Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

MobileSaver

mayonnaise wrote: »

What's up with the forum layout?
All squeezed in the middle,

"Painkiller"'s method worked great for me!

Fix MSE awful narrow forum site width

mayonnaise

MobileSaver wrote: »

"Painkiller"'s method worked great for me!

Fix MSE awful narrow forum site width

Thank You!

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

Now that's interesting. Supposedly the clause on animal sentience was removed for streamlining as it's covered in .uk law ready* and not because the Tories think animals don't feel pain. So I guess I'm at least partially wrong. I can't be bothered finding the parliamentary transcripts to see how wrong.

*I'd have thought it'd have been more streamlined to have just left it in.

The Tories' idea of a fine day out is riding over the countryside, thrashing the serfs who get in their way, and tearing foxes apart. So I don’t think there’s much point expecting animal welfare legislation from that political party.

Herzlos

Fox hunting was another question I asked that was ignored. I appreciate that for farmers, foxes are vermin and need culled, but it's very hard to rationalize fox hunting with a party who claim to care about animal rights.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Fox hunting was another question I asked that was ignored. I appreciate that for farmers, foxes are vermin and need culled, but it's very hard to rationalize fox hunting with a party who claim to care about animal rights.

It's equally hard to rationalise opposing fox hunting with thinking that angling, deer-culling, halal slaughter and and horse-racing are all somehow different and perfectly OK. Would it be OK to hunt really big rats, for example? Because that's all foxes are.

Of course, if the reason for objecting to fox hunting is that you hate hunters, and that your political supporters like angling, deer-culling, halal slaughter and and horse-racing and hate "toffs", then it all makes sense, but the stench of hypocrisy is then unpleasant. Why not just admit whom you hate and say so?

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Fox hunting was another question I asked that was ignored. I appreciate that for farmers, foxes are vermin and need culled, but it's very hard to rationalize fox hunting with a party who claim to care about animal rights.

It depends whether you see animals as leaving, breathing creatures, or cartoons that appear in picture books and on milk cartons.

To rural Tories animal rights is about balancing the need to protect chickens and other lifestock with the desire not to cause unnecessary suffering to foxes, even if they are vermin. Hunting with dogs, while anachronistic, is a better death for the fox than poisoning or shooting.

To urban Labourites animal rights is about Fantastic Mr Fox who can speak like a human and wears a little waistcoat and therefore clearly shouldn't be hunted with dogs.

StevieJ

Malthusian wrote: »

It depends whether you see animals as leaving, breathing creatures, or cartoons that appear in picture books and on milk cartons.

To rural Tories animal rights is about balancing the need to protect chickens and other lifestock with the desire not to cause unnecessary suffering to foxes, even if they are vermin. Hunting with dogs, while anachronistic, is a better death for the fox than poisoning or shooting.

To urban Labourites animal rights is about Fantastic Mr Fox who can speak like a human and wears a little waistcoat and therefore clearly shouldn't be hunted with dogs.

So that is why many farmers won't allow fox hunters anywhere near their fields?

Local landowner Steven McLinn said: "Farmers are fed up with the hunts treating our land as their own.
"We are business people and we can't afford the damage caused by this hobby.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/get-off-our-land-angry-down-farmers-tell-fox-hunters-34615307.html

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

It's equally hard to rationalise opposing fox hunting with thinking that angling, deer-culling, halal slaughter and and horse-racing are all somehow different and perfectly OK. Would it be OK to hunt really big rats, for example? Because that's all foxes are.

Of course, if the reason for objecting to fox hunting is that you hate hunters, and that your political supporters like angling, deer-culling, halal slaughter and and horse-racing and hate "toffs", then it all makes sense, but the stench of hypocrisy is then unpleasant. Why not just admit whom you hate and say so?

I can understand hunting animals for food; it's usually done as humanely as possible (most traps are banned), and for a practical reason. It's therefore not really any different morally from buying in a supermarket.

Deer culling, just like fox culling, is also done for practical reasons, and in a fairly humane manner (shooting).

Halal food, whilst the animals aren't pre-stunned, tends to be fairly quick and painless, with the added benefit that the animals are treated with respect throughout the the process.

Fox hunting is none of the above. There's nothing practical, efficient or humane about a small army of horse riders poncing around the countryside (causing all sorts of damage), chasing a pack of dogs which will hunt and tear apart a small number of foxes. They also give away their attitude towards the animals and humans in how they behave with saboteurs, who often get attacked too.

So it's very unfair to try and equate a dislike of fox-hunting (which was banned due to cruelty, remember, even if it's ignored) to a dislike of the wealthy. If the same people went out into the countryside on foot, with a rifle, and killed the foxes that way, almost no-one would have any objection to it.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

Hunting with dogs, while anachronistic, is a better death for the fox than poisoning or shooting.

Being chased and torn apart by a pack of dogs is a better death than being shot (usually in the head or chest)? Seriously?

Here's the first google result for "best way to kill a fox":

http://www.wildlife-removal.com/howtokillafox.html

3rd paragraph:

Shooting
This is the best way to kill a fox.

The page doesn't even mention using dogs.

Do you have any reference to back up the claim that setting dogs on a fox is the best way to kill it?

To rural Tories, pest control is something left to the grounds keeper. "Fox hunting" is a sport, pure and simple.

System

Herzlos wrote: »

To rural Tories, pest control is something left to the grounds keeper. .

It's tedious to have to point this out, but most rural Tories don't have grounds keepers, and many hunt followers aren't Tories.

The trouble with simplistic generalisations is that you take a case with a modicum of truth and exaggerate it to the point that you spoil your own argument.