that you have misinterpreted the gist of my posts - move along.

[Derek]

The foxes are fighting back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQfS6...layer_embedded

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't see anything wrong with fox hunting, and the killing there of.

I regularly use demestos to kill microscopic organisms by the billion.

I regularly kill flies, spiders, woodlice etc with the base of my shoe.

I caught and killed 2no. moles this year that had been making a mess of my lawn.

I have caught fish and killed them, sometimes eaten them sometimes not.

I regularly kill mice via traps and poison.

I have eaten the meat of a whole range of animals.

Is it just because because people see the fox as a lovely little fluffy bag of fun, who also used to be Robin Hood that they get so wound up about it?

Did you spread the blood of your kills on the younger members of the group and bay and scream like a maniac as you watched the death of said animal. Did you trespass on other peoples land whilst in the pursuit of you sport, Did you also kill other innocent animals in pursuit of your sport, Did you attempt to hit innocent bystanders that got in the way of your horse whilst carrying out your sport. You see i have seen all of this happen by the local hunt here, That's the way the hunt acts when it Carry's out its SPORT

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Did you spread the blood of your kills on the younger members of the group

This is done during deer hunting as well which involves a humane shooting rather than chasing down animals with dogs.

Are you against that as well?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Derek S

This is done during deer hunting as well which involves a humane shooting rather than chasing down animals with dogs.

Are you against that as well?

No because that is quick and humane. They are not ripped apart by a pack of dogs having run miles to try and escape while so called human beings watch and cheer

why do you think ripping an animal apart with a pack of dogs whilst people get entertainment from it is good. ???

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sirius

No because that is quick and humane.

So blooding when the death is quick (mostly) is OK but when the death is via dog its not OK

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Derek S

So blooding when the death is quick (mostly) is OK but when the death is via dog its not OK

Blooding is not my problem here to be honest. My point is killing an animal with a pack of dogs that has chased the poor animal for miles and then have so called human beings bay and scream with the entertainment there derive from it.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Blooding is not my problem here to be honest. My point is killing an animal with a pack of dogs that has chased the poor animal for miles and then have so called human beings bay and scream with the entertainment there derive from it.

Does have images of spectators at a Lions versus the Christians in ancient Rome.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Angua

Does have images of spectators at a Lions versus the Christians in ancient Rome.

Trust me i have seen them. It is truly a barbaric sight. The smiles and laughter sickens me to the core.

[Chrysalis]

I find it rather sad, this is thought about so early since the election.

A couple of nights ago I seen 2 foxes out in the street, a rare and nice sight, they played with each other and then walked around for a bit.