RoR: Forum

Jen,

The ban is specifically on hunting with dogs, at least for the moment. So farmers will still be allowed to shoot foxes they happen to spot approaching their livestock, but the fox population is probably going to rise significantly over the next few years, which could cause all sorts of problems.

Pete,

Sorry, that news site I linked to is British so I guess I should've explained better. The House of Commons is the elected lower house of the parliament, the House of Lords is the upper chamber but they are mostly life-appointees with a few holding hereditary titles (until the Blair government started messing about there were in fact a much larger number of hereditaries). Both houses must vote in favour of a bill before it can become law. So from a democratic perspective, an unelected house could effectively block the will of the elected house. So in 1911 after the Lords got pissed off with an increasingly leftist government, the first Parliament Act established that if the two houses couldn't agree after three years, the will of the elected house would take precedence and the bill would pass regardless of the Lords' opposition. Then in 1949 a second Parliament Act was passed reducing the three year time period to two. The 1949 act has been used to force through the hunting ban. The Countryside Alliance (the pro-hunting group) is basically arguing that the hunting ban is invalid because the 1949 act is itself invalid as the 1911 act was used to force that bill into law. The reason I see this as such a big deal is that the 1949 act has been used with regard to a couple of other measures (including a war crimes bill) which if the challenge succeeds are also presumably invalid, and the judges who sit on this case would effectively be revoking part of the UK's "constitutional" settlement. (We don't have a written constitution as such but there are various acts concerning the government of the country.)

I'm hoping that's reasonably clear now :-)

MH

Post 61

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 1:34am

Good points Matthew! There is a theory that the support of most Labour M.P.s for this bill is because they are trying to make themselves feel radical after following such a middle way throughout Blairs government. Most have spent years voting in policies that they do not really support such as more private investment in schools and hospitals and particularily the war in Iraq. So, by banning hunting they are showing themselves as against the" establishment".
What I find sad is that I have been unable to communicate any contrary ideas effectively. People seem to want to punish any minority of which they disapprove.To me this is profoundly "unbritish" but then to be interested in our history is seen as cultural imperialism now anyway.
As a life long nonsmoker people are dumbfounded that I should support smokers rights.As someone who has never hunted I support the rights of fox hunters. May I recommend "On Hunting" by Roger Scruton as an elegy to a dying way of life. Siegfried Sassoon's Diary of a foxhunting man is also worth a read.

Post 62

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 3:30am

"The ban is specifically on hunting with dogs."

Yes, I heard someone ridiculing the new law in the news by saying that from now on if the police find a dead mouse on your property that you will have to prove that it was your cat that killed it and not your dog!!!!! :-)

There is also a breaking story today that the Police reckon that they do not have necessary resources to enforce the hunting ban.

This should tell politicians something!!!!!

They want to pass so much legislation that bans all types of individual "undesirable" activity. Smoking in public places, fatty food adverts, hunting with dogs and smacking children. What do you get? A police state!!!! However, if you want a police state, you need enough police to enforce all your laws!!!!

So, to all politicians out there that want their cake, but not to eat it as well.

Fuck off with your fucking police state!!!!!

Post 63

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 4:03am

Hear, hear Marcus. Just when I thought things were looking up for this country - given the removal of 11.00 closing, a personal bug-bear of mine, and freer gambling laws - the politicians seem to have decided to stomp on anything else that moves.

I can't agree that there is any major significance in an appeal against the Parliament Act, except maybe for a few over-excited lawyers ;-). The politicians have a monopoly over the initiation of force because the population is behind them, not because of what's written on a few bits of paper.

Post 64

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 6:10am

I agree with Oscar Wilde that fox-hunting is "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible."

Barbara

Post 65

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 6:18am

Robert: "However, anyone that finds that they relate better to pets than they do their fellow man has serious psychological problems."

Depends which fellow men.

Are you aware that children who torture animals tend to grow up to be serial killers? Surely there is something to think about here.

Barbara

Post 66

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 7:15am

Barbara,

I agree with Oscar Wilde that fox-hunting is "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible."

I'm sorry you feel this way. Out of interest, how else would you suggest that the fox population be kept at an acceptable level?

MH

Post 67

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 9:45am

"Robert: "However, anyone that finds that they relate better to pets than they do their fellow man has serious psychological problems.""

I never wrote this. And, far as I can see, I'm the only Robert on this particular thread. Please attribute quotes to their proper authors. And let's please get over this bizarre straw man that I am advocating anything beyond what goes into making a hamburger.

"Are you aware that children who torture animals tend to grow up to be serial killers? Surely there is something to think about here."

Well, they are certainly more likely to become serial killers than people who don't abuse animals. However, if you see little Timmy mutilating a bunny, its still pretty unlikely that he will grow up to become Timmy Dahmer. Serial Murder is, for all the media attention focused on it, an extremely rare behavior. And, as far as correlating childhood behaviors to future serial-killer-ness, there are other traits which correlate just as much with this, but which are generally considered much more innocuous. For example: serial killers generally have a tendency to wet their bed, and continue doing so until comparatively late in childhood, compared to "normal" bed wetters. Drug abuse, at some level, is also fairly common-- But how many people who partake in sniffing lines are there compared to how many people take to serial murder?
(Edited by Robert Bisno on 11/21, 10:01am)

Post 68

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 8:56pm

Yes Robert, there are lots of straw men being thrown around here.  Not one person on this site has advocated torture and suffering for its own sake against another animal.

Your post from a while back (#16) which generated an unfavorable response was grossly misunderstood. Clearly, you were simply stating that:

A- Humans have the right to utilize other animals as a material resource, and, more specifically,

B- You feel no guilt about it

In my view, it can't be rationally argued that you were suggesting anything other than the above. If somebody disagrees, they should argue their case rationally rather than resorting to unwarranted personal attacks and straw man arguments.

My guess is that we don't see any substantial arguments to the contrary since such arguments wouldn't be much different than those advocated PETA and the animal rights movement at large (mainly that a capacity for pain and suffering is a basis for some sort of protection), and thus at odds with Objectivism.

Also, your point about kids who mutilate and/or kill animals is dead on (no pun intended).  It is actually very common for young boys to engage in behavior that is cruel towards animals, and the overwhelming majority of those that do this do not grow up to be monsters. I confess to catching a frog as a boy and blowing it up with a firecracker. I was in the in the company of other boys, and the act was motivated by a desire to be seen as daring or rebellious in the eyes of my peers. I was trying to "impress" them. I was probably about 11 or 12 years old at the time. I soon recognized, though, that these acts were very wrong, and I of course no longer inflict any purposeless suffering on other living things. The bottom line is that many if not most kids engage in cruel behavior at some point, and abusing animals is simply one variation on this theme.

The kids who I would put on a "watch list" of sorts would be those who have a near obsession with devising new ways of torturing and killing animals for its own sake, and particularly those who engage in this behavior by themselves (as opposed to in the context of a social group of rebellious kids). If my memory serves me correctly, this is the sort of behavior the young Dahmer practiced.

(Edited by Pete on 11/21, 9:38pm)

Post 69

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 5:01am

Barbara,

"Robert: "However, anyone that finds that they relate better to pets than they do their fellow man has serious psychological problems."

Depends which fellow men."

That was a quote from my post and not Roberts.

I find Barbara’s argument disingenuous. Because I think it should be clear that I am not saying that one has to relate to all of one’s fellow men, better than your pet.

I think it is clear that if you think as Hitler did - that in general you find that you can relate much better to your pets than you can to any of your fellow human beings - then you must have serious psychological problems!!!

And if anyone disagrees with that statement. Why don't you just go and argue about the rights of foxes with your darling pooch instead???? I am sure that he/she will understand you better while he licks his chops!!!!!

Post 70

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 6:05am

Marcus, I should have put a smiley face after "Depends which fellow men."

Barbara

Post 71

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 8:34am

Barbara,

"Marcus, I should have put a smiley face after "Depends which fellow men."

O.K. Barbara. I am glad that you will refrain from setting your dogs on me :-)

Post 72

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 11:39am

Marcus, I couldn't set my dogs on you even if I wanted to -- which I don't. I only have a small and very friendly cat.

Barbara

Post 73

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 12:39pm