Hare Coursing

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Good contingent over from the hunting forum to troll the thread I see. :rolleyes:

Is disagreement trolling?

This notion that hunters having their say on a topic like this is in some way nefarious is a notion with some really disturbing undertones and implications.

yubabill1

fathersymes wrote: »

Ah so you're taking the 5th on my questions, why I thought you'd be proud to tell us about your beliefs or are you concerned we make think it's a bit nutty for vegans to sympathise with Peta's video about the poor fish?

http://features.peta.org/joaquin-phoenix-is-drowning/[/QUOTE]

Or what about PETA's dog rescue centre, where most of the dogs are put to sleep, rather than being rehomed?

That's People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

In fairness the rallying cry in the hunting forum directing people over here to vote would tend to skew it. You have the usual AH people which would fall either side depending on their views, then a group with a certain view active in finding votes for their side.

Really?
What would you say all the lobbying by ICABS on twitter and facebook is doing to petitions and polls like this?

To chose a phrase with tongue in cheek, what's sauce for the goose should do for the gander :P

Grizzly 45

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

What exactly are you basing that assumption on??The majority of who??
There has only ever been one recognised survey carried out on this in Ireland in the 1970s by ICABS.....Maybe now with their recent money windfall they might want to try conducting another survey...So we can accuse them of buying votes???:p:p:p
Honestly ,can you expect an accurate scientific poll anymore on the internet and chat media forums???
However the fact does stand,whenever historclly a poll goes against the anti side here or a TV or radio show has more a pro fieldsport agenda.The cries of foul and rigged is by the anti camp.despite them refusing to participate after being invited to do so.

Zombienosh

You're all just derailing this with some anti-animal rights agenda.
Bringing up PETA videos about fish does nothing for you're argument to defend hare coursing and only makes you silly and immature trying to poke fun and belittle someones beliefs to be honest.

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

Both are condemned by ICABS et al in the same breath, by the same means, and as part of the same agenda.

It's not a slippery slope argument if it's a stated agenda of someone to ban everything in a set order.

I dont see the connection myself. One is for fun/betting, the other is a farmer protecting his livelihood.

A farmer paying a hunter to kill a fox is a win win for both parties, the farmer gets rid of the threat to the livestock, and the hunter gets his rocks off killing an animal. Seems like an ok arrange to me. Farmer needs a service, hunter provides a service.

Killing animals for fun doesnt appeal to me, or mistreating them such as hare coursing does. But each to thier own, dont agree with it, but im not going to go out and be a militant animals rights head either.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

Is disagreement trolling?

This notion that hunters having their say on a topic like this is in some way nefarious is a notion with some really disturbing undertones and implications.

I have no problem with anyone having their say but when posts from this thread were posted in the hunting forum to scoff at the point made followed by several hunting forum posters turning up here and going on and on about it it looks to me like trolling.

fathersymes

yubabill1 wrote: »

fathersymes wrote: »

Ah so you're taking the 5th on my questions, why I thought you'd be proud to tell us about your beliefs or are you concerned we make think it's a bit nutty for vegans to sympathise with Peta's video about the poor fish?

http://features.peta.org/joaquin-phoenix-is-drowning/[/QUOTE]

Or what about PETA's dog rescue centre, where most of the dogs are put to sleep, rather than being rehomed?

That's People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Ah yes thanks for reminding me, It amuses me that PETA uses the word euthanise when they kill animals instead of their usual murder.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/10/13/peta-still-has-it-all-wrong/

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

Really?
What would you say all the lobbying by ICABS on twitter and facebook is doing to petitions and polls like this?

To chose a phrase with tongue in cheek, what's sauce for the goose should do for the gander :P

Are they directing people to vote in this poll as those in the hunting forum are doing ? No ? Then I'm sure an intelligent person like you would have to concede it might be a little bit skewed by the organised effort to skew it.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Be fair, fourleafclover, RTE reported there were at least 70.

AH COME ON!! There was EIGHTY!!! there honestly!!!:D:D:DJohn "streaker " Carmody said so ,so it must be true...They had just slipped off for some museli and herbal tea when the pic and body count was taken.:p:p:p

Cass

archer22 wrote: »

Anyhow its only a joke now but keep going it gives an insight into the dishonesty involved.

If it were going for "yes" would it still be a joke or a "true reflection of Irish people's views".

The double standards when things don't go as planned is staggering.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

If it were going for "yes" would it still be a joke or a "true reflection of Irish people's views".

The double standards when things don't go as planned is staggering.

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

Grizzly 45

Zombienosh wrote: »

You're all just derailing this with some anti-animal rights agenda.
Bringing up PETA videos about fish does nothing for you're argument to defend hare coursing and only makes you silly and immature trying to poke fun and belittle someones beliefs to be honest.

Maybe the inconvient fact that they are all interconnected might be somthing you cannot accept??Or that the fact that if you support animal rights you are supporting a terrorist organisation called Animal Liberation Front??Whose ligit [shin fein style] front is PETA???

Hunter21

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I have no problem with anyone having their say but when posts from this thread were posted in the hunting forum to scoff at the point made followed by several hunting forum posters turning up here and going on and on about it it looks to me like trolling.

Its a free country we from the hunting forum can post here in After Hours all we want, now unless your category moderator stop calling us trolls.
They are there to do a job, and they do it well they don't need you to act judge and jury for them.

Zombienosh

What's staggering is how a bunch of people come on to a thread about hare coursing and start arguing about shooting and hunting and poking fun by assuming anyone who opposes hare coursing is some peta, vegan, hippy tree hugger.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

Cass

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

I know no such thing.

Perhaps for the first time you are not having it all your own way, and it's a shock.

StinkyMunkey

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

In fairness, better their on here voting than out there shooting:p.

Artful_Badger

Hunter21 wrote: »

Its a free country we from the hunting forum can post here in After Hours all we want, now unless your category moderator stop calling us trolls.
They are there to do a job, and they do it well they don't need you to act judge and jury for them.

Can a cmod call people trolls ? Who's there to do a job ? What job are you talking about ?

Artful_Badger

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

In fairness, better their on here voting than out there shooting:p.

True enough. :pac:

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

What's staggering is how a bunch of people come on to a thread about hare coursing and start arguing about shooting and hunting and poking fun by assuming anyone who opposes hare coursing is some peta, vegan, hippy tree hugger.

Own up and admit it, or deny it, but please don't wimp out.

Artful_Badger

Zombienosh wrote: »

What's staggering is how a bunch of people come on to a thread about hare coursing and start arguing about shooting and hunting and poking fun by assuming anyone who opposes hare coursing is some peta, vegan, hippy tree hugger.

The entire hunting forum was directed over here sure to battle for Hare coursing and fiddle the poll. Inevitably that led to defending hunting in general and denouncing everything else.

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

I think you will find most people dont go in for it (both are a niche interest), either hunting or hare coursing, a poll on AH is not a true reflection of the general consensus of the Irish public.

Apart from stating the obvious, AH was never going to be a place to gather support for any cause, be it good or bad. After all AH is what it says on the tin.

Zombienosh

fathersymes wrote: »

Own up and admit it, or deny it, but please don't wimp out.

Yeah I better not "wimp out" because then i'd have to go watch defenceless animals get killed to make myself feel like a man.

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote: »

First time not having it all my own way ? I'm not active in poll fiddling so I'm not use to getting it all my own way. And stop lying, you know damn well that the polling is skewed.

Retract that statement. I am not a liar, and resent the accusation.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The entire hunting forum was directed over here sure to battle for Hare coursing and fiddle the poll. Inevitably that led to defending hunting in general and denouncing everything else.

It's called a rebuttal.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

On the grounds that a thread in the hunting forum directed people from the hunting forum to come here and vote which meant quite a few more people with an interest in one particular turnout rather than just an opinion. You know, simple logic.

archer22

Its turned into another Healy Rae scenario..with the auld fella text voting like mad from the Dail:D..I mean its so obvious its being skewed you would need to go to specsavers if you couldn't see it.:)

dr.bollocko

Sparks wrote: »

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

There was a thread in the shooting forum used to point out the poll in an attempt to manipulate the numbers up.

It's not a private forum so the thread is still there.

Before a link to this poll was posted in the shooting forum the numbers were in support of a ban roughly 65% to 35%.

If a similar thread was to be started on an anti-hunting interest group the numbers would again change.

While a poll on AH means very little, the original trending was distinctly manipulated by posting a link to a now 2 page thread in the hunting forum.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

Retract that statement. I am not a liar, and resent the accusation.

I retract nothing. There is no conceivable way to think that an organised effort to skew the poll didnt skew the poll.

It's called a rebuttal.

Its called a campaign for votes, which the opposite side of the argument didnt have. Ergo the poll is skewed.

nlgbbbblth

Seachmall wrote: »

I could come home every evening and punch my dog in the face and as enjoyable as that might seem to some it would still be cruel, even though no blood is drawn and the dog wouldn't die.

What if your dog gets his kicks from chasing hares and ripping them to shreds?

Oh wait...