• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tories "will scrap hunting ban"

Laila said:
NSPCC = Children
NSPCA and RSPCA = Animals

Slightly sad when there is two national charities for animals and one for children ... :doh
Click to expand...

There's Barnado's too, and Children 1st, and lots of wee local charities.
 
Anima said:
There's Barnado's too, and Children 1st, and lots of wee local charities.
Click to expand...

Never heard of those two. Just in Scotland perhaps?
 
Laila said:
I have never heard of them personally in UK.
Why don't they do any of their crazy 'tricks' here like they do in US?
Click to expand...

They have done, to a certain extent. They had women showering in plexiglass booths in a London street for some reason, apparently. What that has to do with animal rights, I have NO idea. :shock:
 
Anima said:
They have done, to a certain extent. They had women showering in plexiglass booths in a London street for some reason, apparently. What that has to do with animal rights, I have NO idea. :shock:
Click to expand...

:shock:

No idea what it was supposed to achieve but look on the bright side. I'm sure it gave the tourists something else to ogle at.
 
Laila said:
Never heard of those two. Just in Scotland perhaps?
Click to expand...

Barnardo's, really? I thought that was a UK wide one. They used to run orphanages and now they run education centres and out-reach programs to kids with behavioural and learning difficulties, campaign on children's issues and assist children from vulnerable homes.

EDIT: Yep, Barnardo's is UK-wide. Their head-quarters are in East London.
 
Last edited:
Anima said:
You can think it's a silly point, but it's a true one none the less.
Click to expand...

True in what sense? It is a gross misrepresentation. Hunts are far from just dominated by toffs and more importantly so what if they were? It is the left and antis making it a class issue and hence it is silly.
 
kaya'08 said:
If you dont think such violence against these animals is enough a reason to butt our noses in, then hell, i cant help you! :lol:
Click to expand...
We didn't ask for your help.



People eat the foxes?

Unfortunately, these creatures are killed for fun, its simply a hobby to these posh stuck up retards. Animal rights and protecting them from unnecessary violent practices cannot be classified as "PC objections", because there is nothing PC about it. As well as using unnecessary, savage methods, but the mass killings of these animals during the hunting period is a blow to the countryside's ecosystem. You have no argument. You chose to ignore animal rights (as if committing a crime on your own property is OK), and work in favor of a hobby of a handful of wealthy British folk that claim there small scale savage hobby is an "ancient British practice". Making Egg and Bacon is an ancient British hobby, not killing foxes. Perhaps you should evaluate your idea of what British tradition really is, especially if your going to use it against the Elitists. [/QUOTE]Firstly you have been asked to prove the massive damage to the fox-hunting population and have not? So that can be dismissed. Secondly you are continuing the misrepresentation, of which you have no proof, and I can tell you fox-hunting is far from just for the rich. So that isn't a point. Thirdly I see nothing wrong with hunting for fun in a sustainable way.

We are not talking about torturing any animal just for fun here but a bit more violence than regular hunting for an ancient practice that has an important cultural and ritual place in rural communities. I weigh that up against the violence and if the urbanites are not willing to deal with us respectfully I say the violence is worth it.




Regulating something as wild scale as fox hunting to meet certain hunting criteria is impractical and it cannot be done. Your far better off banning the practice outright. Again, highlighted area doesnt mean jack to me and its not enough to justify savagery.
Click to expand...
You're far off better trying to compromise or not only will you be in the current situation where the Tories are going to bring it all back but the resentment will be created in the countryside.


Oh, so your part of the upper crust of Britain are you, and us evil middle class-ums are your masters? :lol:
Click to expand...
What upper-crust. It is your side using that gross misrepresentation which is quite ironic after you defence of corporate-capitalism.
 
Wessexman said:
We are not talking about torturing any animal just for fun here but a bit more violence than regular hunting for an ancient practice that has an important cultural and ritual place in rural communities. I weigh that up against the violence and if the urbanites are not willing to deal with us respectfully I say the violence is worth it.
Click to expand...

But it is for fun and sport.

It is not done for necessity. Foxes can be culled in a more simpler and less ... expensive and extravangant way.
Nor is it done for food. That too would be acceptable to me. Do hunters eat the foxes they tear apart?

It is done for fun, for the joy of the ride and that is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
Kill it with a bullet to the head, don't torture the animal for a sport.
 
Laila said:
But it is for fun and sport.

It is not done for necessity. Foxes can be culled in a more simpler and less ... expensive and extravangant way.
Nor is it done for food. That too would be acceptable to me. Do hunters eat the foxes they tear apart?

It is done for fun, for the joy of the ride and that is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
Kill it with a bullet to the head, don't torture the animal for a sport.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. What is your point? It has a very important cultural and ritual place in some rural communities however. To me, without the other side being willing to compromise, that is more important than a bit of violence to some foxes and the pleadings of middle class urbanites.
 
The tradition argument does not cut if for me nor should it be a way out from the law and a way to justify that blood sport.

I can compromise just fine.
Hunt without the dogs and shoot the fox, clean bullet to the head.
There is my compromise. I'd say i am being extremley reasonable seeing i hate the practice of fox hunting to begin with. I just met you more than halfway
 
Laila said:
The tradition argument does not cut if for me nor should it be a way out from the law and a way to justify that blood sport.
Click to expand...
But you are not a county person, so it isn't your business. And I think it should be justification for this small amount of violence, certainly over its total banning. If we removed every tradition because of these kinds of minor, PC objections we'd have none left. I don't know way you keep talking about the law though, we are discussing it being lifted not breaking it now. If Cameron gets his way it won't be against the law.

I can compromise just fine.
Hunt without the dogs and shoot the fox, clean bullet to the head.
There is my compromise. I'd say i am being extremley reasonable seeing i hate the practice of fox hunting to begin with. I just met you more than halfway
Click to expand...
The dogs are necessary, having the foxes shot and training the dogs to simply drive them out would be better in my book.
 
Wessexman said:
If Cameron gets his way it won't be against the law.

The dogs are necessary, having the foxes shot and training the dogs to simply drive them out would be better in my book.
Click to expand...

Every tradition does not involve a blood sport tyvm.

As i said, welcome to the world of politics which has no limit on its reach. Being in the country does not make you immune from the law, nor does tradition.

And how do we ensure the dogs do not tear the fox apart? That the hunt 'group' do not break the law and allow it to happen anyway?
Hunt. Just hunt without the hounds.

No doubt he will but i can shut up for a few years until Labour comes back and revokes and reverses it ;)
 
Laila said:
Every tradition does not involve a blood sport tyvm
Click to expand...
So? Many can be faulted on the left-liberal, univeralist ideal of gov't. It pretty much has no place for tradition, particularlism or the diversity of human society and human nature beyond the sterile symmetry of its schemes.
As i said, welcome to the world of politics which has no limit on its reach.
Click to expand...
Are you quoting Hobbes, Rousseau, the Jacobins, Marx or Lenin there?:2razz:

Conservatives, decentralists and those who believe in limited gov't, good gov't and liberty disagree.

Being in the country does not make you immune from the law, nor does tradition.
Click to expand...
We are talking about what the law should be. It should respect tradition and subsidiarity/ decentralisation.
And how do we ensure the dogs do not tear the fox apart? That the hunt 'group' do not break the law and allow it to happen anyway?
Hunt. Just hunt without the hounds.
Click to expand...
How do we ensure the hunters don't accidentally shoot each other?

We make sure they the dogs are trained other than that there is little need for any more intervention. The risk of the dogs going too far is certainly not enough to justify complete repression.

Hounds flush out the foxes, they are necessary.

No doubt he will but i can shut up for a few years until Labour comes back and revokes and reverses it ;)
Click to expand...
And then we'll wait until the Tories are back in again. A great way to turn the countryside blue and raise resentment. Why don't you try and be respectful and compromise instead?
 
Last edited:
But until such assurances are given and extremtley harsh punishment to anyone who breaks it. Ban hounds until further notice.
I met more than halfway with this. How far can you compromise.

So? I can play ping pong as much as anyone else. Hardly deters me.
The country votes is not as much as city votes.
I would hardly care if it turns blue or not if i was a labour strategist seeing it is mainly blue anyway.
I'd care about all the major cities in UK and Scotland. Done deal.
 
Laila said:
But until such assurances are given and extremtley harsh punishment to anyone who breaks it. Ban hounds until further notice.
I met more than halfway with this. How far can you compromise.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt think you have met more than halfway, particularly with the master-like attitude but I'm willing to compromise and agree with you. Not that it isn't currently banned.
So? I can play ping pong as much as anyone else. Hardly deters me.
The country votes is not as much as city votes.
Click to expand...
Most of the city dwellers don't really care about this issue. The county people far from make it their sole agenda but the dictatorial attitudes and resentment cause are much more important to them than this issue is to the city dwellers.
I would hardly care if it turns blue or not if i was a labour strategist seeing it is mainly blue anyway.
I'd care about all the major cities in UK and Scotland. Done deal.
Click to expand...
As every great statesman from Solon to PiusXI has known a strong rural and healthy population and agriculture is essential to a strong, healthy and free state.
 
Doesn't matter.
The country does not have enough votes to sway or make a difference to the cities even if they wanted. Face that.

I met halfway, just because it is not the conclusion you wish does not mean i did not compromise.
I don't want this disgusting blood sport abolished now do I? Hunt. Hunt without hounds. Very simple
 
Laila said:
Doesn't matter.
The country does not have enough votes to sway or make a difference to the cities even if they wanted. Face that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I believe in decentralism, I'd give countryfolk a lot more of say over their own destiny and as I said before; As every great statesman from Solon to PiusXI has known a strong rural and healthy population and agriculture is essential to a strong, healthy and free state. This dictatorial attitude is no way to achieve that.
I met halfway, just because it is not the conclusion you wish does not mean i did not compromise.
I don't want this disgusting blood sport abolished now do I? Hunt. Hunt WITHOUT hounds.
Click to expand...
I thought you were okay withe hounds now? That is not halfway, that is no compromise at all.

What you said before was not halfway, particularly in the dictatorial and disrespectable manner you laid it down, but it was acceptable enough. Hunting with hounds but training them not to attack the foxes is an acceptable compromise.
 
Last edited:
No perhaps about it.

What manner? Oh come on Wessex. Just because i am not jumping on this "tradition" bandwagon there is no need to be like that.

I still do not know what compromises you made.
 
Laila said:
No perhaps about it.

What manner? Oh come on Wessex. Just because i am not jumping on this "tradition" bandwagon there is no need to be like that.

I still do not know what compromises you made.
Click to expand...
The manner comment is quite legitimate, I'm not making it personal, I still like you. I'm just saying that you are being very much like you must do this or else and not really understanding or listening to the other side because, heaven forbid, a few foxes get hurt. Foxes are being put before the vitality of rural communities it seems to me.

Anyway you seemed to be saying you accept hunting with hounds if the are trained not to attack the foxes? Do you not agree with this? That would be an acceptable compromise, there is no compromise otherwise unless you think it is a compromise that I be able to shoot a pest on my private property. The argument the hounds might still occasionally go too far is not much of an argument and shows no willingness to compromise at all.
 
Wessexman said:
The manner comment is quite legitimate, I'm not making it personal, I still like you. I'm just saying that you are being very much like you must do this or all and not really understanding or listening to the other side because, heaven forbid, a few foxes get hurt. Foxes are being put before the vitality of rural communities it seems to me.
Click to expand...

I can listen to the other side fine.
I just do not accept the argument you are placing of 'tradition'
That is not a legitimate reason to me.
But if you wish.
I will not shut up and let you say your piece in favour of fox hunting and respond ..... Go ahead

Anyway you seemed to be saying you accept hunting with hounds if the are trained not to attack the foxes? Do you not agree with this? That would be an acceptable compromise, there is no compromise otherwise unless you think it is a compromise that I be able to shoot a pest on my private property. The argument the hounds might still occasionally go too far is not much of an argument and shows no willingness to compromise at all.
Click to expand...

If the hunts are subject to random checks by someone from the RSPCA etc. to ensure it has been killed swiftly and no dog tearing then deal.
 
Laila said:
I can listen to the other side fine.
I just do not accept the argument you are placing of 'tradition'
That is not a legitimate reason to me.
But if you wish.
I will not shut up and let you say your piece in favour of fox hunting and respond ..... Go ahead
Click to expand...
I was more talking about your willingness to lay down the law to the countryside.

Tradition is usually very important. The individual reason is limited, we cannot easily comprehend society with all its associations, functions, roles, authorities, statuses, ideational factors and such. Each one of these may have links with any others of which we have little direct knowledge, making a change in one possibly creating unpredictable results in others. Therefore we must often trust to tradition, because it is what has worked and built up over time this is particularly true for important things in society and communities. Obviously change must come but it must come piecemeal, with continuity and with due veneration for what is left unchanged. For rural communities fox hunting has long held a quite important ritual and communal place and by simply trampling all over that in the name of stopping a little violence to foxes we can't know exactly what this may do to the rural communities who are already underfire.

If the hunts are subject to random checks by someone from the RSPCA etc. to ensure it has been killed swiftly and no dog tearing then deal.
Click to expand...
I could agree with that.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I was more talking about your willingness to lay down the law to the countryside.

I could agree with that.
Click to expand...

Well on that then i cannot compromise.
Country shouldn't get away with anything just because westminister is in the city.
They have MP's who are represented in Parliament. More than enough.

Well then we compromised and reached a agreement yes?
 
Laila said:
Well on that then i cannot compromise.
Country shouldn't get away with anything just because westminister is in the city.
They have MP's who are represented in Parliament. More than enough.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. I believe regions, counties and locales should have a lot more power, more than Westminister itself over internal matters. I'm very much the decentralist.

Well then we compromised and reached a agreement yes?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

It would be interesting to hear you views on my traditional conservative argument about tradition over rationalism when it comes to politics. Obviously I like most people today also succumb to rationalism when it comes to society and politics, we live in a society where everyone has their schemes for gov't, but I'd like to think I succumb to it less and when I do mine are for a decentralism that respects local traditions and customs and is about giving power to those most likely to comprehend the conditions on the ground. Which is quite different to arch-rationalists like the Jacobins who tried to reconstruct an entire nation from one legislature residing in the capital.
 
Wessexman said:
It would be interesting to hear you views on my traditional conservative argument about tradition over rationalism when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

Tradition is fine.
A fine line has to be walked by politicans and publics in preserving and respecting traditions and not allowing to have free reign.
When needed the law should answer concerns but otherwise leave them to their devices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom