A HAMPSHIRE landowner has strenuously denied any involvement with the killing of badgers found on his land.
Police are investigating after six carcasses of the protected species were discovered in woodland between Winchester and Stockbridge.
The League Against Cruel Sports said its investigators found 50 snares and traps in woodland owned by Heath House Estate and other dead animals including tawny owls, foxes, crows and squirrels.
advertisement
But landowner Donald Hutchison told the Daily Echo that the dead animals had nothing to do with him or his staff.
Foxes, crows and squirrels - all regarded as pests - were killed but legally, he said. He denied anyone had harmed badgers or tawny owls.
Mystery of six badger carcasses found on land
Mr Hutchison, 73, said: "The police came on to the estate with three people with disguised faces, their caps pulled down and photographing everybody. None of us have been interviewed by the police.
"I think the badgers have been planted. Animal activists know we have a shoot here. They are targeting shooting estates to try to prove things against shooting.
"We do not kill badgers. It is not the thing that we do. No illegal traps have been placed in our woods."
"The wood is on the edge of Stockbridge Downs (a National Trust reserve) and it would be easy for anyone to dump these animals. I find the whole thing somewhat twisted and extraordinary," said Mr Hutchison.
The police have refused to confirm or deny that they are investigating the killings.
LACS chief executive Douglas Batchelor described the killings as "the worst case of badger slaughter I have experienced."
Mr Hutchison said that soon after the arrival of LACS activists, the car of a hurdle-maker parked on the estate was vandalised.
The hurdle-maker, who asked not to be named, said the Ford Mondeo was written off, with every window smashed and had since been scrapped.
"I have worked up here for the last 15-18 years and never had any trouble before this incident," he said.
Firstly, I would like to know why the police are siding with "three people with disguised faces, their caps pulled down and photographing everybody".
This, in itself, sounds extremely suspicious and the police should remain open in their investigations, avoiding this cloak and dagger approach at all times.
Secondly, I have often seen badger sets disturbed in parts of the New Forest, including areas owned by the National Trust, although have yet to see any carcasses.
Am I now correct in saying that it must be the National Trust who are disturbing the badgers because it is on their land?
Of course not! Neither is this landowner guilty of killing badgers without any evidence to support the claims made.
As for the animal activists, those I have met often tend to be the eccentric drop outs of society with nothing better to do that stir up trouble for other, law abiding citizens.
Firstly, I would like to know why the police are siding with "three people with disguised faces, their caps pulled down and photographing everybody".
This, in itself, sounds extremely suspicious and the police should remain open in their investigations, avoiding this cloak and dagger approach at all times.
Secondly, I have often seen badger sets disturbed in parts of the New Forest, including areas owned by the National Trust, although have yet to see any carcasses.
Am I now correct in saying that it must be the National Trust who are disturbing the badgers because it is on their land?
Of course not! Neither is this landowner guilty of killing badgers without any evidence to support the claims made.
As for the animal activists, those I have met often tend to be the eccentric drop outs of society with nothing better to do that stir up trouble for other, law abiding citizens.
Posted by: Anderson, Basingstoke on 12:05pm Mon 9 Jul 07
I'm inclined to agree with you GL. After all why would the landowner kill badgers if there's no benefit to him? They don't compete with or prey on pheasants - it makes no sense. Animal activists on the other hand often display a massive ignorance of rural ecology, and have an "end justifies the means" policy when it comes to framing evidence. Their spokesmen have been proved to be liars time and again when questioned about direct action. AS for the police - their stupidity and political prejudice has been displayed often enough not to need comment.
I'm inclined to agree with you GL. After all why would the landowner kill badgers if there's no benefit to him? They don't compete with or prey on pheasants - it makes no sense. Animal activists on the other hand often display a massive ignorance of rural ecology, and have an "end justifies the means" policy when it comes to framing evidence. Their spokesmen have been proved to be liars time and again when questioned about direct action. AS for the police - their stupidity and political prejudice has been displayed often enough not to need comment.
Posted by: Animal lover - not nuts!, planet earth on 3:44pm Mon 9 Jul 07
Killing, Squirrels, Crows and Foxes justified! I don’t think so! Killing for fun is sick, talk about the balance in nature – it is humans who have disturbed it – he may not have killed the badgers but he is equally responsible as an animal killer – oh, and animal lovers are not all nut jobs!
Killing, Squirrels, Crows and Foxes justified! I don’t think so! Killing for fun is sick, talk about the balance in nature – it is humans who have disturbed it – he may not have killed the badgers but he is equally responsible as an animal killer – oh, and animal lovers are not all nut jobs!
[quote][bold]Animal lover - not nuts![/bold] wrote:
Killing, Squirrels, Crows and Foxes justified! I don’t think so!
Killing for fun is sick, talk about the balance in nature – it is
humans who have disturbed it – he may not have killed the badgers but
he is equally responsible as an animal killer – oh, and animal lovers
are not all nut jobs![/quote] Typical straw man from the animal activists. Where in this story, or anywhere else, is "for fun" indicated? Why is this man responsible? Because it's on his land? How does that work?
Nobody has said anything about animal [italic]lovers[/italic] being nut jobs, just the fanatical ones. You know, the kind who will steal granny's corpse in order to blackmail a family. That sort of thing
Animal lover - not nuts! wrote:
Killing, Squirrels, Crows and Foxes justified! I don’t think so!
Killing for fun is sick, talk about the balance in nature – it is
humans who have disturbed it – he may not have killed the badgers but
he is equally responsible as an animal killer – oh, and animal lovers
are not all nut jobs!
Typical straw man from the animal activists. Where in this story, or anywhere else, is "for fun" indicated? Why is this man responsible? Because it's on his land? How does that work?
Nobody has said anything about animal lovers being nut jobs, just the fanatical ones. You know, the kind who will steal granny's corpse in order to blackmail a family. That sort of thing
Posted by: Barry, Southampton on 10:36pm Mon 9 Jul 07
Killing for fun = raising thousands of pheasant chicks to produce a few adult birds that you can blast out of the sky to prove how clever you are.
But, even worse, is the fact that the landowner feels justified in killing all other wildlife in the area just to protect his precious pheasants.
Why kill badgers? Probably just an innocent by-product of the many traps all over the estate. Traps kill any poor innocent creature who wanders by - including domestic pets.
How about this - forget the shooting and leave the wildlife in peace. Would the world really be so much worse with a few more badgers, foxes and squirrels?
Killing for fun = raising thousands of pheasant chicks to produce a few adult birds that you can blast out of the sky to prove how clever you are.
But, even worse, is the fact that the landowner feels justified in killing all other wildlife in the area just to protect his precious pheasants.
Why kill badgers? Probably just an innocent by-product of the many traps all over the estate. Traps kill any poor innocent creature who wanders by - including domestic pets.
How about this - forget the shooting and leave the wildlife in peace. Would the world really be so much worse with a few more badgers, foxes and squirrels?
Od dear its the granny corpse accusation again! You know it's rather pathetic and getting very tiresome, that all you cruel mindless morons can use against animal rights activists is the bloody granny fiasco.
For Christ sake, get a life and more importantly a conscience.
It's obvious that the land owner allowed thugs to kill those badgers and owls to protect his pheasants.
Also since animal activists are into caring about animals, where in the world would they get the corpses to leave around the estate. It dosen't take a brain surgeon to work out who was responsible. Good God, but you pro-hunt scum are thick!
Believe me, if animal rights people were anywhere near as bad as real terroriats, you cowards would be quaking in your boots!!!!
Od dear its the granny corpse accusation again! You know it's rather pathetic and getting very tiresome, that all you cruel mindless morons can use against animal rights activists is the bloody granny fiasco.
For Christ sake, get a life and more importantly a conscience.
It's obvious that the land owner allowed thugs to kill those badgers and owls to protect his pheasants.
Also since animal activists are into caring about animals, where in the world would they get the corpses to leave around the estate. It dosen't take a brain surgeon to work out who was responsible. Good God, but you pro-hunt scum are thick!
Believe me, if animal rights people were anywhere near as bad as real terroriats, you cowards would be quaking in your boots!!!!
Oh, just a footnote! The car supposedly vandalised by LACS members, but where was the evidence. If my car had been trashed I would have reported it straight to the police. More lies no doubt from the hunting fraternity. An industry based on lies!
Trouble for them is they get found out time and again!
Oh, just a footnote! The car supposedly vandalised by LACS members, but where was the evidence. If my car had been trashed I would have reported it straight to the police. More lies no doubt from the hunting fraternity. An industry based on lies!
Trouble for them is they get found out time and again!
What's a hurdle maker doing down in 'ampshire? I thought they never moved out of Whitehall.
Back to the issue, I'd love to know the facts on this one because they would shed light on certain aspects of human conduct.
You don't have to be a landowner to initiate a holocaust against badgers but it helps.
You don't have to be a hunt saboteur to go completely insane on the issue of wild animal deaths but it helps.
What's a hurdle maker doing down in 'ampshire? I thought they never moved out of Whitehall.
Back to the issue, I'd love to know the facts on this one because they would shed light on certain aspects of human conduct.
You don't have to be a landowner to initiate a holocaust against badgers but it helps.
You don't have to be a hunt saboteur to go completely insane on the issue of wild animal deaths but it helps.
Posted by: Peter H, Somerset on 12:38am Tue 10 Jul 07
If I drove twenty miles every day around my Somerset lanes I bet you in 6 days I would pick up 6 road kill badgers. If I was a twisted person not into pheasant shooting I could throw them onto a pheasant shoot, call the police/LACS should make a good story hey what
If I drove twenty miles every day around my Somerset lanes I bet you in 6 days I would pick up 6 road kill badgers. If I was a twisted person not into pheasant shooting I could throw them onto a pheasant shoot, call the police/LACS should make a good story hey what
I dare say it would be possible to pick up two or three badger road kills in a short space of time, having seen how fast hunt supporters drive around those country lanes, but six badgers is pushing it, plus the other animals found at the same time - well it's obvious who the culprit is, and I don't beleive for a minute that its LACS. WHY? Because they are whiter than white! I should know, I was ticked off once for having a go at a pro-hunt newspaper because of their bias.
As for the twisted ones - come on Peter, the only twisted ones are those that can't accept life without killing for fun.
Oh and while we are in dispute over the way so called animal rights people behave, what does Peter think about the way pro-hunt thugs behave when they beat up people that stand in the way of their cruel bloody pastime. I'v no doubt he will say they deserve it. He'd also probably say I deserved the death threats I received two years ago. Well despite the abuse, I and many others will continue to try and defend animals from torture, no matter how many yobs an estate owner employs.
Face it Peter! You are a dying breed.
Oh and by the way! You southern pro-hunt lot are thought of as the most evil in the country. Your reputation has reached many! In fact you lot make even our local hunt look sane.
Enough said!!!!!!!
I dare say it would be possible to pick up two or three badger road kills in a short space of time, having seen how fast hunt supporters drive around those country lanes, but six badgers is pushing it, plus the other animals found at the same time - well it's obvious who the culprit is, and I don't beleive for a minute that its LACS. WHY? Because they are whiter than white! I should know, I was ticked off once for having a go at a pro-hunt newspaper because of their bias.
As for the twisted ones - come on Peter, the only twisted ones are those that can't accept life without killing for fun.
Oh and while we are in dispute over the way so called animal rights people behave, what does Peter think about the way pro-hunt thugs behave when they beat up people that stand in the way of their cruel bloody pastime. I'v no doubt he will say they deserve it. He'd also probably say I deserved the death threats I received two years ago. Well despite the abuse, I and many others will continue to try and defend animals from torture, no matter how many yobs an estate owner employs.
Face it Peter! You are a dying breed.
Oh and by the way! You southern pro-hunt lot are thought of as the most evil in the country. Your reputation has reached many! In fact you lot make even our local hunt look sane.
Enough said!!!!!!!
[quote][bold]Judi Hewitt[/bold] wrote:
Od dear its the granny corpse accusation again! You know it's rather
pathetic and getting very tiresome, that all you cruel mindless morons
can use against animal rights activists is the bloody granny fiasco.
For Christ sake, get a life and more importantly a conscience. It's
obvious that the land owner allowed thugs to kill those badgers and
owls to protect his pheasants. Also since animal activists are into
caring about animals, where in the world would they get the corpses to
leave around the estate. It dosen't take a brain surgeon to work out
who was responsible. Good God, but you pro-hunt scum are thick!
Believe me, if animal rights people were anywhere near as bad as real
terroriats, you cowards would be quaking in your boots!!!![/quote] Yet more worthless rhetoric from AL morons. Exactly how is anyone here a "coward"? Exactly why is the "granny corpse" fiasco disallowed from mention? Exactly where is it obvious the landowner allowed anything? Seems like quite a leap to me. Exactly who has stated a pro-hunting stance in this thread? Scum? Thick? Based on what? Oh look, there's the old "get a life" diversion, too.
I particularly love how anyone who does not share your exact views [bold]must[/bold] be
* Pro-hunting
* mindless morons
* thick
* scum
* cowards
* without conscience
* in need of a life
I like how animal activists are beyond reproach, simply because they say so, too. Wonderful reasoning
Tell me again about how you people are rational......
Judi Hewitt wrote:
Od dear its the granny corpse accusation again! You know it's rather
pathetic and getting very tiresome, that all you cruel mindless morons
can use against animal rights activists is the bloody granny fiasco.
For Christ sake, get a life and more importantly a conscience. It's
obvious that the land owner allowed thugs to kill those badgers and
owls to protect his pheasants. Also since animal activists are into
caring about animals, where in the world would they get the corpses to
leave around the estate. It dosen't take a brain surgeon to work out
who was responsible. Good God, but you pro-hunt scum are thick!
Believe me, if animal rights people were anywhere near as bad as real
terroriats, you cowards would be quaking in your boots!!!!
Yet more worthless rhetoric from AL morons. Exactly how is anyone here a "coward"? Exactly why is the "granny corpse" fiasco disallowed from mention? Exactly where is it obvious the landowner allowed anything? Seems like quite a leap to me. Exactly who has stated a pro-hunting stance in this thread? Scum? Thick? Based on what? Oh look, there's the old "get a life" diversion, too.
I particularly love how anyone who does not share your exact views must be
* Pro-hunting
* mindless morons
* thick
* scum
* cowards
* without conscience
* in need of a life
I like how animal activists are beyond reproach, simply because they say so, too. Wonderful reasoning
Tell me again about how you people are rational......
Judi,
All, I can say is - I couldn't agree with you more!!!
I think all these hunters are bloody primitive cowards that will lie and try to blame all on animal activists. Animal activists may have their quirks but at the end of the day - animal activists try to save lifes vs. hunters take lives - for pleasure (or whatever excuse they give you!). It's pretty obvious who the bad guys are..... Terrorists are fanatics that have one mission - that's to kill.....well, sounds like hunters!
Judi,
All, I can say is - I couldn't agree with you more!!!
I think all these hunters are bloody primitive cowards that will lie and try to blame all on animal activists. Animal activists may have their quirks but at the end of the day - animal activists try to save lifes vs. hunters take lives - for pleasure (or whatever excuse they give you!). It's pretty obvious who the bad guys are..... Terrorists are fanatics that have one mission - that's to kill.....well, sounds like hunters!
Posted by: K WATSON, STOCKPORT on 10:16am Tue 10 Jul 07
If these people had nothing to hide, why was a car seriously vandalised? Such brutish behaviour only confirms misgivings about the way animals are treated on "sporting" estates. Badgers are protected animals - when they are found dead in suspicious circumstances it is right for the authorities to investigate.
If these people had nothing to hide, why was a car seriously vandalised? Such brutish behaviour only confirms misgivings about the way animals are treated on "sporting" estates. Badgers are protected animals - when they are found dead in suspicious circumstances it is right for the authorities to investigate.
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote:
Judi,
All, I can say is - I couldn't agree with you more!!!
I think all these hunters are bloody primitive cowards that will lie
and try to blame all on animal activists. Animal activists may have
their quirks but at the end of the day - animal activists try to save
lifes vs. hunters take lives - for pleasure (or whatever excuse they
give you!). It's pretty obvious who the bad guys are..... Terrorists
are fanatics that have one mission - that's to kill.....well, sounds
like hunters![/quote] More sensationalist nonsense. Since when was sending letter bombs a "quirk"? Why do you define people solely by their stance on hunting? Animal activists are painted to be cutesy little peace-loving hippies whereas everyone else is a moustache-twirling evil s0d who is hell-bent on killing as many animals as possible. Then there's the "find a trait common between my target and a current media bad guy (terrorists) and thus 'prove' them to be one and the same". Whatever you think of hunters, they are certainly not terrorists. They do not have "one mission - to kill", by any stretch of the imagination.
I knew a woman once who didn't trust men with clean fingernails. Why not? Because Jack the Ripper allegedly had clean fingernails. You're applying that same magical thinking here. Until you learn to get your point across with a degree of logic and reason, rather than screaming "Terrorists! Won't somebody think of the children!" all the time, you won't ever get taken seriously
If your arguments and points carry any weight at all (note I'm not saying they don't) you shouldn't need all this tabloid rhetoric nonsense
MB wrote:
Judi,
All, I can say is - I couldn't agree with you more!!!
I think all these hunters are bloody primitive cowards that will lie
and try to blame all on animal activists. Animal activists may have
their quirks but at the end of the day - animal activists try to save
lifes vs. hunters take lives - for pleasure (or whatever excuse they
give you!). It's pretty obvious who the bad guys are..... Terrorists
are fanatics that have one mission - that's to kill.....well, sounds
like hunters!
More sensationalist nonsense. Since when was sending letter bombs a "quirk"? Why do you define people solely by their stance on hunting? Animal activists are painted to be cutesy little peace-loving hippies whereas everyone else is a moustache-twirling evil s0d who is hell-bent on killing as many animals as possible. Then there's the "find a trait common between my target and a current media bad guy (terrorists) and thus 'prove' them to be one and the same". Whatever you think of hunters, they are certainly not terrorists. They do not have "one mission - to kill", by any stretch of the imagination.
I knew a woman once who didn't trust men with clean fingernails. Why not? Because Jack the Ripper allegedly had clean fingernails. You're applying that same magical thinking here. Until you learn to get your point across with a degree of logic and reason, rather than screaming "Terrorists! Won't somebody think of the children!" all the time, you won't ever get taken seriously
If your arguments and points carry any weight at all (note I'm not saying they don't) you shouldn't need all this tabloid rhetoric nonsense
Posted by: Anderson, Basingstoke on 10:34am Tue 10 Jul 07
Judi, if you go to a hunt and then attempt to disrupt it, you are deliberately going to provoke trouble. It's the reason why you go, so why mewl about it when people get angry? They don't pursue you to your home and disrupt your life. I'm always interested to know why you don't go to Halal or kosher butchers where animals are slaughtered cruelly - I suspect it's because there's a nasty whiff of class warfare in anti hunt protesting that tops any concern for gorgeous little foxes. Oh and by the way do your care equally for the plight of the brown sewer rat at the hands of the council pest controller or is it only animals with fluffy tails and big brown eyes?
Judi, if you go to a hunt and then attempt to disrupt it, you are deliberately going to provoke trouble. It's the reason why you go, so why mewl about it when people get angry? They don't pursue you to your home and disrupt your life. I'm always interested to know why you don't go to Halal or kosher butchers where animals are slaughtered cruelly - I suspect it's because there's a nasty whiff of class warfare in anti hunt protesting that tops any concern for gorgeous little foxes. Oh and by the way do your care equally for the plight of the brown sewer rat at the hands of the council pest controller or is it only animals with fluffy tails and big brown eyes?
You know what? when there's a total lack of reason and logic around that's usually a sign that a woman is posting. There's no structure or point in arguing or debating logically with people like MB or Judi because you just get back a different point to the one argued. Suddeny everyone's a hunter (why?), suddenly everyone loves to murder animals(where?). Never mind the logic of Anderson's or george's points, let's just avoid answering difficult questions and start screaming.
You know what? when there's a total lack of reason and logic around that's usually a sign that a woman is posting. There's no structure or point in arguing or debating logically with people like MB or Judi because you just get back a different point to the one argued. Suddeny everyone's a hunter (why?), suddenly everyone loves to murder animals(where?). Never mind the logic of Anderson's or george's points, let's just avoid answering difficult questions and start screaming.
[quote][bold]Brian[/bold] wrote:
You know what? when there's a total lack of reason and logic around
that's usually a sign that a woman is posting. There's no structure or
point in arguing or debating logically with people like MB or Judi
because you just get back a different point to the one argued. Suddeny
everyone's a hunter (why?), suddenly everyone loves to murder
animals(where?). Never mind the logic of Anderson's or george's points,
let's just avoid answering difficult questions and start screaming.[/quote] Indeed. Appeals to emotion are all-too prevalent in every debatable aspect of life these days. Given recent comments made by Labour spokespeople, I honestly expect a retort along the lines of "Lewis Hamilton managed to win a Grand Prix without killing any animals!". No, I'm not joking
Brian wrote:
You know what? when there's a total lack of reason and logic around
that's usually a sign that a woman is posting. There's no structure or
point in arguing or debating logically with people like MB or Judi
because you just get back a different point to the one argued. Suddeny
everyone's a hunter (why?), suddenly everyone loves to murder
animals(where?). Never mind the logic of Anderson's or george's points,
let's just avoid answering difficult questions and start screaming.
Indeed. Appeals to emotion are all-too prevalent in every debatable aspect of life these days. Given recent comments made by Labour spokespeople, I honestly expect a retort along the lines of "Lewis Hamilton managed to win a Grand Prix without killing any animals!". No, I'm not joking
GEORGE, I understand what you're saying; I admit I don't agree with a lot of things animal activists do. I think all extremism is wrong and I'm against any kind of violence, whether it’s violence towards people or animals. But I also think we treat animals a lot worse then we treat pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc. It seems that it’s ok to kill or torture an animal that has done nothing wrong, but criminals no matter what wrong they do, they just get to go to prison, even in case of death penalty they are spared suffering (compare to what animals have to endure by us anyway) and I don’t think they should be! Criminals but also hunters ARE cowards and bullies, they have one thing in common – a great desire to inflict pain/death upon something/someone who is helpless and vulnerable. How do you justify hunting? You’re saying that “hunter’s mission is not to kill by any stretch of the imagination.” What is hunter’s mission then? I thought it was obvious. Maybe you’ll say the animals deserve it and they’re inferior to us humans? But all the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals. Any idiot can pull a trigger but it takes a compassionate good man not to. Also they say, “the greatest thrill of all is not to kill but to let live.” Maybe you should try it sometimes who knows it may feel better then killing....? ;)
GEORGE, I understand what you're saying; I admit I don't agree with a lot of things animal activists do. I think all extremism is wrong and I'm against any kind of violence, whether it’s violence towards people or animals. But I also think we treat animals a lot worse then we treat pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc. It seems that it’s ok to kill or torture an animal that has done nothing wrong, but criminals no matter what wrong they do, they just get to go to prison, even in case of death penalty they are spared suffering (compare to what animals have to endure by us anyway) and I don’t think they should be! Criminals but also hunters ARE cowards and bullies, they have one thing in common – a great desire to inflict pain/death upon something/someone who is helpless and vulnerable. How do you justify hunting? You’re saying that “hunter’s mission is not to kill by any stretch of the imagination.” What is hunter’s mission then? I thought it was obvious. Maybe you’ll say the animals deserve it and they’re inferior to us humans? But all the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals. Any idiot can pull a trigger but it takes a compassionate good man not to. Also they say, “the greatest thrill of all is not to kill but to let live.” Maybe you should try it sometimes who knows it may feel better then killing....? ;)
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote:
GEORGE, I understand what you're saying; I admit I don't agree with a
lot of things animal activists do. I think all extremism is wrong and
I'm against any kind of violence, whether it’s violence towards people
or animals. But I also think we treat animals a lot worse then we treat
pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc. It seems that it’s ok to kill or
torture an animal that has done nothing wrong, but criminals no matter
what wrong they do, they just get to go to prison, even in case of
death penalty they are spared suffering (compare to what animals have
to endure by us anyway) and I don’t think they should be! Criminals but
also hunters ARE cowards and bullies, they have one thing in common – a
great desire to inflict pain/death upon something/someone who is
helpless and vulnerable. How do you justify hunting? You’re saying that
“hunter’s mission is not to kill by any stretch of the imagination.”
What is hunter’s mission then? I thought it was obvious. Maybe you’ll
say the animals deserve it and they’re inferior to us humans? But all
the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact:
in suffering the animals are our equals. Any idiot can pull a trigger
but it takes a compassionate good man not to. Also they say, “the
greatest thrill of all is not to kill but to let live.” Maybe you
should try it sometimes who knows it may feel better then killing....?
;)[/quote] Seems you didn't understand what I was saying, at all. What I actually said, which you chose to mis-quote, was "[hunters] do not have [bold]"one mission - to kill"[/bold], by any stretch of the imagination". Nobody can argue that the point of a hunter is to kill an animal. The implication in some of the more inane posts above was that hunters do nothing but kill. You forget that these are just ordinary people who happen to hunt. But thankyou for yet again proving that people on your side of the fence are incapable of actually conducting a reasoned discussion, and instead resort to word-twisting, straw man tactics and empty rhetoric to support your cause. I also liked your assumption that I'm a hunter myself - and by "like", I mean "dislike". It is possible to empathize with a cause without actively participating in that cause, you know. The world won't collapse under the weight of This Great Paradox
For the record, I am not particularly pro-hunting, it's quite obvious to me that the effort expended in a fox hunt is grossly disproportionate to their claims of vermin control. Equally, though, I feel the effort spent on trying to stop hunting is grossly disproportionate to the effects. We as a society have far bigger problems than a bit of fox hunting, why not concern yourselves with those issues instead? On the issue of fox-hunting, I remain neutral. It's not particularly pleasant, but there are far more unpleasant ways in which human beings break things.
As regards your assertion that animals are our equals in suffering, I feel I have to disagree with you there. I'd encourage you to look more closely at this area, starting perhaps with this link
http://www.lloydiana
spects.co.uk/evolve/
pigeon.html
Finally, you seem to have a very black-and-white view of the world, which does you a dis-service. One cannot assert that all criminals and hunters have "a great desire to inflict pain/death upon something/someone who is helpless and vulnerable". I'm sure I do not need to expand on that particular falsehood. Do you really believe all victims of crime have pain infliced upon them? Do you really believe that all victims are helpless and vulnerable? Do you really believe that all crime is borne out of a desire to inflict pain and death? Not old-fashioned greed, then? By the way, most forms of the death penalty are far from suffering-free. Lethal injection for instance, is incredibly painful. Another argument falls flat on its face
MB wrote:
GEORGE, I understand what you're saying; I admit I don't agree with a
lot of things animal activists do. I think all extremism is wrong and
I'm against any kind of violence, whether it’s violence towards people
or animals. But I also think we treat animals a lot worse then we treat
pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc. It seems that it’s ok to kill or
torture an animal that has done nothing wrong, but criminals no matter
what wrong they do, they just get to go to prison, even in case of
death penalty they are spared suffering (compare to what animals have
to endure by us anyway) and I don’t think they should be! Criminals but
also hunters ARE cowards and bullies, they have one thing in common – a
great desire to inflict pain/death upon something/someone who is
helpless and vulnerable. How do you justify hunting? You’re saying that
“hunter’s mission is not to kill by any stretch of the imagination.”
What is hunter’s mission then? I thought it was obvious. Maybe you’ll
say the animals deserve it and they’re inferior to us humans? But all
the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact:
in suffering the animals are our equals. Any idiot can pull a trigger
but it takes a compassionate good man not to. Also they say, “the
greatest thrill of all is not to kill but to let live.” Maybe you
should try it sometimes who knows it may feel better then killing....?
;)
Seems you didn't understand what I was saying, at all. What I actually said, which you chose to mis-quote, was " do not have "one mission - to kill", by any stretch of the imagination". Nobody can argue that the point of a hunter is to kill an animal. The implication in some of the more inane posts above was that hunters do nothing but kill. You forget that these are just ordinary people who happen to hunt. But thankyou for yet again proving that people on your side of the fence are incapable of actually conducting a reasoned discussion, and instead resort to word-twisting, straw man tactics and empty rhetoric to support your cause. I also liked your assumption that I'm a hunter myself - and by "like", I mean "dislike". It is possible to empathize with a cause without actively participating in that cause, you know. The world won't collapse under the weight of This Great Paradox
For the record, I am not particularly pro-hunting, it's quite obvious to me that the effort expended in a fox hunt is grossly disproportionate to their claims of vermin control. Equally, though, I feel the effort spent on trying to stop hunting is grossly disproportionate to the effects. We as a society have far bigger problems than a bit of fox hunting, why not concern yourselves with those issues instead? On the issue of fox-hunting, I remain neutral. It's not particularly pleasant, but there are far more unpleasant ways in which human beings break things.
As regards your assertion that animals are our equals in suffering, I feel I have to disagree with you there. I'd encourage you to look more closely at this area, starting perhaps with this link
Finally, you seem to have a very black-and-white view of the world, which does you a dis-service. One cannot assert that all criminals and hunters have "a great desire to inflict pain/death upon something/someone who is helpless and vulnerable". I'm sure I do not need to expand on that particular falsehood. Do you really believe all victims of crime have pain infliced upon them? Do you really believe that all victims are helpless and vulnerable? Do you really believe that all crime is borne out of a desire to inflict pain and death? Not old-fashioned greed, then? By the way, most forms of the death penalty are far from suffering-free. Lethal injection for instance, is incredibly painful. Another argument falls flat on its face
George,
From your reply, it appears that you didn’t understand what I was saying. When a hunter goes on a hunt, what is the mission? To read a book or to kill an animal? It’s pretty clear, no? I never said that the only thing hunters do is to kill. By the way, my Grandfather is a hunter, yes he is!, just not in this country so I think I know first hand that hunters are just ordinary people that also do other things apart from hunting! He’s killed and eaten many animals through his life and now he’s dying of intestinal cancer.
I’m on no one’s side maybe you just didn’t read my post. I said I don’t agree with many things AR activists do, so I don’t consider myself on ‘their side of the fence”. If you have to put me on any side - I’m on the non-violence one, ok? I tried to make that clear in my last post. Maybe you’re not a hunter but you’re justifying killing, so I thought you wouldn’t be against pulling the trigger yourself. Or do you just justify it but let the ‘other’ people do the ‘dirty’ work? To be honest, you don’t seem neutral at all, you expressed quite clearly where you stand. And yes, I’m concerned about bigger problems/issues, just as I’m concerned about illegal hunting. I think all killing is wrong and hunting is a big problem when it comes to many animals like bears, tigers, elephants etc., they’re all on the verge of extinction, mainly due to hunting and loss of habitat, and I don’t discriminate, like I said, I believe all hunting for sport, trophies or ‘pleasure’ is purely wrong and evil!
Lol, I started to read the page from the link you sent and it made me laugh just to read the first sentence. The person is obviously a hunter or a killer and is gruesomely describing how to kill a pigeon, while stating that pigeons are NOT conscious and intelligent creatures. This guy is actually missing a great deal of intelligence himself and sounds like a psychopath. Ever heard how pigeons helped people in the time of war? I urge you to do a little research on that. This guy takes it as far as comparing a pencil to a pigeon and that pencil doesn’t feel cruelty if you snap it!! It’s so pathetic what he’s saying, I won’t comment on it further and I do trust you to be a lot more of an intelligent person then for me to have to go into an argument about the difference between a pigeon and a pencil. Regarding your disagreement that animals are our equals when it comes to suffering and as an argument for it, pointing out this page SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU, I will leave it at that.
Again, I wasn’t speaking for the each and every single case of criminal activity. I’ve spoken about those particular cases and to quickly answer your questions. “Do you really believe all victims of crime have pain infliced upon them?” The ones I mentioned - victims of rape, murder, child molestation etc. – Yes, I absolutely do, whether it’s physical or psychological pain or both, it’s individualistic. “Lethal injection for instance, is incredibly painful” – I won’t even ask you how you know this for sure….! But I bet you, if you had a choice to die either by lethal injection OR dying by being caught in a snare or having your body mutilated while fully conscious, I think I know which one you’d go for… ;)
George,
From your reply, it appears that you didn’t understand what I was saying. When a hunter goes on a hunt, what is the mission? To read a book or to kill an animal? It’s pretty clear, no? I never said that the only thing hunters do is to kill. By the way, my Grandfather is a hunter, yes he is!, just not in this country so I think I know first hand that hunters are just ordinary people that also do other things apart from hunting! He’s killed and eaten many animals through his life and now he’s dying of intestinal cancer.
I’m on no one’s side maybe you just didn’t read my post. I said I don’t agree with many things AR activists do, so I don’t consider myself on ‘their side of the fence”. If you have to put me on any side - I’m on the non-violence one, ok? I tried to make that clear in my last post. Maybe you’re not a hunter but you’re justifying killing, so I thought you wouldn’t be against pulling the trigger yourself. Or do you just justify it but let the ‘other’ people do the ‘dirty’ work? To be honest, you don’t seem neutral at all, you expressed quite clearly where you stand. And yes, I’m concerned about bigger problems/issues, just as I’m concerned about illegal hunting. I think all killing is wrong and hunting is a big problem when it comes to many animals like bears, tigers, elephants etc., they’re all on the verge of extinction, mainly due to hunting and loss of habitat, and I don’t discriminate, like I said, I believe all hunting for sport, trophies or ‘pleasure’ is purely wrong and evil!
Lol, I started to read the page from the link you sent and it made me laugh just to read the first sentence. The person is obviously a hunter or a killer and is gruesomely describing how to kill a pigeon, while stating that pigeons are NOT conscious and intelligent creatures. This guy is actually missing a great deal of intelligence himself and sounds like a psychopath. Ever heard how pigeons helped people in the time of war? I urge you to do a little research on that. This guy takes it as far as comparing a pencil to a pigeon and that pencil doesn’t feel cruelty if you snap it!! It’s so pathetic what he’s saying, I won’t comment on it further and I do trust you to be a lot more of an intelligent person then for me to have to go into an argument about the difference between a pigeon and a pencil. Regarding your disagreement that animals are our equals when it comes to suffering and as an argument for it, pointing out this page SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU, I will leave it at that.
Again, I wasn’t speaking for the each and every single case of criminal activity. I’ve spoken about those particular cases and to quickly answer your questions. “Do you really believe all victims of crime have pain infliced upon them?” The ones I mentioned - victims of rape, murder, child molestation etc. – Yes, I absolutely do, whether it’s physical or psychological pain or both, it’s individualistic. “Lethal injection for instance, is incredibly painful” – I won’t even ask you how you know this for sure….! But I bet you, if you had a choice to die either by lethal injection OR dying by being caught in a snare or having your body mutilated while fully conscious, I think I know which one you’d go for… ;)
Posted by: Bobby, Southampton on 3:20pm Tue 10 Jul 07
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts.
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts.
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote:
George,
From your reply, it appears that you didn’t understand what I was
saying. When a hunter goes on a hunt, what is the mission? To read a
book or to kill an animal? It’s pretty clear, no? I never said that the
only thing hunters do is to kill. By the way, my Grandfather is a
hunter, yes he is!, just not in this country so I think I know first
hand that hunters are just ordinary people that also do other things
apart from hunting! He’s killed and eaten many animals through his life
and now he’s dying of intestinal cancer. I’m on no one’s side maybe you
just didn’t read my post. I said I don’t agree with many things AR
activists do, so I don’t consider myself on ‘their side of the fence”.
If you have to put me on any side - I’m on the non-violence one, ok? I
tried to make that clear in my last post. Maybe you’re not a hunter but
you’re justifying killing, so I thought you wouldn’t be against pulling
the trigger yourself. Or do you just justify it but let the ‘other’
people do the ‘dirty’ work? To be honest, you don’t seem neutral at
all, you expressed quite clearly where you stand. And yes, I’m
concerned about bigger problems/issues, just as I’m concerned about
illegal hunting. I think all killing is wrong and hunting is a big
problem when it comes to many animals like bears, tigers, elephants
etc., they’re all on the verge of extinction, mainly due to hunting and
loss of habitat, and I don’t discriminate, like I said, I believe all
hunting for sport, trophies or ‘pleasure’ is purely wrong and evil!
Lol, I started to read the page from the link you sent and it made me
laugh just to read the first sentence. The person is obviously a hunter
or a killer and is gruesomely describing how to kill a pigeon, while
stating that pigeons are NOT conscious and intelligent creatures. This
guy is actually missing a great deal of intelligence himself and sounds
like a psychopath. Ever heard how pigeons helped people in the time of
war? I urge you to do a little research on that. This guy takes it as
far as comparing a pencil to a pigeon and that pencil doesn’t feel
cruelty if you snap it!! It’s so pathetic what he’s saying, I won’t
comment on it further and I do trust you to be a lot more of an
intelligent person then for me to have to go into an argument about the
difference between a pigeon and a pencil. Regarding your disagreement
that animals are our equals when it comes to suffering and as an
argument for it, pointing out this page SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU, I will
leave it at that. Again, I wasn’t speaking for the each and every
single case of criminal activity. I’ve spoken about those particular
cases and to quickly answer your questions. “Do you really believe all
victims of crime have pain infliced upon them?” The ones I mentioned -
victims of rape, murder, child molestation etc. – Yes, I absolutely do,
whether it’s physical or psychological pain or both, it’s
individualistic. “Lethal injection for instance, is incredibly painful”
– I won’t even ask you how you know this for sure….! But I bet you, if
you had a choice to die either by lethal injection OR dying by being
caught in a snare or having your body mutilated while fully conscious,
I think I know which one you’d go for… ;)[/quote] It appears I did understand what you said, but that you wish to now change that to fit your argument. As you continue to do in the rest of your post. You are side-stepping every issue. "Pigeons helped in the war, ergo any argument which involves pigeons is null and void", basically. Bravo, superb reasoning.
Then there's your "the guy who wrote that was obviously a psycho" argument - excellent bit of ad hominem
You then go on to adjust your "all criminals are cowards" argument once more. Pitiful attempt at dodging the issue. "Yes, my argument stands if you apply these previously unknown restrictions to it". Pointless to try and refute, since you will only pull further variants from up your sleeve in order to "win". Have you even the faintest idea how to conduct a debate? No, I don't believe you do. The subset of crimes you listed is in no way the "all crimes" of your original point. Argument rendered invalid
Having third party evidence to support my point does say a lot about me, but not the underhand nonsense you tried to imply - do learn to reason, it's terribly important. Having nothing to support your argument other than sneaky tricks to sidestep issues, hidden variables that only come to light when your point is refuted, constant appeals to emotion, and other lame trickery says not much about you, other than that you clearly have not thought your position through. If you had, you would be able to get your point across without resorting to these little tricks
As for lethal injection, the fact that the first injection is to paralyze the victim, in order that those watching don't have to see him writhing in agony - that is how I know.
Given the choice between that and being snared, I'd probably go for the injection and the crippling agony that comes with it. But then your argument falls down, because animals are not "fully conscious" as has been scientifically proven. Consciousness is the ability to overcome instinct, which is what separates us from other animals.
Nice try, but you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. Yet again, the animal lovers fail to put their point across, which is a shame because I'm sure they've got one, somewhere
MB wrote:
George,
From your reply, it appears that you didn’t understand what I was
saying. When a hunter goes on a hunt, what is the mission? To read a
book or to kill an animal? It’s pretty clear, no? I never said that the
only thing hunters do is to kill. By the way, my Grandfather is a
hunter, yes he is!, just not in this country so I think I know first
hand that hunters are just ordinary people that also do other things
apart from hunting! He’s killed and eaten many animals through his life
and now he’s dying of intestinal cancer. I’m on no one’s side maybe you
just didn’t read my post. I said I don’t agree with many things AR
activists do, so I don’t consider myself on ‘their side of the fence”.
If you have to put me on any side - I’m on the non-violence one, ok? I
tried to make that clear in my last post. Maybe you’re not a hunter but
you’re justifying killing, so I thought you wouldn’t be against pulling
the trigger yourself. Or do you just justify it but let the ‘other’
people do the ‘dirty’ work? To be honest, you don’t seem neutral at
all, you expressed quite clearly where you stand. And yes, I’m
concerned about bigger problems/issues, just as I’m concerned about
illegal hunting. I think all killing is wrong and hunting is a big
problem when it comes to many animals like bears, tigers, elephants
etc., they’re all on the verge of extinction, mainly due to hunting and
loss of habitat, and I don’t discriminate, like I said, I believe all
hunting for sport, trophies or ‘pleasure’ is purely wrong and evil!
Lol, I started to read the page from the link you sent and it made me
laugh just to read the first sentence. The person is obviously a hunter
or a killer and is gruesomely describing how to kill a pigeon, while
stating that pigeons are NOT conscious and intelligent creatures. This
guy is actually missing a great deal of intelligence himself and sounds
like a psychopath. Ever heard how pigeons helped people in the time of
war? I urge you to do a little research on that. This guy takes it as
far as comparing a pencil to a pigeon and that pencil doesn’t feel
cruelty if you snap it!! It’s so pathetic what he’s saying, I won’t
comment on it further and I do trust you to be a lot more of an
intelligent person then for me to have to go into an argument about the
difference between a pigeon and a pencil. Regarding your disagreement
that animals are our equals when it comes to suffering and as an
argument for it, pointing out this page SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU, I will
leave it at that. Again, I wasn’t speaking for the each and every
single case of criminal activity. I’ve spoken about those particular
cases and to quickly answer your questions. “Do you really believe all
victims of crime have pain infliced upon them?” The ones I mentioned -
victims of rape, murder, child molestation etc. – Yes, I absolutely do,
whether it’s physical or psychological pain or both, it’s
individualistic. “Lethal injection for instance, is incredibly painful”
– I won’t even ask you how you know this for sure….! But I bet you, if
you had a choice to die either by lethal injection OR dying by being
caught in a snare or having your body mutilated while fully conscious,
I think I know which one you’d go for… ;)
It appears I did understand what you said, but that you wish to now change that to fit your argument. As you continue to do in the rest of your post. You are side-stepping every issue. "Pigeons helped in the war, ergo any argument which involves pigeons is null and void", basically. Bravo, superb reasoning.
Then there's your "the guy who wrote that was obviously a psycho" argument - excellent bit of ad hominem
You then go on to adjust your "all criminals are cowards" argument once more. Pitiful attempt at dodging the issue. "Yes, my argument stands if you apply these previously unknown restrictions to it". Pointless to try and refute, since you will only pull further variants from up your sleeve in order to "win". Have you even the faintest idea how to conduct a debate? No, I don't believe you do. The subset of crimes you listed is in no way the "all crimes" of your original point. Argument rendered invalid
Having third party evidence to support my point does say a lot about me, but not the underhand nonsense you tried to imply - do learn to reason, it's terribly important. Having nothing to support your argument other than sneaky tricks to sidestep issues, hidden variables that only come to light when your point is refuted, constant appeals to emotion, and other lame trickery says not much about you, other than that you clearly have not thought your position through. If you had, you would be able to get your point across without resorting to these little tricks
As for lethal injection, the fact that the first injection is to paralyze the victim, in order that those watching don't have to see him writhing in agony - that is how I know.
Given the choice between that and being snared, I'd probably go for the injection and the crippling agony that comes with it. But then your argument falls down, because animals are not "fully conscious" as has been scientifically proven. Consciousness is the ability to overcome instinct, which is what separates us from other animals.
Nice try, but you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. Yet again, the animal lovers fail to put their point across, which is a shame because I'm sure they've got one, somewhere
[quote][bold]Bobby[/bold] wrote:
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide
their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These
people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few
years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts.
[/quote] The reason is they believe themselves to be exempt from logic. The complete lack of a single reasoned response from them on this thread is a symptom of that
Bobby wrote:
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide
their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These
people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few
years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts.
The reason is they believe themselves to be exempt from logic. The complete lack of a single reasoned response from them on this thread is a symptom of that
Posted by: Anderson, basingstoke on 3:59pm Tue 10 Jul 07
Well the standard of argument has certainly developed on this thread! I was just going to point out that people who kill pheasants usually eat them as well, and people who hunt foxes would like to have eaten the chickens, turkeys and rabbits and other game that the foxes killed, so there is a sort of food chain aspect to it. I note also though that there is this persistent and fundamental misconception that animal rights activists refuse to listen to. People who hunt do not take base "pleasure" - from killing that is far too simplistic. However a hunter will take immense satisfaction from a successful hunt as a job well done. There is a huge difference in the complexity of those two emotions, and dumbing that down to make your case is spurious.
Well the standard of argument has certainly developed on this thread! I was just going to point out that people who kill pheasants usually eat them as well, and people who hunt foxes would like to have eaten the chickens, turkeys and rabbits and other game that the foxes killed, so there is a sort of food chain aspect to it. I note also though that there is this persistent and fundamental misconception that animal rights activists refuse to listen to. People who hunt do not take base "pleasure" - from killing that is far too simplistic. However a hunter will take immense satisfaction from a successful hunt as a job well done. There is a huge difference in the complexity of those two emotions, and dumbing that down to make your case is spurious.
George, I think you should come down a little or you’ll have a heart attack, jeez, taking our debate a bit too seriously! Lighten up, man. Accusing me of playing tricks and wanting to ‘win’, common, don’t make me laugh…
Yes, your guy there sounds like a psycho – sorry! You seem to be worshiping this guy and every word he says, but who is he really? Just some freak with odd opinions, but yes, it is ONLY his opinions and not some righteous truth, you’re calling that a ‘third party evidence’??? Is that your reasoning?
I never said All. Frankly I’m tired of justifying your picking on every word I say.
Well, if they do paralyze the victim in order for those watching to not have to see him in agony, then be it IF that’s the truth; yet I know they’re not suffering even close to the animals I mentioned before, hey thanks for admitting you’d take the needle rather then the slow death ;), that says it all.
I hate to tell you but many animals are fully conscious when being slaughtered, EVEN THOUGH, your scientific guy told you otherwise.
Yes, I do like animals, I think they’re pretty fascinating creatures, kill me for it! lol
Anyway, unfortunately, I don’t have anymore time to spare arguing with you, I only stated my opinion.
I rest my case.
George, I think you should come down a little or you’ll have a heart attack, jeez, taking our debate a bit too seriously! Lighten up, man. Accusing me of playing tricks and wanting to ‘win’, common, don’t make me laugh…
Yes, your guy there sounds like a psycho – sorry! You seem to be worshiping this guy and every word he says, but who is he really? Just some freak with odd opinions, but yes, it is ONLY his opinions and not some righteous truth, you’re calling that a ‘third party evidence’??? Is that your reasoning?
I never said All. Frankly I’m tired of justifying your picking on every word I say.
Well, if they do paralyze the victim in order for those watching to not have to see him in agony, then be it IF that’s the truth; yet I know they’re not suffering even close to the animals I mentioned before, hey thanks for admitting you’d take the needle rather then the slow death ;), that says it all.
I hate to tell you but many animals are fully conscious when being slaughtered, EVEN THOUGH, your scientific guy told you otherwise.
Yes, I do like animals, I think they’re pretty fascinating creatures, kill me for it! lol
Anyway, unfortunately, I don’t have anymore time to spare arguing with you, I only stated my opinion.
I rest my case.
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote:
George, I think you should come down a little or you’ll have a heart
attack, jeez, taking our debate a bit too seriously! Lighten up, man.
Accusing me of playing tricks and wanting to ‘win’, common, don’t make
me laugh… Yes, your guy there sounds like a psycho – sorry! You seem to
be worshiping this guy and every word he says, but who is he really?
Just some freak with odd opinions, but yes, it is ONLY his opinions and
not some righteous truth, you’re calling that a ‘third party
evidence’??? Is that your reasoning?
I never said All. Frankly I’m tired of justifying your picking on every
word I say. Well, if they do paralyze the victim in order for those
watching to not have to see him in agony, then be it IF that’s the
truth; yet I know they’re not suffering even close to the animals I
mentioned before, hey thanks for admitting you’d take the needle rather
then the slow death ;), that says it all.
I hate to tell you but many animals are fully conscious when being
slaughtered, EVEN THOUGH, your scientific guy told you otherwise.
Yes, I do like animals, I think they’re pretty fascinating creatures,
kill me for it! lol
Anyway, unfortunately, I don’t have anymore time to spare arguing with
you, I only stated my opinion.
I rest my case.
[/quote] Um. Where do you get that I worship this guy? Because I quoted him as a reference? Beyond that I never even mentioned him. I must at this point withdraw from this "debate", as you have now moved into the realms of simply making things up. You cannot possibly be tired of justifying anything because you've singularly failed to actually address [bold]any[/bold] point I've made, preferring instead to invent a more easily refuted point. Give up, man. Repeated use of phrases like "says it all" are a short cut to actually having something to say
Final nail in the coffin of any hope of being considered "reasonable", thankyouverymuch
MB wrote:
George, I think you should come down a little or you’ll have a heart
attack, jeez, taking our debate a bit too seriously! Lighten up, man.
Accusing me of playing tricks and wanting to ‘win’, common, don’t make
me laugh… Yes, your guy there sounds like a psycho – sorry! You seem to
be worshiping this guy and every word he says, but who is he really?
Just some freak with odd opinions, but yes, it is ONLY his opinions and
not some righteous truth, you’re calling that a ‘third party
evidence’??? Is that your reasoning?
I never said All. Frankly I’m tired of justifying your picking on every
word I say. Well, if they do paralyze the victim in order for those
watching to not have to see him in agony, then be it IF that’s the
truth; yet I know they’re not suffering even close to the animals I
mentioned before, hey thanks for admitting you’d take the needle rather
then the slow death ;), that says it all.
I hate to tell you but many animals are fully conscious when being
slaughtered, EVEN THOUGH, your scientific guy told you otherwise.
Yes, I do like animals, I think they’re pretty fascinating creatures,
kill me for it! lol
Anyway, unfortunately, I don’t have anymore time to spare arguing with
you, I only stated my opinion.
I rest my case.
Um. Where do you get that I worship this guy? Because I quoted him as a reference? Beyond that I never even mentioned him. I must at this point withdraw from this "debate", as you have now moved into the realms of simply making things up. You cannot possibly be tired of justifying anything because you've singularly failed to actually address any point I've made, preferring instead to invent a more easily refuted point. Give up, man. Repeated use of phrases like "says it all" are a short cut to actually having something to say
Final nail in the coffin of any hope of being considered "reasonable", thankyouverymuch
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote:
Yeah, ok, whatever you say, George.....
lol[/quote] Stupendous counter. Well done, MB! I thank you for making my point for me
The prosecution rests
MB wrote:
Yeah, ok, whatever you say, George.....
lol
Stupendous counter. Well done, MB! I thank you for making my point for me
I have to say, while I don't agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they're making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don't seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they're arguing against. It doesn't make your arguments very convincing!!
MB I don't think that when George said "fully conscious" he meant "fully awake" but instead was talking about whether animals are "conscious" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously!
I have to say, while I don't agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they're making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don't seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they're arguing against. It doesn't make your arguments very convincing!!
MB I don't think that when George said "fully conscious" he meant "fully awake" but instead was talking about whether animals are "conscious" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously!
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote: Yeah, ok, whatever you say, George..... lol[/quote] Stupendous counter. Well done, MB! I thank you for making my point for me The prosecution rests[/quote] Don't thank me, George, I'm not making any points for you..... I'm just trying to stop an angry man in now pointless debate before he has a heart attack ;) Cheers
George wrote:
MB wrote: Yeah, ok, whatever you say, George..... lol
Stupendous counter. Well done, MB! I thank you for making my point for me The prosecution rests
Don't thank me, George, I'm not making any points for you..... I'm just trying to stop an angry man in now pointless debate before he has a heart attack ;) Cheers
[quote][bold]Cat[/bold] wrote:
I have to say, while I don't agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they're making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don't seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they're arguing against. It doesn't make your arguments very convincing!! MB I don't think that when George said "fully conscious" he meant "fully awake" but instead was talking about whether animals are "conscious" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously![/quote] Cat, I know what he meant but the truth is that animals are conscious beings, it's scientifically proven maybe not by the ‘pigeon scientist’ but they are and there’s a lot of evidence confirming that.
If you read the article and that’s your opinion, then I’m afraid I won’t waste my time even trying to reason with you.
Thanks
Cat wrote:
I have to say, while I don't agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they're making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don't seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they're arguing against. It doesn't make your arguments very convincing!! MB I don't think that when George said "fully conscious" he meant "fully awake" but instead was talking about whether animals are "conscious" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously!
Cat, I know what he meant but the truth is that animals are conscious beings, it's scientifically proven maybe not by the ‘pigeon scientist’ but they are and there’s a lot of evidence confirming that.
If you read the article and that’s your opinion, then I’m afraid I won’t waste my time even trying to reason with you.
Thanks
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Cat[/bold] wrote:
I have to say, while I don't agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they're making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don't seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they're arguing against. It doesn't make your arguments very convincing!! MB I don't think that when George said "fully conscious" he meant "fully awake" but instead was talking about whether animals are "conscious" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously![/quote] Cat, I know what he meant but the truth is that animals are conscious beings, it's scientifically proven maybe not by the ‘pigeon scientist’ but they are and there’s a lot of evidence confirming that.
If you read the article and that’s your opinion, then I’m afraid I won’t waste my time even trying to reason with you.
Thanks[/quote] Excellent. "I refuse to discuss this with anyone who doesn't share my opinion". Explains everything :-)
MB wrote:
Cat wrote:
I have to say, while I don't agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they're making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don't seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they're arguing against. It doesn't make your arguments very convincing!! MB I don't think that when George said "fully conscious" he meant "fully awake" but instead was talking about whether animals are "conscious" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously!
Cat, I know what he meant but the truth is that animals are conscious beings, it's scientifically proven maybe not by the ‘pigeon scientist’ but they are and there’s a lot of evidence confirming that.
If you read the article and that’s your opinion, then I’m afraid I won’t waste my time even trying to reason with you.
Thanks
Excellent. "I refuse to discuss this with anyone who doesn't share my opinion". Explains everything :-)
Posted by: Paula, Somerset on 8:29pm Tue 10 Jul 07
Why would the landowner slaughter wildlife on his land? Because he can! Most farm folk, of the pro hunt persuasion do it out of spite, especially since the hunt ban came in. Why badgers? They're scapegoats for the TB outbreaks in cattle, when the real reason is that infected animals are herded from markets all over Europe, as we saw with FMD and BSE.
Why would the landowner slaughter wildlife on his land? Because he can! Most farm folk, of the pro hunt persuasion do it out of spite, especially since the hunt ban came in. Why badgers? They're scapegoats for the TB outbreaks in cattle, when the real reason is that infected animals are herded from markets all over Europe, as we saw with FMD and BSE.
[quote][bold]Paula[/bold] wrote:
Why would the landowner slaughter wildlife on his land? Because he can! Most farm folk, of the pro hunt persuasion do it out of spite, especially since the hunt ban came in. Why badgers? They're scapegoats for the TB outbreaks in cattle, when the real reason is that infected animals are herded from markets all over Europe, as we saw with FMD and BSE. [/quote] Out of spite?? You lot really do have an odd view of the world! Poor innocent animal rights activists, out for a picnic on one side, and nasty spiteful everyone else, pulling legs off squirrels just for fun on the other
Bizarre viewpoint!! Not to mention hopelessly simplistic
Paula wrote:
Why would the landowner slaughter wildlife on his land? Because he can! Most farm folk, of the pro hunt persuasion do it out of spite, especially since the hunt ban came in. Why badgers? They're scapegoats for the TB outbreaks in cattle, when the real reason is that infected animals are herded from markets all over Europe, as we saw with FMD and BSE.
Out of spite?? You lot really do have an odd view of the world! Poor innocent animal rights activists, out for a picnic on one side, and nasty spiteful everyone else, pulling legs off squirrels just for fun on the other
Bizarre viewpoint!! Not to mention hopelessly simplistic
Posted by: Lena Small, New Forest on 8:55pm Tue 10 Jul 07
[quote][bold]Bobby[/bold] wrote:
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts. [/quote] You asked "why all these animal rights people always hide their faces" ? I'll tell you why anyone who cares about animals is afraid to reveal their identity to people who are known for incredibly violent reactions against democracy! Because dealing with people, who by their very nature get pleasure from bloodsports, bullying locals and violence in general is a very dangerous game. We saw how the lunatics behaved during the democratic decision making process which they didnt approve of. We saw how they behave when dealing with defensless wildlife they dont approve of. We saw how they behave when people watch their blood letting of local wildlife. We are right to be afraid, very afraid when dealing with that kind of personality.
Bobby wrote:
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts.
You asked "why all these animal rights people always hide their faces" ? I'll tell you why anyone who cares about animals is afraid to reveal their identity to people who are known for incredibly violent reactions against democracy! Because dealing with people, who by their very nature get pleasure from bloodsports, bullying locals and violence in general is a very dangerous game. We saw how the lunatics behaved during the democratic decision making process which they didnt approve of. We saw how they behave when dealing with defensless wildlife they dont approve of. We saw how they behave when people watch their blood letting of local wildlife. We are right to be afraid, very afraid when dealing with that kind of personality.
[quote][bold]Lena Small[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bobby[/bold] wrote:
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts. [/quote] You asked "why all these animal rights people always hide their faces" ? I'll tell you why anyone who cares about animals is afraid to reveal their identity to people who are known for incredibly violent reactions against democracy! Because dealing with people, who by their very nature get pleasure from bloodsports, bullying locals and violence in general is a very dangerous game. We saw how the lunatics behaved during the democratic decision making process which they didnt approve of. We saw how they behave when dealing with defensless wildlife they dont approve of. We saw how they behave when people watch their blood letting of local wildlife. We are right to be afraid, very afraid when dealing with that kind of personality.[/quote] Oh please! What would you know about their very nature? It's a country tradition - I'm not arguing that theyre justified in doing it, at all, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick painting the hunters out to be bloodthirsty maniacs. Man is a carnivorous animal, all of us have that bloodlust in us somewhere, even if you can't see it in yourself. They got annoyed when a "democratic" process strove to remove part of their tradition? Well, wouldn't you? You can't blame a group of people for not wanting to be told what to do, it's human nature not to want to be told what to do. The pure hatred that pours out of anti-hunt people sickens me, it's totally at odds with their supposed compassion. What are a few dead foxes compared to the thousands of people dying over the world every day? Nothing, that's what! Get some perspective! Animals brutally slaughter each other all the time, this isn't so very different. Or are you going to launch a democratic process to stop lions eating elk, too? Yes yes they do it for food, but life just isn't fair get used to it
Lena Small wrote:
Bobby wrote:
can someone tell me why all these animal rights people always hide their faces, but are happy to take 'photo's of everyone else. These people are no less evil than terrorists, look back over the last few years and see how many have been brought to court for evil acts.
You asked "why all these animal rights people always hide their faces" ? I'll tell you why anyone who cares about animals is afraid to reveal their identity to people who are known for incredibly violent reactions against democracy! Because dealing with people, who by their very nature get pleasure from bloodsports, bullying locals and violence in general is a very dangerous game. We saw how the lunatics behaved during the democratic decision making process which they didnt approve of. We saw how they behave when dealing with defensless wildlife they dont approve of. We saw how they behave when people watch their blood letting of local wildlife. We are right to be afraid, very afraid when dealing with that kind of personality.
Oh please! What would you know about their very nature? It's a country tradition - I'm not arguing that theyre justified in doing it, at all, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick painting the hunters out to be bloodthirsty maniacs. Man is a carnivorous animal, all of us have that bloodlust in us somewhere, even if you can't see it in yourself. They got annoyed when a "democratic" process strove to remove part of their tradition? Well, wouldn't you? You can't blame a group of people for not wanting to be told what to do, it's human nature not to want to be told what to do. The pure hatred that pours out of anti-hunt people sickens me, it's totally at odds with their supposed compassion. What are a few dead foxes compared to the thousands of people dying over the world every day? Nothing, that's what! Get some perspective! Animals brutally slaughter each other all the time, this isn't so very different. Or are you going to launch a democratic process to stop lions eating elk, too? Yes yes they do it for food, but life just isn't fair get used to it
Posted by: Charlie, Sheffield on 9:29pm Tue 10 Jul 07
1: Why would anyone wish to harm nature for fun, life in the wild is tough enough as it is.
2: What kind of person would try and justify that kind of behaviour, and why would we, society, let them get away with it?
Our countryside in the UK would be a much better place if we could rid it of the pests, like those wearing red coats, gamekeepers and landowners. Violence breeds violence.
1: Why would anyone wish to harm nature for fun, life in the wild is tough enough as it is.
2: What kind of person would try and justify that kind of behaviour, and why would we, society, let them get away with it?
Our countryside in the UK would be a much better place if we could rid it of the pests, like those wearing red coats, gamekeepers and landowners. Violence breeds violence.
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]MB[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Cat[/bold] wrote: I have to say, while I don\'t agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they\'re making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don\'t seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they\'re arguing against. It doesn\'t make your arguments very convincing!! MB I don\'t think that when George said \"fully conscious\" he meant \"fully awake\" but instead was talking about whether animals are \"conscious\" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously![/quote] Cat, I know what he meant but the truth is that animals are conscious beings, it\'s scientifically proven maybe not by the ‘pigeon scientist’ but they are and there’s a lot of evidence confirming that. If you read the article and that’s your opinion, then I’m afraid I won’t waste my time even trying to reason with you. Thanks[/quote] Excellent. \"I refuse to discuss this with anyone who doesn\'t share my opinion\". Explains everything :-)[/quote] Don't put words in my mouth, George, because, unless you're blind, you can see I didn't say that at all!!! And what's up with using 'shortcuts' as you pointed out before... "explains everything" - you got something to say, George?? lol
George wrote:
MB wrote:
Cat wrote: I have to say, while I don\'t agree with what Anderson, George and whoever are saying at least they\'re making reasonable arguments for their case. The animal lovers don\'t seem to be able to make a point without just trying to rubbish whatever it is they\'re arguing against. It doesn\'t make your arguments very convincing!! MB I don\'t think that when George said \"fully conscious\" he meant \"fully awake\" but instead was talking about whether animals are \"conscious\" at all. Reading the article about pigeons, I think hes got a point there bt I dont think that means animals dont suffer, or feel pain, obviously!
Cat, I know what he meant but the truth is that animals are conscious beings, it\'s scientifically proven maybe not by the ‘pigeon scientist’ but they are and there’s a lot of evidence confirming that. If you read the article and that’s your opinion, then I’m afraid I won’t waste my time even trying to reason with you. Thanks
Excellent. \"I refuse to discuss this with anyone who doesn\'t share my opinion\". Explains everything :-)
Don't put words in my mouth, George, because, unless you're blind, you can see I didn't say that at all!!! And what's up with using 'shortcuts' as you pointed out before... "explains everything" - you got something to say, George?? lol
[quote][bold]Charlie[/bold] wrote:
1: Why would anyone wish to harm nature for fun, life in the wild is tough enough as it is. 2: What kind of person would try and justify that kind of behaviour, and why would we, society, let them get away with it? Our countryside in the UK would be a much better place if we could rid it of the pests, like those wearing red coats, gamekeepers and landowners. Violence breeds violence.[/quote] Lena and Charlie,
couldn't agree with you more, it's soo true, shame not everyone sees clearly... :p
Charlie wrote:
1: Why would anyone wish to harm nature for fun, life in the wild is tough enough as it is. 2: What kind of person would try and justify that kind of behaviour, and why would we, society, let them get away with it? Our countryside in the UK would be a much better place if we could rid it of the pests, like those wearing red coats, gamekeepers and landowners. Violence breeds violence.
Lena and Charlie,
couldn't agree with you more, it's soo true, shame not everyone sees clearly... :p
Print
Email this
Comment