Returning to subject. I agree with everything you have said, Bettyboop. However, I do think there is a confusion in some people's minds between 'cruelty' and 'sadism'. I would suggest that the former is dependant on effect, and the latter on intent. When I suggest that predators can be cruel, I am not trying to suggest that pain is their intent, but the outcome, and not just from a sense of survival, but also from a pleasure instinct.

---

by Jayjay
While I'm in rant mode, I might as well make it three in a row.

There have been some posts that seem to suggest that animals kill to survive and not for pleasure. This is pure hogwash.

---

A trifle insulting, no? I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if somebody responded in kind...

{Edit} Joe, this quote from Jayjay was made days ago. You have made several posts on this topic since then. Referring back to it now is simply a way to try and provoke more argument that this thread certainly does not need. Please refrain from doing this again or your posts will be removed.

(Edited by Red 25/03/2002 13:15)

You find that insulting? We really shouldn't meet in person, as I'm far more insulting face-to-face.

---

by Jayjay
I certainly don't think I've said anything to belittle someone else's argument (except on one petulant occasion in response to a very insluting post).

---

I may of course be way off the mark in assuming that this referred to one of my posts. If you can tell me who's 'very insulting post' you responded to, I'll have a better idea of what you consider 'insulting'

If someone has 'insulted' someone then take it to email or contact the staff about it. Don't make an issue out of it on the boards.

---

by Joe
Referring back to it now is simply a way to try and provoke more argument that this thread certainly does not need.

---

You should have figured out by now that that isn't the case at all

---

by Jayjay
Returning to subject. I agree with everything you have said, Bettyboop. However, I do think there is a confusion in some people's minds between 'cruelty' and 'sadism'. I would suggest that the former is dependant on effect, and the latter on intent. When I suggest that predators can be cruel, I am not trying to suggest that pain is their intent, but the outcome, and not just from a sense of survival, but also from a pleasure instinct.

---

I agree JayJay that they are two different things, and there is a need to clarify them.
And believe it or not, I do agree with you that it isn't an ideal state of affairs to have the majority overrule the minority-unfortunately that is sometimes what is necessary when you live in an interactive & interdepedant society such as ours. And I too think that a rational debate would be a much better way to deal with fox hunting than just inforcing a ban without consideration of those who participate. However, I think that such a debate would be flawed from the start as the people who do participate see no reason for why they should not do it. And I don't think that this is because of their social class, but I do think it is because of the 'society' that they have been brought up & live in. People who go to hunts have been (generally) born into the 'hunt society' which is a society where fox hunting is taken as a pass time and is perfectly acceptable-if they have been brought up in such an atmosphere of acceptance then a debate regarding fox hunting would be largely futile in my opinion. On one hand you would have people in favour of fox hunting being banned (or at least controlled so that it becomes a useful & successful method of 'pest control' and the regalia & ceremony of the entertainment value is taken away), and on the other hand would be people who believe (and I guess, rightly so, seeing as the society they live in provides acceptance) that there is nothing wrong with what they do. How would you reach an agreement in such a debate I don't know. In principle I think such a debate would be fair, in practicality I think it would be futile.

---

by Sweet-Sange
I have read now a lot of defferent reports on the subject and really find that they all still come to the conclusion that Fox hunting can cause suffering to the Fox. And the ones who don't I would really like to know why because Unless you are a Fox how can you possibly know what its like to be chased and caught and killed.

and then in answer to your first reply to that I said

No I can't but then neither can they ..... what I'm pointing out is that "they" do say the fox doesn't suffer from the chase and the hunt and the kill

---

You implied they did suffer with 'And those who don't...' following a statement about the fox suffering. But my apologies, I was certainly misreading to some extent.

---

I was expressing My opinion on the subject which you haven't

---

But then people would have things to use against me, beyond my usual careless posting

I came late to the topic and found my opinions had already been expressed by several people and more eloquently than I could have, therefore I saw no point in stating them. Also, and unlike some posters, I expect any opinion I do express to be challenged, and rightly so. If I don't feel up to the argument, I don't express my opinion. Posting boards are not like normal conversations, the arguments will be evident for a long time, and the words more open to close scrutiny. I appreciate it's not always evident, but I try to think before I speak

---

by Demona
(quotes)

You implied they did suffer with 'And those who don't...' following a statement about the fox suffering. But my apologies, I was certainly misreading to some extent.

(quotes)

But then people would have things to use against me, beyond my usual careless posting

I came late to the topic and found my opinions had already been expressed by several people and more eloquently than I could have, therefore I saw no point in stating them. Also, and unlike some posters, I expect any opinion I do express to be challenged, and rightly so. If I don't feel up to the argument, I don't express my opinion. Posting boards are not like normal conversations, the arguments will be evident for a long time, and the words more open to close scrutiny. I appreciate it's not always evident, but I try to think before I speak

---

Agreed

As I do mine, I've always been of the opinion as I first posted in this thread "ban it 'nuff said" but this thread had made me think more into the implications of this, I still have my own opinons and people will always find something to argue with me about those but I think I'm a lot more informed about the subject now and I thank everyone who has posted in this thread for that

---

by BettyBoop
And I too think that a rational debate would be a much better way to deal with fox hunting than just inforcing a ban without consideration of those who participate. However, I think that such a debate would be flawed from the start as the people who do participate see no reason for why they should not do it.

---

Really, enjoyed your post, BTW.

However (you knew that was coming, didn't'cha?), I do disagree with your conclusion. Yes, in general, most people who approve of foxhunting will have grown up in a culture that approves of it. Although I wouldn't assume this as a universal truth. However, this is true of most opinions, and yet cultural shifts do take place. More people oppose foxhunting now than, say, fifty years ago. How did that happen? Through debate and the promulgating of the concept of 'animal rights'. It didn't happen over night. Any discussion on this subject with a pro-foxhunter will be unlikely to end in agreement. But then neither would a disagreement with a Racist, Homophobe, Misogynist, Capitalist, or supporter of a certain team from the wrong side of the Pennines. However, this will never stop me debating with them. Yes, there are extremists you cannot debate with, as it may turn violent. This is true of any side of any debate. But if we continue to address the issue and to challenge opinions on it then the 'sport' may become so unpopular that it becomes impractical to continue. This seems to be a better approach than banning, which alienates and divides the country, and not on this issue alone. It will also force the activity underground, as any form of prohibition does (alcohol, drugs, prostitution or homosexuality, for example), and alienates those taking part from the rest of society, to the point where there is antipathy and distrust for all activities, not just the originally proscribed one.

Change won't come overnight, but is achievable over time, we just need to show patience and understanding.

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)

Really, enjoyed your post, BTW.

---

Well I aim to please, (now that sounds wrong!)
Again, I agree with you that as an ideal solution such a rational & agreed upon decision should be sought. But how long will it take? How many times has this bill already been through parliment? How much longer can we go on watching & through our silence, condoning fox hunting?
At least a ban will make the activity illegal, meaning that at least the RSPCA could step in & protect the foxes, and the horses & hounds-as it stands nothing is done at all. Apart from hunt sabs, who are themselves breaking the law to try & do what the law should really be doing itself.
Sorry if my post isn't as acceptable as my last-having a bad day

No worries.

How long will it take? As long as it has to. I'd reckon a couple of generations. But what do I know? How many times through Parliament? I've already said that I don't think Parliament is the place for this. Yes, banning is a quick fix. And I'm sure, if they were capable, the foxes would be grateful. But. What are the consequences? Banning is another word for Prohibition. You isolate those who currently support foxhunting, which could lead to greater schisms in society, and much harder to heal. Worse yet, you condone the banning of activities by the largest group. I don't use the word majority because Parliament is not proportional, those MPs voting for banning do not hold a majority of the vote in this country, and I have yet to see any serious study that shows the majority of the UK populace wants a ban. Even if they did, we would still be saying that the majority has the right to tell a minority how to live its life. That's a dangerous precedent in the modern era. Yes, there have been equivalents in the past, but we're trying to reverse those with more liberal policies towards sexuality, drug use and prostitution. If we give with one hand and take with the other we are telling future generations that moral authoritarianism is acceptable and desirable. That scares me a whole lot more than the killing of foxes.