Andrew Flexing wrote: » Wow there are some ignorant people on these boards...for those who talk about venison and evolution...Mahatma Coat...you dont get the issue at hand obviously!
Pineapple_Boi wrote: » great news, backward cave-dwelling culchies and their hunting. nothing wrong with eating meat if it was grown in a sustainable way, slaughtered by competent professionals or robots and complient with all modern EU safety standards. but going into the forest to kill a fox with a gun? i thought we grew out of that millions of years ago
CJhaughey wrote: » Most foxes here don't inhabit forests they are more commonly found on grassland or on rough ground. Nothing wrong with eating wild meat either it has to be said.
Pineapple_Boi wrote: » but going into the forest to kill a fox with a gun? i thought we grew out of that millions of years ago
Boyle243 wrote: » One of the biggest and most active coursing clubs is in...wait for it...Listowel, home of the jackasses who see fit shake the hand of a convicted sex offender as if he were...a sportsman. well done u just compared a coursing club with a sex offender and im pretty sure not everybody in Listowel shook that man's hand....
One of the biggest and most active coursing clubs is in...wait for it...Listowel, home of the jackasses who see fit shake the hand of a convicted sex offender as if he were...a sportsman.
Nobrow wrote: » I'm not sure what fairplay was getting at, but since you bring it up, any individual who is capable of looking at a creature that has been chased and hounded until its lungs bleed and it can no longer stand to defend itself from a pack of dogs and derive pleasure from it, is lacking in empathy (relative to the typical human who would have great difficulty witnessing such suffering). Lack of empathy is a fundamental characteristic of the rapist, the serial killer and the like. Deriving pleasure from torturing animals is a common characteristic of the young would-be serial killer. The behaviour is even part of the famous "Macdonald Triad". So you see, for a great many of us (or certainly for me, perhaps I shouldnt presume to speak for others), their shared inhumanity makes it quite easy to view a "hunter" or coarser or badger baiter with the same disgust with which we view the sex offender. Let it be known however I have nothing against Listowel.
Pineapple_Boi wrote: » great news, backward cave-dwelling culchies and their hunting.
silverharp wrote: » Venison Yum! whats next a ban on recreational fishing? As an aside I saw couple of student types doing their one hour lunchtime protest outside a fur shop off Grafton street. Why a fur shop and not a shoe shop that sells leather shoes? I'll acknowledge animal rights when they petition for them!
Mahatma coat wrote: » UrbanitePinkos
Mahatma coat wrote: » so What is the OP suggesting??? cos I read it in the same bracket as calling for a ban on recreational fishing
Mahatma coat wrote: » No, I'm not gonna play that game, this i down the same pointless route of why is alcohol legal and Heroin not, Fishing, hunting feckit even coarsing are part of our history and culture...
djpbarry wrote: » So if something is considered culturally significant, it may be deemed exempt from morals and ethics?
Mahatma coat wrote: » No, I'm not gonna play that game, this i down the same pointless route of why is alcohol legal and Heroin not, Fishing, hunting feckit even coarsing are part of our history and culture, hawking? ban that too? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:mad:
Nobrow wrote: » Yes, of course, now you're getting it. Ban all forms of gratuitous torture of animals. Eat them if you must, but kill humanely and as necessary. Do not tear a creature to pieces and then toss off to the pub just for the fun of it. And really, citing the historical imperative is pretty weak. As humans/society have evolved and become more civilised we have consciously abondoned all sorts of practices. Surely I don't need to cite examples?
old boy wrote: » oh yeah, yes we did, murder, rape, robbery, gbh, come on op smell the morning coffee, you are just nit picking, choseing practises which you choose not agree with, ones which a small minority of the population also do not agree with, and are quite vocal in their opposition to.
taconnol wrote: » Can you back up your claim that it is a "small minority of the population" that are opposed to stag hunting?
Mahatma coat wrote: » I suppose you can show this to be untrue then???
Mahatma coat wrote: » my experience has shown that it is generally the 'usual suspects' the ones who oppose everything on principal without understanding what any of it really is, and that they are a small, Vocal, misguided, and illinformed bunch of reactionarys, most of them wouldn't have spent more than a month in the actual countryside over the course of their young lives.
Mahatma coat wrote: » brainwashed idiots incapable of examining the situation themselves and formulating their own thoughts.
taconnol wrote: » It is up to the person making the original claim to support it. It is not my job to prove the opposite.
So many assumptions and prejudgments. Again, can you provide evidence of any of this other than anecdotal evidence?
Are you applying this label to anyone who opposes stag hunting? In other words, anyone who doesn't happen to share your opinion on the matter?