Not all antis are sabs.

[Mid]

I'm anti, and am just a little annoyed at how we're stereotyped because of the actions of a few (well... a lot) of sabs prancing around the countryside and generally being idiotic.

I've listened to both arguments, for and against, and made my choice. I do not force it on other people, and I'm sure none of the other antis on this forum do, either

So yes. I much prefer the whipper in himself to any sabbateur! In fact, I'd rather they banned the ban and went back to london!

Thankies for listening, guys, and remember - Some antis do have a smidgeon of intelligence in their big heads And some even enjoy civilised conversation! And it's those one's who end up apologising for all of the rest.

Here gos: I'm sorry, dear H&Her, for each and every irritation/danger, minor or major, a stupid anti has caused you I hope you can forgive the smarter ones of us.

Thankyou for reading! And if that didn't make sense, please do ignore it - It's late and I'm tired

 

[Onyxia]

Makes me so sad you felt the need to post this.
IMO, antis dont agree with what we as pro's do.Fair enough, thats your RIGHT, but no anti would even consider hurting horses/hounds or worse children out hunting.
Sabs are the scum of the earth.
Two VERY different groups in my mind.

 

[smilincow21]

Yes anima I agree, I think that most anti's have animal welfare in mind. However the sabs don't cause trouble for animal welfare, they do it for the hell of it! Whats worse is they seem to get away with it! How any animal lover could carry out pepper spraying hounds eyes and purposefully hurting horses is beyond me! Having said that though, up here we don't have any sabs, the closest to them are the anti's on the sab line. Those people, and yes there are few of them, who purposefully swerve into hounds with intent to run them over, and those that honk their horns right next to horses- its an accident waiting to happen!

 

[peakpark]

I do not force it on other people, and I'm sure none of the other antis on this forum do, either

The second part of that sentence is debatable!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The thing that is sometimes forgotten is that just because your anti hunting doesn't mean that you have to be pro the Hunting Act.

I suspect that what you are anti is cruelty and you feel that hunting can be cruel. Of course it can and people shouldn't be cruel. However the Hunting Act defines hunting so widely and loosely that it's impossible to agree with it banning everything it bans.

It's quite clear that the Hunting Act bans much that no one would think it is cruel. It is an illiberal law. Because they were concerned about proving that you are doing anything wrong ie being cruel they removed the requirement for cruelty from the law. It's perfectly possible to break the Hunting Act without doing anything wrong whatsoever.

Laws like this just become ridiculous. Why on earth should anyone obey the law if they are not being cruel? The fact is that in general people don't have to obey the Hunting Act.

It would be much better to have a law against cruelty to animals. That may be difficult to prove but we should have to prove that people are doing something wrong before we make them criminals. Everyone could be expected to obey that law and it would be hard to argue against it.

 

[Mid]

Precisely!

Yeah, I'd much rather people hunted, especially for food, rather then buy the meat. If you're not prepared to kill an animal yourself, you shouldn't eat it