Is it politically acceptable to say he is nuts?

[AlanE]

This was a letter to the Independent:

Fox-hunting is a moral outrage

Sir: It is a moral outrage that hunting folk, many of them privileged, take pleasure from the torture and death of an animal, and also escape prosecution for breaking our laws so openly (Letters, 21 November).

But this outcome is not so surprising, given that the legislation to ban hunting with dogs was fatally flawed because it did not tackle this moral question. The ban should have been based on the premise that humans find the torture and killing of animals for pleasure or as a sport to be morally wrong and unacceptable in a civilised society.

I believe that repugnance for hunting is growing, and I fervently hope more and more will speak out in favour of consigning one of our last barbaric pursuits to the dustbin of history.

CLLR PETER VALENTINE

OADBY, LEICESTERSHIR


Now, I don't know about you, but I am bemused when I read such nonsense. The man is a councillor, presumably someone voted him in, and yet he believes these sort of medieval myths which the anti hunters put about! Ignorance on this scale, I believe, is worrying for those living in Oadby. It is the sort of blind bigotry which this man demonstrates which should be consigned to the dustbin of history!

 

[Fairynuff]

Depends on ones point of view. M.

 

[Jemayni]

which should be consigned to the dustbin of history!

I love the fact that his closing comment is a quote from the Bolshevik terror group; certainly this contradicts the "save the trees" tone of the whole letter.

This letter is extremely one-sided as many are - arguing the same weather-beaten argument. It does make you question whether there is a way for both sides to educate the other, opposed to the same arguments being merely passed from one side to the other....

 

[flying_change]

You know, one day I'd love it if you'd just accept that a lot of people feel this way.... just accept that they do... without having to say they're stupid, or nuts, or ignorant. Because by saying they are nuts you're hiding from what they are saying.

 

[Sooty]

Do you not think though that a man in a position of responsibility should have done a little teeny weeny bit of research before spouting such drivel in a national paper? He may well be nuts, but what he has written is stereotypical tripe spouted by the uninformed.

 

[AlanEE]

Mairi says 'it depends on one's point of view'. FC says' accept that a lot of people FEEL this way'.

I don't expect a councillor or an MP to make decisions which relate to people's freedoms simply because they 'feel' this or that.

The man lives near some classic hunts:he has no excuse for his ignorance.

 

[flying_change]

Why is it drivel ?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Because he is saying that if you hunt you enjoy torturing animals.

Also hunting causes far less suffering than many other of our so called 'barbaric' pursuits.

 

[peakpark]

"The ban should have been based on the premise that humans find the torture and killing of animals for pleasure or as a sport to be morally wrong and unacceptable in a civilised society."

Cllr Valentine doesn't mention shooting or fishing, but presumably he is opposed to those on the same grounds.

 

[ROSSTHEJOCK]

Or maybe its just his opinion Sooty......

 

[Sooty]

Maybe it is, but to form an accurate opinion it is preferable to be in possession of some facts, even if not all of them!

 

[flying_change]

Decisions ? The letter makes no decisions.

 

[flying_change]

I agree that people who enjoy traditional hunting were participating in an activity in which an animal is deliberatly chased and killed.

 

[flying_change]

Well, if you;re really interested you could write and contact him. But of course, shooting and fishing have not been banned, and traditional hunting has.

 

[flying_change]

And the facts you'd like him to be in possession of ara... ?

 

[flying_change]

.... actually, I'm not sure that the words 'accurate' and 'opinion' really go together.....

 

[ROSSTHEJOCK]

I suppose it all depends which side of the fence you fall upon....because somebody has been hunting does not mean they would find it less cruel. Who knows....maybe he has witnessed one?

 

[Sooty]

I think if he had seen one he might not have used the word 'torture'. Just an inkling. Which I always thought was a baby fountain pen...

 

[ROSSTHEJOCK]

"I think if he had seen one he might not have used the word 'torture'..."

Although he may and many others who have witnessed one first hand may view it that way....

 

[peakpark]

"Well, if you;re really interested you could write and contact him"
Good idea, RS, maybe I will.
Incidentally, what's your stand on shooting and fishing?

 

[flying_change]

Same as for hunting.

 

[CARREG]

A few days ago I was listening to a debate on hunting, there was a fella from the LACS speaking on the radio, when asked the position of the league with regards to fishing he lied and squirmed for about ten mins, he was then drawn to make the statement...." the LACS has never brought up or discussed any matters to do with fishing in any of its meetings"...I thought you lying twat...lol...he was destroyed by the presenter anyway...lol...............Carreg

 

[Sooty]

Ah fishing. The deliberate harming of, and causing pain to, a creature purely for sport. No conservation issues, just pure fun. If sitting on a wet riverbank to catch a fish then throw it back again is fun. Fishing is fine as long as you eat what you catch, same as shooting. Otherwise, why do it?

 

[severnmiles]

Well that takes out all of the course fishermen in the country in one hit!

In certain times of the salmon season it is against the rules to kill the fish and it must be returned to the river.

Regarding shooting, it depends what it is you're shooting.

Under the Hunting Act 04 foxes must be shot after being flushed by hounds, would you like to eat a fox? Yet there is more than one reason to cull one.

 

[Boudicea]

You are bemused and find someone nuts because he doesnt see Hunting like you do? I would say that statement makes you a bit nuts. There are many things in life that I like and others dont or vice versa but thats life aint it? Or is your perception and beliefs the only right way to live?

And then you moan that antis come on here to wind you up by making statements like you just did, is it a case of good for the goose but not the gander? Would I be politically correct if I said you were a raving loony? And not everyone on horseback is prohunt m'dear, do you good to remember that.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think it's the perceived implication that everyone who hunts enjoys torturing animals that people find bizzarre. It's like saying that everyone who fishes enjoys torturing fishes. They don't, they enjoy fishing. People who hunt enjoy hunting.

 

[flying_change]

Good post !

 

[flying_change]

I'm not a member for LACS; I dont speak for them; they dont speak for me. My statements and beliefs expressed here are my own.

 

[flying_change]

"People who hunt enjoy hunting. "

Care to finish this next sentence.... ?

'And hunting involves killing ___________ '

 

[severnmiles]

But thats not neccessarily the bit we enjoy!

You might enjoy golf, it envolves walking around the green, it doesn't mean that you enjoy walking though does it?!