Contradictions

[Doreys_Mum]

I'm with both of you on this - and agree with your points.

Are you a full veggie, or just meat?

I was a mix - I ate eggs but only cos my own chickens laid them, I did dairy but in my usual small quantities (Me and dairy don't get along) and I did fish, because my mother was at her wits end trying to make alll inclusive meals!!

Earlier this year I started eating meat again cos not only was it now problematic with my mum, but it was with Myles too - it was more expensive to buy his meaty meal and my veggie one than one we could share, and we can't afford that!

Also, because I'm not against eating meat on principle, I will eat it if I know it's source, so I'm very keen on local organic meat

 

[Parkranger]

See I just don't know if I could eat it now - on a taste basis! I gave it up after the BSE thing - not through fear of catching BSE (I was weaned on mince beef like alot of our generation, so I'm buggered anyway) but it was actually seeing some of the things the animals went through in the slaughterhouse...not nice at all and I don't want to be part of that. Can't afford top grade organic meat either so do without!

 

[Doreys_Mum]

I'm not keen on much meat anymore either - beef, lamb and some pork just don't seem to taste like I remember...

but ham and chicken are my poison... *cries*

I have to confess to being a great fan of game too...

 

[AlanE]

Ah Ruggs, missed the point again, I think! The point, surely, is that you cannot divide out the various components of hunting. You accept that stone-age man probably sat around the fire and relived a good hunt. You seem to think that was OK because he was killing animals for food. Since cave painting may well have been some sort of magic to give hunters success, then they were perhaps more likely to do that when the hunting was bad, not good. If an excess of game was killed, I am sure they would have managed to eat it. BUT, they didn't really need it.

This produces a problem for you, because at that point you will - if you are consistent - have to say they were wrong to go hunting, and in your world, you would have banned it.

It might be , of course, that if game was plentiful, they hunted sickly animals for sport, culling them so that the healthy game had food and would stay in the area.

Perhaps you would also accept that when farming first began, mankind killed predators which affected his agriculture. This was another form of hunting, in the sense that it was only indirectly connected to food: it was preserving stock, not providing food directly.

I suspect you would also acknowledge the acceptability of such actions.

Contemporary farmers have a problem with foxes. As do various urban authorities, and both these groups kill large numbers of foxes.

Hunting kills a proportunately small number, but contributes to the total kill. It does it in a natural manner, in the foxes own environment, and is arguably the most humane of all methods used for fox control.

Therefore your premise that 'it is wrong to kill animals for sport', does not automatically oppose you to hunting, since there is always another reason why animals are hunted. If this had not been the case, then hunting would have died out years ago. It has not, and nor will it, because it is an intrinsic part of the human species, just as it is of the natural world around us.

 

[flying_change]

I've never opposed the idea of necessary hunting for food or to cull or to deal with problem animals. If a fox is killing your chickens thend I have no problem whatsoever with you killing the fox (humanely, of course). I said that last year, and they year before, and the year before that.

Just dont make a sport out of it. And I said that last year, and they year before, and the year before that too.

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But isn't shooting foxes just as much of a 'sport' for some people?

Or is it OK to 'enjoy' something as long as it's not a formal sport.

What about the rat carcher who enjoys his job?

Or the executioner?

 

[Parkranger]

I must admit, the smell of cooked chickens at tescos does make me weep but I just can't do it now after 5 years!!!

 

[Doreys_Mum]

chicken and bacon sandwhichs in the village... *sobs*

I make my own now I moved...

 

[flying_change]

"But isn't shooting foxes just as much of a 'sport' for some people?
Or is it OK to 'enjoy' something as long as it's not a formal sport."

Any activity that inolves harming or killing animals that is made into a sport (formal or informal) is immoral.

"What about the rat carcher who enjoys his job?
Or the executioner? "

I cant believe you've brought these up. I think the first time they were mentioned here was about 5 years ago, and they crop up about once every year. I have no problem with the ratcatcher who enjoys his job, nor the executioner. I'm sure that both jobs can give satisfaction in their way without being made into sports. For example, both people could take satisfaction for their skilling killing without causing unecessary pain or distress to the subject.

 

[AlanE]

Ruggs: Why not simply admit you are trying to impose your idea of 'morals' on the rest of us? Your arguments don't give you a leg to stand on, and I think you acknowledge that in your mind, but are afraid to admit it to the rest of us.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So you've no problem with people getting enjoyment from killing.

You don't oppose hunting but you oppose hunting for sport.


What is it about hunting as a sport that you find immoral, as opposed to killing for fun?

 

[flying_change]

"What is it about hunting as a sport that you find immoral, as opposed to killing for fun? "

I dont know where you got the idea that these two things might be different.

 

[severnmiles]

Why would moral issues have anything to do with fun or entertainment, I fail to see the connection.

 

[flying_change]

Sport = fun = entertainment, surely ?

 

[KJI_Lover]

Something being fun doesn't necessarily make it sport.

Hunting serves a purpose and is fun to some groups of people. Does that make it bannable under "RS Law" being that fun is being had? My plea would be a higher purpose is being satisfied so the fun is a mere by product, a secondary satisfaction, and hence not relevant.

 

[Doreys_Mum]

Sport is fun, yes, but not everything that is fun is a sport...

I have fun coming onto HHO...

 

[flying_change]

" Does that make it bannable under "RS Law" being that fun is being had? "

Yup

 

[flying_change]

And not every sport involves killing animals. But if you make a sport out of killing, or get fun out of it, or make it entertainment, it becomes immoral.

Getting fun or entertainment out of HHO (or for me, making sport out of tormenting pros) is not immoral.

 

[severnmiles]

I've said before 'down ere in them there deep dark dank valleys' (okay so its not like that at all) we call it pest control...not sport! It doesn't make it any less enjoyable though.

 

[flying_change]

Not exactly an oxymoron there, but close.....

Have a good weekend.

RS

 

[severnmiles]

Are you saying I'm contradicting myself? :shocked:

And you! Have fun!!

 

[KJI_Lover]

" Does that make it bannable under "RS Law" being that fun is being had? "

Yup

RS you can't say that....it's totally deleterious to my arguement

 

[AlanE]

Ruggs, I'm waiting for the penny to drop!

You have stated that if hunting is 'killing for sport', then it is 'immoral'.

Have you therefore not realized that, for example, if YOU were to go hunting, (under the premise that, for that particular fox in a certain location, that was the best way of dealing with it ), then, because YOU were not hunting for' entertainment', then you could hunt in your own moral certitude that you were doing no wrong!

Your hypocrisy is mindblowing!

 

[soggy]

" Your hypocrisy is mindblowing!"

Are you sure that it has a mind to blow?

Every thing its posted so far has been so empty headed that I seriously doubt that it had a mind in the first place.

Sport+Fun= Immorality. LMAO.

So if hunting was just a job of work or a activity that a group of like minded individuals took part in but received no enjoyment from it would be morally justifiable.

What a crock!

 

[severnmiles]

Yes SBB, if there was no field or followers and there was just the huntsman and two hunt servants then the whole thing would be moral, according to RS.

 

[CARREG]

"Yes SBB, if there was no field or followers and there was just the huntsman and two hunt servants then the whole thing would be moral, according to RS"

So what difference does it make to the fox how many people are there

RS, out of all the pathetic reasons for people being opposed to hunting yours has got to be the worst...............Carreg

 

[soggy]

Well he's a friend of old Pasty Faced Mairi, what more can you expect.

 

[flying_change]

You can always tell when a pro has run out of reason and argument. They resort to insult and invective. Thanks for letting me know you've got nothing more to say.

 

[flying_change]

Exactly !

 

[flying_change]

Oh, and by the way, I notice that you find it easy to make insults about others appearance while hiding your own. Post your photo and you might earn a little respect.