This Debate is copied from the Fruit Nut Message Board.
I deleted it from there, as I felt it was getting too long
and taking up too much space.

Fox Hunting
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:10 AM Fox Hunting seems to be a current issue in UK politics.. what are your thoughts? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Sarah Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:11 AM - - 11259 When you can claim to live in the countryside and unerstand how the countryside works (which we have managed to do for years before politicians became involved)then maybe you are entitled to have a view on the heritage of the contrside - until the time you have seen foxes killl lambs while they are still being given birth to, please try not to judge country people! - and yes I have a horse, I hunt and feel that I contribute to an important part of the way the countryside works!
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:15 AM - - 11260 Sarah, I don't believe we necessarily must have first hand experience of something in order to have an opinion of it. I can agree, for instance, that much of what happens out there in nature might be considered cruel. (whether or not we've ever set foot outside of the city is beside the point - there're TVs and libraries bringing things to us - though I have personally worked in primary industry, spent much time in jungles, and 2 years in the Australian outback). Foxes killing lambs while being born. I've never personally seen it, but I accept that it happens. I'm presuming you are playing on the sympathy of readers for the newly born lamb? However, if you genuinely feel it is cruel for a fox to take the life of a lamb, why might it then be considered not so, for a human to do likewise? - If the justification for killing a fox, is because it kills, then hey, shouldn't the nonvegan 99% of the population be queuing up for the firing squad? Or is your argument, that the fox damages someones property (the newborn lamb), and that the owner alone has the right to decide when the lamb should be "damaged"(murdered), when it is ripe and fat enough? I imagine the countryside managed itself far better before humans started taking control of it - Especially annual mono-crop farmers. To my knowledge also, fox hunting (with hounds and horses and bugles) is not practised by the average country person anyway, I picture it more as a pastime of the elite belonging to rich country estates and clubs and has thus nothing to do with countryside management. I have lived in France, where there are probably just as many foxes as England, and yet they manage fine without the unnecessarily drawn-out blood chase. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:16 AM - - 11261 Anyone seeking to ruin anyone elses "fun", whether you would find it fun or not, is abhorrent to me. Much more abhorrent than people who get off on chasing wild animals. I dont like rugby, there is no justification for the game, people get injured - that cant be good, spare a thought for the poor cow used for its leather (boots and ball). That cow had to die, just for a game, that cant be right? and the worms in the soil - crushed callously underfoot, all in the name of fun? it should be banned! I wont miss it when its gone.... this is no more ridiculous to me than the anti-hunting arguments. Hunting is not there to control numbers of foxes as such, its just an excuse used to justify it. If hunting were banned, sure, farmers might have to shoot the odd fox (they might of course shoot a very healthy fox capable of beating a hunt, or wound one, leaving it to die slowly). But pro-hunt people dont need that argurment. Then theres the anti-hunt "its cruel" argument. It isnt cruel. Thats it. Its NOT cruel. These are ANIMALS we are talking about, so even if you believe that animals have any sort of emotional attachment to life and that they even feel pain in the same manner as humans, its irrelevant really. Hunting is no more cruel than a leapard stalking and killing an antelope. To call it cruel is so trite it beggars belief. The fox doesnt know that its hunters have decided to kill it for sport, its not running along with a tear in its eye for chrissakes. Now im prepard to believe that some people think it is cruel and will argue that point well, so ok, lets assume it is cruel in some peoples eyes. SO WHAT!, noone is asking you to hunt! If it pleases people to smear blood on themselves - fine by me. Each to their own. I'd like to know why people want to interfere, I mean what if hunting was banned. Would that make you happy? would that make the slightest difference to your life as a non-hunter? - NO it wouldnt. but it sure as hell will be felt by hunt areas. You enjoy a nanosecond of self righteous pride, then its onto the next thing that offends your weak sensibilities. Fishing or whatever. Forget about hunting, you dont draw admiration from me for this ridiculous campaign of villification on the grounds that these people dont share your particular (twisted) view on right and wrong. Let em hunt. *I have never hunted/been involved in a hunt in any way. This issue is just a vehicle for you to prove your "caring" credentials or whatever. By all means protest, try to educate if you can, try to bring about social changes if you will, but lets keep man-made law out of it. I dont like fox hunting anymore than you do, but your reasons for offence (like mine) arent there in those that enjoy hunting, it is not universally accepted as abhorrent, like murder (inter-human murder). You can try to empasise again and again your feelings of hurt over these dying foxes, but with an eye to the long term, this [proposed law] I believe, is another example of intolerance, and as such should be avoided. Intolerance is to be written into the statute book. BIG MISTAKE. What else dont you like? would you like to ban that too? what else do you think is cruel? would you like to ban that too? just how many things do you want to ban? how many bans will it take to satisfy your morality? how would you feel about having your weekend activities declared illegal?
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:20 AM - - 11263 Ficsher, hmm, but can't you see that this argument is not just about "things that people do to have fun"? Fun is a good thing, agreed, and great if you are having it.. so long as it is NOT at the expense of others. You seem to think that Foxes (animals in general) are just feelingless objects that are there for people to abuse in however way they desire, and that they should not be given rights, supposedly only because they are not humans, and therefore are not worthy of having any rights. I am asking - Why is this discrimination made? I am not saying they should have the right to single mother pensions and the right to ride on buses, it is clear that as another species their needs are different, and mostly not related to ours. But as indiviuals unable to defend themselves from human abuse, they need protecting by law. What right do we have to say their lives are not worth protecting? Again, my reasoning here is fundamentally NOT to stop fox-hunting because I believe it is a peverted passtime, but to stop all animal abuse whether it be for entertainment, unneccesary food (there's plenty else to eat), or sadistic vivisection for cosmetics, psychological curiousity, or even medical research when there have been plenty of more ethical alternatives available for some time... Your arguments are similar to arguments that were once used to justify slave trade. Members of one particular race thought themselves superior to members of another race, purely because they were different. Different skin colour, different language. Their feelings were completely misguided and prejudged. Slave trade still exists, but generally it is accepted that it is a morally unacceptable practice. One day, our descendents will look back at our relationship to animals with a similar perspective. We are speciesists (like racists, only prejudiced against other beings purely because they are not shaped like us, and do not share our intelligence). But they share in ability to suffer. Every animal will do its best to avoid pain. Dominion over animals does not mean we can freely deprive them of life liberties and end their lives when and how we choose. It means we should care for them by respecting their lives.. So it is true, other animals kill and hunt, but maybe they would do so less if we began to set an example for them. Leading more compassionate loving lifestyles. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:21 AM - - 11264 No Mango, none of my views on freedom of individual choice to "do what thou wilt" were used to justify "captive labour" or slavery. The perverse thing is that being anti-hunting means that you want to apply the bondage of law to another group of people. "They shouldnt be allowed to do that" is what you are saying, because your views differ. This is what you are accusing ME of! My views differ to yours but I wouldnt dream of suggesting that you ought to be restrained/put into bondage. You are the one with predudices (morals) you wish to enforce that will limit the freedom of others, and you have the nerve to actually liken my firm wish that everyone be free to pursue what they will to the slave trade?, moderate words are hard for me to find.... and anyway, are you not a slave? do you not have to work for a master (money) in order to get your food and shelter? are you one of those people that cries out for more bondage (ID Cards) whilst at the same time talking of "the slave trade" and the disgusting word "Morals"? You are welcome to you your morals, I hope they serve you well, but when they are in conflict with the morals of others, perhaps you should consider your own words "...thought themselves superior to members of another...[group]...purely because they were different"
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:24 AM - - 11265 Ficsher, forgive me if I have misunderstood, but it seems to me like you are saying, that where slavery is present, you would not oppose it because you believe that would be intruding on the liberties of the enslavers? Your words are morever an exageration, I am by no means proposing to "restrain, or put a hunter into bondage". Hunters, people that hunt, should have the same freedom that we all do. What I would like to see is for these people to respect the lives of others as they themselves wish for their own lives to be respected. Where you misunderstand me and others, is that the term "others" I am encompassing to mean all sentient beings. I believe it is precisely there where we disaqree. I believe that "though shalt not kill", was meant as a guideline to general living. Taking the life of another, whether it be for so called sport, (which is never really a sport as in true sport sides would be evenly matched, and there would be no death/murder result, or undue suffering)., or for food or clothing is never justifiable. There are enough other alternatives. Vegans are far healthier than their omnnivorous counterparts. Just for the record, I am not pro governmental intrusion of the individual. The government intrudes too much already. I am not even for introducing further laws to "restrict" as you so term. I don't believe such laws would ultimately help. The change has rather, to come from the indiviual. An awakening of consciousness, that that fox, or bull, or whatever it may be, is ultimately more similar to us than we care to admit, and that ending it's life prematurely will bring us nightmares. If it is a question of lesser inteligence, that leads people to believe that it is "in order" to kill, what then would stop us from taking the life of a senile old man, a mentally retarded child, an accident vicitim in an irrecoverable coma? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:25 AM - - 11266 yep, Im all for peace and harmony. Be responsible for yourself, thats what I say. forget what others are doing...thats their business. They wanna kill animals for fun, fine. They want to protest, fine. They want to legislate on morality, take a running jump! Thats it.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:26 AM - - 11267 What I don't really understand, is the attitude that it is not acceptable for someone to "legislate on morailty" to you, an individual, and I presume any other individual at all, because that would feel threatening to your privacy and freewill, and yet, somehow, you seem to believe that it is perfectly ok to invade the privacy of other beings/individuals that are membered to other species.. No.. worse, it is not even just an invasion of privacy, it is a forced life of imprisonment for many animals, full of suffering, physical and mental, followed by death when the flesh is fattened enough. - Do you think this is totally acceptable, and we shouldn't interfere if other (people) want to abuse others (animals), that's their business? - With the slave trade, if others hadn't protested the immorality of trading human brethren of different races, it would possibly still be as popular as it was back then, and these morals would have been in direct conflict with the morals of the sweetcorn plantation owners who appreciated the enforced labour. I don't understand where you are coming from. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:27 AM - - 11268 I dont expect you to understand that my morality is not going to neccesarily be the same as yours, these are beliefs, I doubt I can change your belief system....thats THE POINT. Look, if you consider that this weekend I saw 4 dead foxes on the roadside, perhaps their deaths could have been prevented? perhpas if we stopped using cars? perhaps then, our use of cars is immoral? since in your view infringing on ANY other living thing is immoral? how far are you willing to go? There is NOT anything absolute and true, just your perceptions, they are not my perceptions, why do your perceptions have more value than mine?..... If you percieve nothing wrong with, using your example, slavery, then to you there is nothing wrong with slavery! All I am saying on this issue is this: you are entitled to believe fox-hunting is wrong, however, I dont believe you are entitled to stop (using laws) someone else doing it JUST BECUASE YOU PERCEIVE IT DIFFERENTLY. Now if you can *persuade* them to change, fine. I must insist though, that you drop the slavery analogy, since it is a completely non-analogous to fox-hunting. Your argument is that animals=humans, so using an analogy that changes that to humans=humans is getting us nowhere. show me someone who would seriously toss a coin to decide who dies, a human or an animal! most people would choose that the human lives, are you saying they are immoral?
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:29 AM - - 11269 Yes, but Ficsher, your logic appears inconsistent. Or perhaps I have still not fully understood, and you are in actual fact arguing for a completely lawless society. All laws are in effect someone elses morals imposed upon us. - Do you believe that paedophiles should be allowed to practise their perversity unhindered because the view that their acts may be immoral or not, is an individual perception? My argument has never been that humans=animals, there is rarely a situation when one would have to decide between whether it is an animal that lives, or a human, I have never been faced with such a dilemna, but it would be clear that human would take priority. In the case of opposition to fox hunting, I believe it is fair and analogous to make a comparison to the slave trade, without trying to equate human and fox. Their situation is comparable thus: The fox is a being desiring to live, but being abused for the perverse pleasure of others, and unable to defend itself. Laws were introduced to prevent slavery, thus aiding a group that had otherwise been unable to defend themselves. Perhaps you would have it that anti-slavery laws were never introduced, this appears to be what you are saying. As for the car issue, a car is not a deliberatly designed weapon, though it can be used as such, accidental road deaths are accidents, perhaps preventable through more careful roadsense, but this is a seperate issue. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:30 AM - - 11270 Its probably best if we avoid comparisons and analogies, since you will select ridiculous ones like pedophillia. Plainly that is child abuse, yeah Im REALLY supporting that! If you want a ban on fox hunting, ask who's life you are improving...a foxes life. whos life are you adversely affecting? many people. Will your life or the lives of non-hunters be improved in any measurable way? no. So it comes down to a choice between saving "a few" foxes, who will ultimately die anyway (and it wont be in a hospital bed with a morphine drip next to them either), and in many cases their deaths are required by farming interests etc. So basically you can materially change *nothing* except sate the sensibilities of a morally righteous and ignorant group of animal lovers who have lost all sense of perspective and proportion. A group of inverted snobs effectively. It really is *just* the fact that some people get pleasure from it that many of the anti-hunters object to, if animal rights were the real focus, as the original question implies, anti-hunt demonstrators would also be heckling farmers, fisherman, pet owners, omnivores generally etc.. They would be seeking to segregate predators everywhere from their prey to save their crocodile tears. If I may venture back into the tricky world of the analogy, (bad boy) to me, its like putting a screwdriver through a football being used for a match because it is leather. I want to move this argument along to How you think life would be better for *you* if fox hunting be banned??
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:32 AM - - 11272 It is true, I have nothing to gain by a ban on fox hunting. I am not disputing for the fox because I have any expectation to gain anything from so doing. Have you gained anything through anti-slavery laws being passed? Yes I will insist on drawing such an analogy, as until now you have not given any reason to not do so, excepting that you personally think it ridiculous. With my comparison to paedophillia and such, I was not expecting you to admit support, the argument was merely meant as an example of how some morals imposed on us by law are acceptable, which you seem to be in agreement with, - but yet you are still arguing that morals should not be imposed on us, which is clearly contradictory to how you supposedly really feel, I ask again, would you have it that anti-slavery laws were never introduced? And if yes, would you not admit that this is a moral imposed on us that some may not neccesserily agree with? (That is what you are arguing isn't it?). It is not relevant at all whether we personally would stand to gain anything from banning fox hunting, or banning slavery, the issue is about a group that is unable to defend itself. Indeed, the current issue is not even really about foxes in my mind. It is about our whole attitude toward other animal species. I would ask, for a clear definition / destinction between humans and other animals? And again: If it is a question of lesser intelligence, that leads people to believe that it is acceptable to kill, what then would stop us from taking the life of a senile old man, a mentally retarded child, an accident victim living life as a vegetable? It's true, an animals appearance, form, intelligence may well be different to that generally of those of our own species, but in ability to suffer, they are equal, and choosing to say that the life of a fox is unimportant, purely because it is "just a fox", ie doesn't commute to work reading a newspaper, is an act of prejudgement, whether you will admit so or not. You may be surprised to know, that many anti-hunt demonstrators ARE also heckling farmers, fisherman, pet owners, and omnivores generally etc.. I would see no reason to stick a screwdriver through a leather football, but hey, why not think about buying a synthetic football next time round? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:32 AM - - 11273 emotion emotion emotion where are your absolutes?
Sue Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:33 AM - - 11274 Hmm... very interesting views here.The most debatable being the "why ban something people enjoy?" viewpoint. Of course,people used to enjoy shoving little boys up chimneys...now,why did they stop that?The Squire of the Manor used to enjoy deflowering village maidens..what a fun pasttime that was,until some do-gooder stopped it!And locking the mentally ill up in asylums...oh yes..pay a penny to mock the lunatics...what a hoot that was!They stopped that too. And why did they stop these things? Because they offended the majority and were seen to be alien to civilised society.Like foxhunting!That's why we have laws,to protect society from descending into the mire.To argue that everyone should be free to do what the hell they like is to advocate anarchy.
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:34 AM - - 11275 Stopping someone doing something because you dont like it will "protect society from descending into the mire" will it? I would argue the opposite. The other comparisons you have made, again, involve humam suffering, which is in a completely different class, at least as far as Im concerned. badger baiting would have been a better comparison. And the best comment so far... thinking everyone should be able to do just what they like is not advocating anarchy, merely freedom to be individual, to have individual thoughts, to differ from you. Simply, you dont agree with foxhunting....fine....why go from that to wanting to BAN it? you cannot justify it to an actual foxhunter, because it is based on YOUR BELIEFS not theirs. Your beliefs are no more valuable than theirs. no more right, no more wrong. In such circumstances is a BAN legitimate? I dont think so.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:35 AM - - 11276 Ficsher, you are going around in circles. Your argument is inconsistent. All beliefs are personal, agreed, but I'd like to know why "thinking everyone should be able to do just what they like is NOT advocating anarchy"? We may share the belief that torturing humans is nonacceptable, but there is no guarantee that Fred down the road will be in agreement. You keep skirting around this issue. Following your reasoning through, Fred should be given the freedom to torture if he wishes, - "Your beliefs are no more valuable than theirs". And maybe you think this is not the case - in which case I might answer - "emotion emotion emotion" - But what kind of argument would that be? The law exists partially to offer protection to those that cannot protect themselves, if you think remotely that badgers may need protection from badger baiting, as you have just hinted, then why not foxes from the chase too? And if you think neither should be protected by law, do you think that if Fred gets his kicks out of torturing dogs, he should be allowed to continue doing so? I might also ask - Where are YOUR absolutes? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Fred Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:36 AM - - 11277 Ha! No don't worry, I don't torture dogs! Actually, It seems that both Ficsher and Mango are going around in circles. Personally I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this issue. However, I like to concider myself somewhat of a logician, and it definitely seems like Mango's ideas are more consistent at this point. His argument for animals having rights seems valid to me, I mean, if I were to be someone that got my kicks from pulling the legs off of kittens, should I be stopped Fickser? And I agree with Sue, that F's argument would seem to lead to complete Anarchy, and don't understand how he can conclude otherwise - F - on the one hand you argue that we should be free to do as we wish, without restricting laws, and on the other hand, you skirt around the whole issue of where to draw the line, and why, like a politician unable to give a straight answer. - And Mango, where your logic seems flawed, is precisely there too - where do you draw your line? Would you make it illegal to eat meat? Animals are going to be killed one way or another, after all, we need to eat, and killing is our nature just like with lions.
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:37 AM - - 11278 If there seems to be a circular motion to this arguement then that is down to my having to reiterate my basic points again and again. My argument is not inconsistent, It is multi faceted, and none of these facets have been addressed. Allow me to rephrase the anarchy thing for you: Allowing people to do what YOU DONT LIKE (not what is UNIVERSALLY considered wrong, which is different) is not advocating anarchy. Better?. To sum up my points once again: A ban on foxhunting will only affect a) Foxes and b) those involved with hunting. The foxes concerned will be affected in the sense that they will now die by a method other than the hunt. This could be any number of ways. Traffic. Traps. Poisoning. Shot. Disease. And least likely of all: from old age while sipping pimms in a fox's retirement villa. Their deaths will be final, possibly painfull and certainly inevitable, some argue neccessary. A Ban will prevent one of these death bringing events, that is ALL it will do for foxes, ok?. Now the only other parties affected is the foxhunters and associated industries. Farriers. Kennels. Stables. Farmers etc.. The ban will NOT improve the lives of these people. They like hunting and/or hunting is part of their livelyhoods. There is possibly another group affected by the Ban, that is you, the objector. I can only assume that a ban will give you a warm feeling inside or something, will it be good to think of the fox, free from the tyranny of the hunt, bouncing through the forest and into a trap? or onto a road and under the wheels of a lorry? or to be shot from half a mile away so that it can limp into the bushes to slowly rot? or to eat from a tray of beef laced with poison?. The point here is that a Ban does nothing of consequence to either the fox or the anti-hunt type person. NOTHING. The hunt people's lives are affected dramatically and detrimentally. So I ask you where is your motivation for a ban?. Animal welfare? well the fox either, er, dies, or it, er, dies!! I must remind you that THIS IS A DISCUSSION ON FOXHUNTING. Not on "torturing dogs" or "slavery" or "peadophillia" or "child labour" etc.. It is no more an unnatural/barbaric/twisted/sick occurance than an Owl swooping to catch a vole. One animal acts to kills another, this happens millions of times a day everywhere you care to mention, It could be said to be "normal" and "natural" quite legitimately. You are not affected. My absolutes are CLEAR: It doesnt affect me, it is not actually doing anything of consequence to the animal either, So crack-on hunters, have a great day out.... I dont like what you do, it doesnt turn me on, but hey! you gotta control these foxes and these foxes die anyway, whats the difference? I COULD ask for a Ban because there are enough people who dont care for hunter-types and dont understand country ways and realities to get me that ban, but shit, when I sit down and think about it I realise that its only going to screw around with the lives of other, perfectly legitimate, tax paying people, so on reflection, I will stand my ground against all the odds in a tin pot internet forum and force myself to read righteous diatribes from people who ought to be living like Hindu priests in order for their pompus postulations to have any weight whatever. For Christ-sake get a life and stop seeking to interfere in the lives and livelyhoods of people you dont understand, on the basis of some postmodern transient notions of whats "right" and "wrong". This issue is pathetic really, its like you HATE people who dont share your view on animal rights, and there are plenty who argue for this ban becuase they HATE what they percieve to be a priveleged class lording it up over the countryside. It it snobbery inverted, let go of that hate, I say to those who will know who they are. If anyone thinks that they are contributing to some sort of "better world" by supporting this shit, oppressive idea, I urgue them to learn about it, and the people involved and the realities of the countryside and then to reconsider. I understand some of you dont like the idea of deliberately killing and all that, but it isnt you doing it! you dont have to see it. you dont even have to think about it, actually I'll bet most of you dont think about it except when someone brings it up and your social programming demands that you look gravely concerned and tut and mutter "it should be banned". There are far more pressing concerns in the world right now, real oppression and murder, of thinking, feeling PEOPLE, and you choose to focus on this? its a joke isnt it? are you for real or what?. Cheers to the several dozen people who have expressed support to me privately, and I too, hope that one day, like you all say to me, that the PC atmosphere of oppression does cave in and we get back to reality on this and many other issues that are currently being led by righteous moralistic marxist dictators in the press and their sheep-like mouthpieces that you find across the country mindlessly repeating their given opinions. AMEN.
Fred Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:49 AM - - 11284 Ficser, ooh, temper temper! I fail to see why you have gotten so emotional about this, as I said, I don't really give a damn one way or the other about this law passing, so what's the big deal? what do you mean by UNIVERSALLY considered wrong ? - according to your own words previously, there is no such thing. You have said yourself that all morals are individual. So it still appears to me that your argument is inconsistent. Also, you still avoided answering the question about where to draw the line. Sure this is a section for discussing Fox Hunting, but the points you bring up would be just as rellevant for any of the other issues you are politically avoiding. I am curious to see what you think. In any situation of exploitation, there will be predominantly 2 parties that loose out by it's banning. Nothing revolutionary about that. Your argument that the fox has to die anyway is the most lame I've seen so far, on par with that other one that foxes kill lambs. it may have escaped your attention, but everything dies eventually, for whatever reasons. You are trying to avoid taking it outside of the foxhunt issue, but actually, I agree with Mango, you could just as easily be arguing for nonabolishment of - slavery, child labour, dog torturing or whatever, your arguments would be just as meaningless. And lets face it, hunt peoples lives will not be "affected dramatically and detrimentally", what an exageration. It will be easy enough to find some other sunday afternoon passtime. Also, an owl swooping down on a mouse does so out of gastrinomical necessity, I don't think I've ever heard of fox stew before.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 11:51 AM - - 11285 Fred, In answer to your first post, I would rather that humanity as a whole just didn't abuse animals or humans, and that laws to protect both were unnecessary, as the thought of abusing either would never enter anyones head. However, I can see that that day will probably not be tomorrow, so until then, I think laws are needed. Though of course Ficsher is right that they will die someday, possibly even a worse death, but possibly not, I think they should be given that chance. I can't see where you think my reasoning is flawed? - You are basing your logic on a false assumption - that flesh eating is necessary for survival, whereas there is ample evidence to suggest that eating flesh is actually detrimental to our healths. - We aren't lions, and most of us aren't born killers. In fact, I'd say, that most people would be naturally vegetarian if not forced to eat flesh from a very young age. - The challenge would be to kill an animal for ones supper, pig, lamb, cow, whatever (or at least be present for the grizzly hour of it's death), before it's butchering into plate-sized junks, and one would learn that in our hearts we are not carnivores. This is the bloody tip of the iceberg yes, but it is also fact, and much more honest than polythene wrapped rump-steak on a supermarket shelf. And Ficsher, yes, I am aware of what goes on in nature, the law of the jungle, but this is no reason that we should embrase this law and accept it as an excuse to do likewise. Some species eat their own kind, it may be natural for them to do so, some tribes might argue that for humans too, but just because it exists, doesn't make it right. I realise I've gone way beyond the Fox-Hunting issue, my reasoning has always been to show that there are no absolutes. I act out of a genuine curiousity to find out why certain lines are drawn, and others not.? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Fred Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 11:59 AM - - 11287 I feel in a way, the argument that Mango presents, had it been presented by anone else with less conviction would be hypocritical, and were he not to have given his "tupence worth" as he puts it, I'd probably be in agreement with Jimm'll Ficsher. Where he(F) fails though, is that he IS empathizing with animals at times. The Badger baiting was a hint, and his inability to step outside of the Fox issue and answer the Dog Torturing question, and his insisting that he is being consistent when he is clearly not. - I'm not veggie either, (at least not yet, but am starting to wonder), and it's really unclear why I am taking the foxes side more on this issue, but I guess i am just compelled by the whole debate too.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:02 PM - - 11288 Fred, I think that what Ficsher means as "UNIVERSALLY considered wrong" are issues that the majority of the general populace (51%+) would be opposed to. So unless I am mistaken, leads me to wonder why he is arguing for not abolishing the hunt when it is clear that the vast majority are opposed to it. Anyhow, at the risk of further repetition, I'd like to address Ficshers points systematically, 1. "My argument is not inconsistent, It is multi faceted, and none of these facets have been addressed." - Actually most of these issues HAVE been addressed previously. 2. "A ban on foxhunting will only affect a)Foxes and b)those involved with hunting." - Probably. But so what? If you would take this argument away from foxhunting, and apply it to another issue (ie, this'll probably ruffle your feathers the wrong way, - slavery, or nonabolishment of slavery - another issue that I'm sure 51% of the population would be opposed), then you will see how pointless this argument is. No one is denying that these are the only 2 predominantly affected parties. In both these issues there is a victim and a victimizer, and why should the victimizer be entitiled to more sympathy? If the victim needs protecting, then I am all for a law to do so. 3. "The foxes concerned will be affected (by the passing of the anti-hunt law) in the sense that they will now die by a method other than the hunt." - Sure, but as Fred has pointed out, justifying killing something because it will die anyway is pretty lame, let's think,- what else could one justify killing because it will die one day anyway? 4. "The point here is that a Ban does nothing of consequence to either the fox or the anti-hunt type person." - No anti-hunt person is after a consequent for themselves, as did neither the anti-slavery demonstrators of their era. There is nothing in it for me. For the fox, how can you say there is nothing of consequence in it for it? - it will live another day, and much as you may not think so, it values its life. Or do you honestly think the only lives worth valuing are those of our own species? 5. "its like you HATE people who dont share your view on animal rights" - there is no justification for saying this, I don't hate the hunters, and i don't hate those that disagree with animals having rights. I do enjoy the discussion about this as it provides some stimulation, and although I am naturally sympathetic toward the victim, you are exagerating about how hunters lives will be affected. 6. "I understand some of you dont like the idea of deliberately killing and all that, but it isnt you doing it! you dont have to see it. you dont even have to think about it." - This argument suggests that you think that people should be able to do as they wish, and as long as it is in private, and out of sight it is ok. Out of sight, out of mind. Like your other reasons, this one is pretty lame too. 7. "It is no more an unnatural/barbaric/twisted/sick occurance than an Owl swooping to catch a vole." - Excepting that the owl "does so out of gastrinomical necessity" (well put Fred!), and as I have already said, just because the law of the jungle exists, it is no reason for us to accept it as an excuse and do likewise. 8. "My absolutes are CLEAR: It doesnt affect me, it is not actually doing anything of consequence to the animal either, So crack-on hunters, have a great day out...." - Does anything outside of your own neighbourhood affect you? (for "no consequence to the animal", see point 4). ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:03 PM - - 11289 We take a majority decision on what we deem to be morally correct and we write it into law, right? we prevent the minority from exercising that which the majority deems to be morally wrong? What is the mechanism at work in this process? you have to identify something that someone somewhere deems morally wrong and then you have to create support for this cause in enough people such that you can claim that a majority now deem it to be morally wrong. fine. What I have a problem with is this: you are saying fox hunting is morally wrong, becuase killing an animal for pleasure is morally wrong. NOT killing *foxes* is morally wrong, but killing animals generally, and you want therefore, the law to legislate against what? killing animals? no! you want to legislate killing foxes, with hounds. So you are using an apparently *moral* argument about animal welfare to ban something that just has an *element* of animal welfare considerations. I am pointing out the flawed logic and frankly, the hipocracy, in this. If you are to use the "killing animals is just wrong" argument for this legislation, why is there not also a majority of vegans in this country?. Using the argument that a majority dont want foxes killed *because* they think it is morally wrong to kill *animals* is farsical. IF IT WERE THAT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS MORALLY WRONG WE WOULD NOT EXPLOIT ANIMALS AT ALL. But I do take what you say as true, that is indeed how laws are formed, in this case though your justification is flawed.
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:04 PM - - 11290 I got a little bit confused there...yes, I do think it is morally wrong for animals to be killed for pleasure, and I do think that legislation needs to be in place to specifically prevent fox hunting using hounds. Laws usually are this specific. Personally, I don't think that killing animals is inherently wrong. I'm not a vegetarian, but the people I know who are, tend make that choice less for the fact that an animal is killed, and more in protest against the conditions in which the animals are kept prior to being killed. And the methods with which they are killed. As I understand it, due to pressure from people finding current farming methods morally repugnant, these same methods are slowly being addressed and changed.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:06 PM - - 11292 Some people live under the false assumption that eating animal flesh is necessary for their survival. This is their justification for allowing an animal to be killed to be eaten, but as they are yet aware of the individuality of the animal, they may also feel that they wish for their meal animals to be treated as fairly as possible while they are still alive. They may abhor cruelty, but feel they must reluctantly participate in the deaths, in order to attain daily protein requirements or whatever the current theory is. It seems to me, reasonable, that these people may also campaign to abolish something like fox hunting, as they see it as an unnecessary torment to the fox. Ficsher, why need there be a predominance of vegans in order for such an abolishment to be justified? The discussion here is predominantly whether or not *fox hunting* should be banned, and a majority seem to think so as they believe killing *animals* *for pleasure* is unnecessarily cruel. Why is this *farcical*?. Your last reply seemed cloudy and unclear. You are pointing out something, maybe, but I fail to see what exactly? Personally, I am a vegan, the fox hunting issue is just another way for me to stick my tuppence worth in, I am opposed to killing animals, for basically whatever reason, other than unrealistic hypothetical situations of self-defense. I have asked questions in my previous posts which I believe merit consideration. Gandhi once said, that you can judge the evolutionary state of a nation by the way it treats it's animals. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:06 PM - - 11293 This is taking the topic a little (well, a lot!) off track, but I wonder how much of the hysteria surrounding hunting, vegetarianism and animals rights has to do with our society's ever increasing obsession with postponing death and its related blood, guts and cruelty. Bear with me! It was something Fischer said about us being bombarded with messages that killing is wrong, that the masses follow this thinking without questioning it (sorry Fishcer, if I'm taking liberties with what you said). As a group, we seem to be constantly looking for ways of postponing the inevitable - death - medicine allows us to live longer, now we're moving into cloning and related avenues, with the aim of further increasing life spans, or having our DNA continue eternally at the least. We are a culture blatantly obsessed with youth. Death is a private and clean affair. People generally aren't involved in the killing process of their food, the blood and guts reality of the death of the animal is something most people don't want to face. And the corresponding obsession with cleanliness and perfection. Anti-bacterial cleaning agents, hand washes, we can't stand the thought of all those nasty, dirty germs coming in contact with us. So in a way hunting can be viewed as the ultimate display of cruelty and death. With a group mentality that tells itself that death is messy and cruel (as it is) and to be avoided, that life should be clean and sterile, it's hardly surprising that the gut reaction of most people to the idea of hunting is revulsion. Again, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm not sure how healthy it is to live so divorced from death. Just a thought, anyway.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:09 PM - - 11294 Cathy, interesting theory, and very possibly truthful for some people, but personally I don't think death is something to be feared, neither am I particularly obsessed with cleanliness at least not in a way that would be readily recognized. Bacteria and microbes mean next to nothing to me. I wish it were true that the masses were bombarded with messages stating that killing is wrong, but I'd say the opposite was almost true, the media and TV often almost portray killing as being a noble brave thing, warfare is still glorified, children still have fun pretend killing each other with guns, preparing them for possible real life scenarios later, animal flesh, or it's derivatives, are on the dinner table in most households, most dinners most days. Killing is very much accepted. My reasoning for this protest is based predominantly on knowledge of my own ability to suffer and feel pain, mentally and physically. This is not pleasant, and it is not my nature to wish similar on others. I see no reason to believe that others too will not suffer when beaten, imprisoned or threatened with death. I believe this to be the case for you, as well as others, and other individuals of other species. I would argue the case that all victimized should be protected, because, selfishly, I too would like my life to be protected if threatened and be able to live as free as is natural. I don't feel I have divorced myself from death, because I fully accept that it will happen, that it happens, but may it happen pleasantly, as I believe it can, and be when the individual is ready, and not when someone else chooses to end it for them. I would ask why is there this feeling that foxes need to be killed? I have several friends who work in primary industry, where foxes are very present, and yet they are not at all preoccupied with killing them, in fact, it is considered quite fortunate to catch sight of them occasionally. Want to know their secret? It is that they are not rearing animals to be killed, they practice fruit tree cultivation, animalless permaculture and some monocrop grain production. The whole thing is otherwise a vicious circle, - farmers breed sheep or chicken to be ultimately slaughtered butchered and dined upon, pretty barbaric if you ask me, and then complain at the fox if it gets there before them. The fox has far less choice in the matter than the human. We CAN live without becoming zombie flesh eaters. At one point there were only 10 clearly written laws, one of them was "Thou shalt not kill" I question why it is not taken seriously. I'd like to know why does it seem almost impossible for some people to apparantly have no sympathy/empathy for animals? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:09 PM - - 11295 Mango, it's not that I don't have empathy for animals, I just don't want to make the choice to be a vegetarian. To be honest, I don't have a clear reason for this ambivalence, maybe it's because I perceive vegetarianism as being largely a political choice. I don't mean that every vegetarian is doing it for political reasons, I know that people who feel like you do have strong convictions and clearly defined moral beliefs in the sanctity of all life. But in general, as a movement, it's too overtly political for my liking. I don't think that eating animal flesh is wrong, if I was going to protest it would be at the conditions in which the animals live. I don't find it cruel that an animal be born with the express purpose of being consumed at the end of it's life. It's as good a purpose for living as any. What it should have a right too, though, is a comfortable life free from unnecessary suffering such as that experienced by farm animals. And a quick and painless death. When I was talking about the media hype of killing being wrong, I should have been more specific. I meant the movements, such as vegetarianism, animals rights and so on, sending out a (not unreasonable) message that killing animals, whether for food or pleasure, is wrong. The point where I get stuck is just about there. I don't see how killing animals is wrong or unjustified. It's one of the facets of life. Sustained cruelty I would agree is wrong, in fact I think the message would be stronger it focused more on the issue of cruelty rather than killing.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:11 PM - - 11296 Cathy, I fully agree with your last sentence, it is the cruelty issue which most people will react to. However, the reality of the matter is that if animal welfarists were to succeed in completely removing the cruelty factor (apart from the last few moments of it's life before slaughter), flesh products would be virtually unobtainable food items. The demand has gotten way beyond the capabilities of less than the intensive farming methods currently used. (I'm not actually sure which other non farming methods you are refering - hunting, traps etc?). I'm not sure I fully understand either your stance about vegetarianism being political, but even if this is the case, there would be no obligation to join that political movement. One can become vegetarian in ones own home, and never enter a debate about it with anyone. Your sentiments about not finding it cruel - "that an animal be born with the express purpose of later consumption is a good a purpose for living as any", I can never agree with. - Just as a little experiment, play around with that word "animal", substitute a less neutral species name. hmm.. I wont push it too far, this time, but let's say, "Dolphin", hmmm.. "Chimpanzee".. "Swan".. "Squirrel", "Cats". Ok, enough, the purpose of the experiment is to show that we have been brain washed into believing that certain animal species are solely there to be eaten. We might hang up net bags of nuts and seeds for the sparrows, or feed the park ducks on a sunday afternoon, but then we go home and roast a chicken. It is only one of the facets in life because we unquestioningly give it our support as consumers. And my appologies for stating people have apparantly no sympathy/empathy for animals, - I know there are really plenty of people out there that do care for animals. It's just they are living a contradiciton. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Fred Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:12 PM - - 11297 Wow! Sorry... I wasn't going to write anymore here, but that is just so mindblowingly wierd! Are you a mind reader, or a neighbour I don't know or what? Because, well, yesterday evening I happened to hang out a new nutstocking for the tits and the sparrows that visit our porch, and this morning I took the kids to the park to feed the local pigeons while Doreen (my better half) was at home roasting "a chicken", as you put it. and now while I'm lazying around digesting, I read your post, and it fels so wierd, like dayzhavu, or whatever it's called. It is true, I feel like I am teaching my kids conflicting values, - not to chase the pigeons, to be nice to them, yet eating chicken is completely socially acceptable in our household. Why is this so? I feellike a hypocrit...
Dorothy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:21 PM - - 11298 I think where the Ficsher logic fails, is that he is unable to commit himshelf fully to his argument. I noticed earlier he was asked if he would report a theoretical next door neighour who was abusing a dog. His response was some waffle about tolerance. When asked about whether Fred should be prohibited by law from sawing off kitten legs or whatever it was, he once more avoided answering the question. But when the fox hunting issue is raised, ahh! then there is no hesitation, people should be allowed to have whatever fun they wish with foxes, and we should shut up and let them get on with it. If he followed through, and Cathy was correct that his stance was complete nonempathy with animals, I'd perhaps understand him better, but his reluctance to answer these questions suggests to me there IS some empathy. Perhaps he does secretly desire some animal welfare laws for certain species. Which would lead me to ask why for some and not for others? His other point, which I don't think Mango properly addressed, is the issue about the anti-foxhunt people caring more for the fox than they do for the humans, I don't think this is just, as he is comparing 2(?) hours of sick fun and an afternoon in the pub, with 2 hours of fear and dread followed by being ripped to death by a pack of frenzied hounds. It's clear that my sympathy too, lies more with the fox, but it certainly doesn't mean I hate hunters, or value more the life of fox than I do theirs, the comparison isn't between lives, it is between the foxes life, and a sick afternoons entertainment. If there is any hate it would appear to be toward the fox. - Dotty
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:22 PM - - 11299 Mango, I am fully aware of the contradiction in some of the things I am saying, and if nothing else, debating about it in this way is an atttempt to resolve the contradiction for myself. My belief that raising animals expressly for consumption not being cruel (as long as their life is free from suffering) is based on the fact that any empathy we can feel for animals can only go as far as the physical. By this I mean the following. I don't believe that animals have any concept of life or death, and as such are not capable of being traumatised emotionally or spiritually by the knowledge of death's looming presence. If they live a comfortable life on a farm, not subject to cruel modern farming methods (say free range versus battery chickens), they are not suffering physically, and they are not suffering pyschologically with the knowledge that the ultimate purpose of their life is gastronomical. If we replace the farm animal with humans (for a theoretical moment), then the major difference is that a person living in the knowledge of the inevitability of their death is subject to pyschological and emotional torment. And I think we would all recognise that as a form of cruelty. But this is not a form of cruelty that animals can be subject to. I also don't see any hyprocrisy is feeding the birds in the park, then going home and eating chicken. You are engaging in separate relationships with separate beings. Eating meat doesn't preclude a friendship with your cat, or the enjoyment of a bird in its natural habitat. The choice of animal flesh that you eat IS largely a cultural one, or perhaps dictated by the machinations of capitalism and large-scale farming, but that doesn't make eating meat morally dubious. I just like to really examine the whole concept of vegetarianism, and discover whether the benefits are really for the animals themselves. Not agreeing with killing animals in principal seems to me to be more something done for the spiritual benefit of the person than for the benefit of the animal. I'm not saying that this lessens the intention or the strength of the person's belief, but I think it lessens the obligation for everyone to feel guilty if they don't feel this spiritual or moral obligation. As for the issue of the cruelty of farming techniques, as far as I am concerned, this is a different kettle of fish. This is where I have my doubts, because I know that the meat I am eating is the product of an animal's suffering. And you are probably right that without these wholesale and inhumane methods, the supply of meat would not support the demand. This is where my hypocrisy lies, I am fully aware of it. However, there is something in me, some gut reaction that I can't rationalise, that makes me decide to not be a vegetarian.
Sue Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:22 PM - - 11301 I think much of the revulsion towards fox hunting is because of the cruelty involved...the chase,the catching of the exhausted fox and the bloody and prolonged end.It is beyond me that creatures who profess to belong to the same species as me can actually enjoy watching this spectacle.As for the ritual "bloodying" of fledgling hunters...ugh!As for eating meat,which I do,I have to admit that I do not associate the roast joint on my plate with the animal in the field.Perhaps it is because I am not required to kill my own supper that I continue to eat meat.I am pretty certain that I could not take part in the slaughter of an animal even if I were starving.Yes,being a carnivore and opposing hunting does seem hypocritical,I agree.Perhaps it is because I perceive hunting to be vicious and cruel,but a clean kill in a slaughterhouse not.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:25 PM - - 11302 Cathy, you raise some interesting issues, which I'd like to try and address individually. I am not aware that it is fact that an empathy for animals can only go as far as the physical. Have you never seen a dog crying because it believes it has been abandoned outside a supermarket, or heard of a dog ripping the living room to pieces out of boredom, a form of emotional suffering? Have you never heard a cow mooing (sometimes for weeks on end) because it's calf has being physically removed from it (destined for the slaughter house for viel or worse) to satisfy the milk consumtion demands of the milky masses? Or further afield, the stories of elephants going on the rampage after their mate has been killed. Personally I know of a turtle dove that starved itself to death after it's mate was shot. Why else would a chicken be pulling out all it's own feather if not emotionally suffering in it's cage? If you ever visit a slaughterhouse there is ample evidence from the behaviour of the animals not yet slaughtered to suspect that they are fully aware of their impending fate. Their flesh is probably saturated with fear at the time of death. I think there is ample evidence to support that animals are more like us than we care to picture. I agree, that free range animal livestock may not have an awareness that they are destined for the dinnerplate, at least, theoretically it could be completely hidden from them until their time is up, however, it is unclear to me how even free range farming could remove all cruelty and suffering. In the case of chickens, so called free-range farming is often just as intense as battery methods, and even when it is not, chickens will suffer emotionally when their eggs are removed (From my experience in primary industry, I have seen this to be so). The contradiction (I don't like the word hypocracy as it is too personal, I am convinced that most people in this forum would be quite pleasant if encountered socially, and I promise I wouldn't waffle on about animal rights!), with the ducks and the chicken, is that society and our families teach us on the surface to be nice to "animals". Ie, the lesson being compassion to animals, not compassion to ducks, and cats, but to pretty much all beings. (with some minor exceptions like rats perhaps), anyhow my point is, that if it were chickens that were running free range at the park, and not the duck, or the pigeons, we would be just as likely to be throwing them bread crumbs, and telling our kids not to chase them. This is where it is morally dubious, as on the one hand we are taught to respect and love, and on the other hand, we have been brain washed by media and tradition, to accept unquestioningly whatever is stacked in the butchers fridge, and to some how justify doing so. Sue, believe me, there is no such thing as a clean kill in a slaughterhouse, those places have so many animals to kill each day, and the mental and physical needs of animals destined for the supermarket are the least of anyones problem. No one that works in such a place gives a damn about improving the last moments of an animals life. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Fred Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:26 PM - - 11303 I can see what you are saying Mango, - I recall an incident a few years ago when our eldest(Tara) was just around 3, she saw me taking out a plastic back with some lamb chops from the freezer, and when it had defrosted, she asked me "Daddy, is that lamb juice?" I explained to her that it was lamb blood in the bag, and after a few moments of silence, she began crying, and told me she'd never eat lamb again. For over a week we couldn't get her to eat any meat at all, but eventually with a good deal of persuasion and pressure from us, she started eating it again. Earlier that same year we had been visitng a friend in the country in Devon, and had walked through a field of sheep with their young, which Tara had found totally fascinating(who wouldn't!). As a parent, we have been trying to teach our girls to love all animals. and until now, I wasn't even aware that we weren't doing so, or maybe I have just not wanted to realise. I have been trying to rationilse this too, but failing, and probably feel like Cathy feels. Anyhow, today I checked out a book from the Library that Mango recommended to me in an email, ("Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer), and the little I've read of that so far, together with these last few days, this forum and Mangos website(fruitnut), Doreen and I have been really discussing this whole vegetarian thing, and we've decided to give it a shot. The girls are absolutely delighted at the idea. In a way, although at some level it seems like an exageration, I feel you are right, we HAVE all been brainwashed through clever marketting into accepting meat onto our dinner plates. None of us in this household would be capable of killing our own supper, so I must agree, that the nature of this family at least, is vegetarian, even if we've never been practising it.
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:27 PM - - 11304 I was not trying to claim that animals are incapable of feeling or expressing emotion, it is clearly obvious that they do. I was trying to explore the idea that they, unlike us, live without an awareness of their mortality. And if, albeit extremely theoretically, they are farmed in a manner which is not causing them suffering, then I find it difficult to uphold the absolute that killing them is wrong. Humans have always been meat eaters, farming underpins civilisation. We are all aware that the transition from hunter/gatherer to farmer is what enabled man to settle in one spot, form societies and blah, blah, blah: here we are! Killing animals is not something new to us, a by-product of the evils of modernity, and I DO believe that if I had to kill my meat by myself I would be capable of it, after a couple of queasy attempts no doubt! And to bring back a thread from another area of the site, I really would be interested how it is that you are able to draw the line between plants and animals. Killing a plant is surely as great a desecration of the sanctity of life as is killing an animal. I mean, if we allow animals their particular relationship (which we can't fully understand) with their existence and their environment, can't we allow that same relationship between plants and THEIR existence and environment? Is a pot plant's nature being restricted by it's roots not being able to spread as far as it would like or need, for example? I am not being sarcastic, believe me, I am honestly intrigued. I don't know if I buy it that would could live on prana rather than consuming food, but I imagine that if we could it would involve great sacrifice and concentration. Personally, I am very attached to my sensual pleasures, part of the reason I continue to eat meat is that I enjoy it. Fred, I'm glad you have resolved your feelings about this issue. However, I don't think children need to be as protected as we think, if your daughter gets upset at the lamb's blood, it's part of her growing process. Life isn't always beautiful or easy - ironically, I think THAT is part of its beauty. (if you follow me!) Children need to confront ugliness and upsetting things and learn ways of dealing with them. Having said that, I am not belittling your conversion to vegetarianism and wish you all the best with it. Oh and another thing.....(heheheh)...to bring the issue back to the original topic of fox hunting...I think I'm going to be agreeing with Fischer. The majority of people would support a ban on fox hunting, citing the cruelty of the hunt lasting a number of hours, the fox being killed at the end and so on. The meat in your local supermarket was once an animal that has been born, raised and died in circumstances of suffering and cruelty, in my opinion far outweighing any cruelty recieved by the fox, both in terms of duration and intensity. I don't see how, on one hand, you can feel so passionate about the plight of the fox, and on the other, support the cruelty of farming by buying and consuming its products. Any vegetarians, I obviously exclude. For the carnivores, I think you really need to question your influences and motives - is it REALLY about the fox?
Sarah Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:27 PM - - 11305 Having read all the good (and bad, mine among them) posts on this thread, I have had to examine my feelings on this subject. My gut instinct has always been that "foxhunting is cruel" and should be banned. Now i find myself in a position where i am having to look deeper in to my opinions and predjudices on this subject (which is a really good thing). I know (and accept) that ppl will rip my opinion to shreds, but after all i am allowed an opinion. My reason for not liking fox hunting is that I find fox-hunting with dogs barbaric, there is also no hunting or skill involved, exept being able to ride (why it is even called fox hunting is beyond me), and the kill is not humane, it is a bunch of ppl following dogs, and getting great pleasure in watching the dogs rip a fox apart. As for a reason to ban the "fox hunt" i can only say that what ever reason i give, will not be a good enough reason to some ppl, personally i would say "fox hunting" should be banned for humane reasons, like the banning of dog fighting which sadistic humans got pleasure from (so some ppl think this is a personal freedon issue which it is not) but has still been banned. Before you comment on the fact that i MUST be working class and live in a city and have no knowledge of how the countryside works or even where it is, I have lived in this "countryside society" and fully appreciate the need for the culling of foxes, I have never taken part in a fox hunt but i have hunted foxes. There is a world of difference between the two, and as for the earlier post that stated that shooting foxes would mean that they would 'limp away to rot somewhere' well you are obvoiusly a bloody bad shot.
Dorothy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:28 PM - - 11306 I've read that book 'Animal Liberation' that Fred mentioned too, it's a very powerful book, well worth reading. The basic brunt of Peter Singers (the authors) reasoning is that we are most of us Speciests. I think this is a term he made up himself, basically it is like Sexist, or Racist, but only a prejudice toward Species rather than toward gender or race. Like with sexism or racism, there is no logic behind it, but lots of ignorance. If you take the one extreme for example, the view of complete nonempathy, noncompassion toward animals, that we should be allowed to do as we wish to them, and not be prohibited by law, which would basically imply that the Japanese or the Norwegians should be allowed to harpoon whales to extinction, because absolutes are clear, and only humans should be entitled to any rights. Not many people would argue that case, but if they did, I think there'd be no doubt that person would be a specieist (I hope I'm spelling it right). Anyhow, I think we are evolving away from this very extreme view, but even so, specieism abounds. Cathy, if you'll permit me, I'll use your reasoning as an example. You mention that you think it would be reasonable to kill and eat animals that have been reared in a manner void of cruelty. Now, firstly, it seems to me a highly theoretical situation that will probably never exist, but let's suppose it can, or will, you suppose this would be ok, because the animal would have no knowledge that it will be killed, and thus will not suffer through having that knowledge. Ok.. what Singer argues, is that if that were REALLY a reason, then we could justify rearing mentally retarded people to be killed too, because, after all, they need not know of their fate, and could live otherwise happy lives. But because we will not allow this, this prooves that the real reason we allow the animal to be reared for food has nothing to do with it's intelligence or ability to forsee its future, the real reason is ONLY because it is not human, for any reason we might come up with to justify it, you will find they are just excuses, because we don't want to feel bad about eating them, and because we know we are hypocrites and no one wants to be a hypocrite. Mango has asked the question before, of why we allow animals to be treated this way, and noone has even really attempted to answer, - it is because we just don't give a damn! If we did, we would be vegan, espescially as none of us here is without alternative food to eat, there is ample proof that we can survive equally well without ordering animals to be killed for us, and much evidence that doing so will prolong our lives too. But we don't, and then we argue against foxhunting, which of course is hypocritical too. A fox probably has a far better life than the average farm animal, and yet argue the case of the cow, and everyone will find their reason to protest. I think that Specieism is slowly being recognised by the masses, racism and sexism have declined over the last century (at least I'd like to think they have), and I believe that speciesim will too, it is an evolutionary process for humans to become more compassionate (at least, I choose to believe so). Cathy, your other question you raise, about plants and animals, I have read quite a good article on that somewhere on the web, but seem to have lost it. The author said something about plants not having evolved in the same way as animals, and (s)he gave evidence that plants cannot possibly suffer in the same way that an animal can due to lacking central nervous system or something. Sory, wish I could remember better. Anyhow, I checked out that fruitnut.net website too, and I think the reason given there is good.. That we can judge for ourselves about how similar plants and animals are, that we are probably all emotionally able to pull up a carrot, without consequent nightmares, but far fewer of us would have the heart to ring a chickens neck.
Fred Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:29 PM - - 11307 Dorothy, great post, I finally finished reading the Animal Liberation book yesteday. It is truly mind opening, I'd recommend it to anyone who is also questioning this entire issue of animal rights as it has some tremendously sound reasoning. Your entry gives the basics of his argument, and from what I can see it is indisputable, even though I am only a recent convert. So now I understand better why Mango insisted on drawing a parallel to exploited humans, races used as slaves, and genders treated as inferior. There is no logic behind it, and no matter what excuses were used, the real crux of the matters were that certain people just wanted to think of themselves as superior, and gave themselves the right to treat these people badly through force. With animals is it's the same, because the question "Why do we allow ourselves to mistreat, imprison, restrict and kill animals - and not humans?" cannot be answered honestly with anything more than "because they are not human". And it seems the only other consistent approach would be to follow the view that Ficsher hinted at, and be totally neutral toward ivory-hunting, blue-whaling, bull-fighting etc. We shouldn't interfere with people having their fun. And if we DO think these should have rights, then why shouldn't foxes, chickens, sheep and pigs too? And why shouldn't their rights be equally liberating? The other direction Cathy takes things in, expressing sympathy for the potatoes, well, who knows how far the circle of compassion may one day extend, - one step at a time. (though I definitely don't think that everything outside of the human race should be clumped together into the same step - for example, that thing you didn't like Cathy, about nuts and fruit being considered different by Mango, I would tend to agree with him, though perhaps not the newage jargon, that there is a clear difference, that when you eat nuts you kill the seed, whereas this need clearly not be the case for fruits). (- Actually, he(Mango) apparantly actually eats a fruitarian diet with no root veggies, though I don't think I'm any where near ready for that yet.. who knows what later.)
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:29 PM - - 11308 I think I may have stumbled upon a paralell universe full of nuts and fruits! So we have established that the holders of the various viewpoints hold those views due to a meta-belief about the structure and meaning of the universe eh? awesome. Now lets talk about whether a law would be appropriate.... Is it not unacceptable to use an obviously variable and personal viewpoint on the world to drive law-making which will restrict certain individuals who do not hold those views? (hammering this point, I know)
Dorothy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:30 PM - - 11309 Fischer, you are being very rude, like a stuck record, you keep repeating the same thing over and over, and never seem to read anybody elses post. Again, EVERY VIEWPOINT IS VARIABLE AND PERSONAL. So do you think all laws are inappropriate? How about that YOU try and answer some of the other points raised in opposition to fox hunting, and animal abuse in general, instead of just going on and on blaah blaahing about a point you raised ages ago that has been adequatly addressed several times already, and shown to be inconsistent. How about you try and answer the question "Why shouldn't animals be protected by law?". Bareing in mind that whole races were once exploited because majorities of certain human groups thought it acceptable to do so, which according to your logic would seem to indicate that it actually was acceptable then.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:32 PM - - 11310 Hello everyone, It's been a while since I put my twopence worth into this topic, and I'm surprised to see it still going. It has been said that the Fox population needs to be controlled... But I ask, where does this idea of a need to control population come from? Can no one see, that if we theoretically were to leave the fox alone, then the fox population would reach it's own balance. People both for and against fox hunting have said that Foxes kill new born lambs... Yes.. Maybe they do. So what is the real issue there? Is it sympathy for the lambs? or Anger because someone's "property" is being damaged? If it's sympathy for the lambs, then it's worth baring in mind that the whole reason they are bred is to ultimatly end up in someones stomach. So how far are you willing to stretch that sympathy? The lambs plight is no less painful than the foxes on a hunt.. maybe they are left to live a reasonable life in the field up until a certain point, but when the time is right, there is the mad frenzied panicfilled trip to the slaughterhouse, often much more drawn out than the fox hunt. It's been argued that it's more humane to kill the Fox on a hunt, than to let it live it's life and be poisoned, snared, run over etc. If whoever said this really thinks it's true, then maybe one could also argue that it'ld be far more humane to let the lamb be killed by the fox, quickly (as would normally be the case), than to let it live a life destined to end with the long grueling trip to the abbatoir and an imhumane death (no one should kid themself that this isn't the case). How much do we really care about humane'ness? We might argue to ban fox-hunting, but when it comes to doing something about the multitude of other animals that get sent to early retirment, destined to help turn our stomachs into graveyards, we wish only to turn a blind eye. Unless we can follow through with our sentiments, it seems to me that to argue for the rights of a fox is somewhat hypocritical. Perhaps one might then argue that we torture(yes, no denials please) and kill pigs(or whatever) out of necessity, because we NEED to eat their flesh, .. Where the truth is we - WANT - to eat their flesh would be far more precise (there is no necessity involved). There is ample evidence to support the soundness of a vegan diet, and statistics are already showing that the life expectancy of a vegan outruns that of an omnivore. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:32 PM - - 11311 As an aside - Theres nothing sound about a vegan diet. Humans are not herbivores - FACT. Vegans NEED certain trace animal protiens which when synthesised are inadequate. Indian Hindu vegans that have moved to England for example find they become ill because they actually rely on traces of dead insects in their vegetables, these traces are not found in high enough amounts on cleaned supermarket foods. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/vegemyths1.html People have dominion over animals, they must pay regard to their OWN morality and ethics of course, but ultimately individuals should have a choice about how to express that dominion. If you dont like to hunt, fine. I dont see however, how anyone can believe they have the "right" to stop another human doing what they merely believe to be "barbaric" or whatever emotive term is vogue, but which is not by any means a universally accepted truth. Killing animals and death in general is a fact of life, to believe anything else is maudlin naivety.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:35 PM - - 11312 The proof of the pudding as they say.. Personally I know some 3rd generation vegans that are doing exceptionlly well healthwise, with no supplements. So to say there is nothing sound about a vegan diet is a blatant nontruth. I have been vegan without supplement for 15 years, and am in better health than average for my age, though of course there are other factors involved. Humans are not herbivorous by practice no, agreed, but physiologicaly they certainly are.. (see: <http://www.newveg.av.org/anatomy.htm> - and <http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/taxonomy.htm> & espescially <HTTP://FOLK.UIO.NO/runehau/herbivorehuman.htm> for sound comparative anatomical studies) - as an aside about the herbivorous thing, herbivore animals eat some insects too.. However, there are NO essential amino acids (the building block of proteins) that are not available on a vegan diet. - name one. If theoretical hindu vegans have recieved health problems it is far more likely that this was through eating cooked spicey food. (cooking food is a sure way to kill it, and destroy valuable enzymes, vitamins etc - a common mistake by vegans and omnivorous humans alike - who DOESN'T have health problems?).. Before you say that this issue is not related to the FOX hunting one, I urge you to think deeper, as veganism is a fundamental challenge to all misconduct with animals, and the only sound (nonhypocritical) argument opposing all animal abuse. "People have dominion over animals" .. hmm.. Plantation owners had dominion over their slaves too.. (yes.. I do insist, as you insist on quoting the "Universally accepted truth" argument, even though you have previously admitted there is no such thing.. - all morals are personal). Killing animals and death are 2 very different things. Killing animals (by humans) happens, yes. So I guess I am not denying it is a fact. However, I am denying that we need to continue doing so, so if believing that makes me maudlinly naive, then I'm happy to bear that tag. Animals have rights.. Peace and Love to all sentience. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:36 PM - - 11313 "[Universally accepted truth]...there is no such thing.. - all morals are personal" EXACTLY. That IS my point. Your morals arent mine, THEREFORE you cannot tell me that "killing animals is wrong/bad/barbaric/etc etc" . . . b.t.w. are you sure you actually read that article, or did you find the casual ease with which the PHD writer debunks vegetarianism hard to swallow?. That article is verifyable and all sources are quoted. AT THE VERY LEAST it shows that you cannot claim the truth is wholly yours on the legitamacy of veganism. Since you cant be bothered to read the article, here is a relevant quote to aswer your challenge "The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products..." and further "....Today, vegans can avoid anaemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago when these products were unavailable, they would have died." now WHERE is your counter argument, fully referenced and directly refuting this claim?
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:37 PM - - 11314 Ficsher, I'm sorry about that, you are quite right that I never read the article.. I will read it, though you are probably aware, if you are a regular Nexus reader, that Nexus has in the past also produced several well documented articles pro-vegan too(though none seem to be online). (maybe you could look at the websites I gave too though).. However, you've just bitten yourself in the tongue, as your argument has always been that there IS a universally accepted truth. If you are saying now that there isn't, and that all morals are personal, and that people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is right, and what is wrong, then you are also saying that slavery should never have been abolished, and that paedophiles should go unpunished. Let's see - Your argument: "you cannot tell me that killing animals is wrong/bad/barbaric/etc etc" - A Nazi argument: "you cannot tell me that gassing jews is wrong/bad/barbaric/etc etc", notice any similarity? Laws are there to protect those that are unable to protect themselves, so why shouldn't there be laws to protect the fox.. or the fish.. or any other animal for that matter? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:38 PM - - 11315 I am talking about ANIMALS, you always refer to human-on-human violence to lend weight to your rather tenious point and that I must be, in supporting individual freedom (for HUMANS i.e. the right to hunt), either a NAZI or a slaveowner. Blatently if i believe in freedom, I cannot believe in Facism or Slavery!!!. Please, are you intentionally missing my point? And pedophiles, are you serious? you think that I support pedophilia? This is getting silly, its like, "I dont agree with you" - "so im going to liken you to the worst possible people i and mostly everybody also disagrees with". This is the sort of marxism-of-thought that prevents people from standing up and saying "I dont want war in IRAQ" - suddenly you support Hitler and want to have gay relations with Saddam Hussien, or "I think there are too many incentives for people to claim asylum fraudulently" - suddenly you hate all other races and you are a swastika-tattood skinhead moron. It is, in a way a kind of fascism.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:42 PM - - 11316 Ficsher, you are sorely missing the point, no one is calling anyone a paedophile. I am not accusing you of being a Nazi.. It is quite probable that I'd find you to be a very pleasant person were we to meet. It is quite obvious that you would be against these things, that was my point! What I am getting at is your method of arguing this case. It is illogical and inconsistent. If you would just come out and say, that humans should have rights, but that's as far as it goes, perhaps we could move on from there.. Instead your argument has been non-decisive (the Universally accepted truth thing - is there one or isn't there one?). So are you saying, that no animals should be given any rights? Should people be allowed to torture cats for example? Should people be allowed to hunt whales to extinction? Should there be laws to stop this kind of behaviour? As for the Nexus article.. I've been reading it, and doing a bit of research on that.. Firstly check out <http://www.anarki.net/angry/ap11/newage.html> and <http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/spoon/bs-nexus02.htm> to get an idea what kind of magazine Nexus has become... You quote - "The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products..." - There are reliable vegan B12 sources available: Red Star Nutritional Yeast T6635, fortified soy milks, fortified breakfast cereals, fortified vegetarian burgers, marmite etc.. However, you should bare in mind that vitamin B12 deficiency can also be a problem with flesh eaters. So it seems there's no guarantee that eating flesh will save you from this. I've been vegan for 15 years, (made a mistake in previous post, wrote 10), and supplimented no B12, and as mentioned I know 3rd generation vegans doing very well with no B12 problems.. This in mind, I see no reason to justify continuing eating our animal brethren. For another vegan perspective on b-12 see: <http://www.newcenturynutrition.com/public_html/webzine/archives/vitaminb12_how_much>. I quote: "Personally, during my 34 years as a practicing pediatrician, I have never seen a case of B-12 deficiency." "The most likely explanation for this extreme rarity of B-12 deficiencies among vegans is self-synthesis. Because bacteria from the soil on plants produce the B-12 within the gastrointestinal tracts of animals, it's reasonable to assume that the same may happen when humans eat natural foods. This is more likely if the plants are not carefully cleaned, washed, or overcooked. The Vegetarian Resource Group states that some vegans may get B-12 from inadequate hand washing, but they are quick to point out that this isn't a reliable source. Also, it's been suggested that B-12, like iron, may be absorbed more efficiently by vegans than by people consuming animal products." "A very interesting report from Europe has concluded that plants may contain B-12, especially green vegetables, if fertilized organically. More on this later. So in summary, it seems that vegetarians who consume enough calories face very little chance of developing a B-12 deficiency....Some forms of nutritional yeast contain adequate amounts of B-12. These non-animal sources are fine; or: <http://www.vegsource.com/talk/veganissues/messages/17709.html> and <http://www.fruitnut.net/html/Articles/B12.htm> ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:43 PM - - 11317 Hey Mango and Fischer, this is all sounding very familiar! I'm sure we've argued in this circle previously, and although I wasn't going to join in this time, I've changed my mind. Fischer, I agree that hunting shouldn't be banned, although my initial reaction was that it should be. I changed my mind, Mango, for basically the reasons that you were highlighting above, the hypocrisy of deeming hunting too cruel when animals are treated as, if not more, cruelly in other contexts (farming, research and so on). Seen in this light I realised that this particular issue is yet again mere politics rather than people genuinely caring about foxes or their deaths. I can't jump on that bandwagon with a clear conscience, I am a meat eater and have no intention of changing my lifestyle, so who am I to preach to the hunting fraternity. I wouldn't participate personally, but I don't think a law needs to be passed banning those who do partake of this past-time. However, the implications that are raised regarding animal welfare is probably what is at the heart of the debate, and that is where I have found myself unable to make a clear decision. I agree with Fishcer that it is pointless to compare behaviour towards animals with behaviour towards humans, but the question begs to be asked, where do we draw the line - as a society - and deem certain actions towards animals to be cruel and illegal. I doubt many people would argue in defense of the prolonged (or even not-so-prolonged) torture of a domestic animal, but what are the factors that differentiate this cruelty from hunting cruelty or farming cruelty? Yes, we all have our own moral code which varies individually, but we also have a societal moral code (the law), and how do we decide when (or if) animals should be protected under this law (or morality)? Mango, we are not a vegan SOCIETY, so animals are going to be locked up, slaughtered and I imagine mistreated, on a huge scale on a daily basis. I implicitely support this action through the consumption of meat, and yet find it hard to stomach the thought of animals being hurt or tortured in a research laboratory or in a hunt. But I can't be a hypocrite, and I don't think that our society should be hypocritical. So, where does that leave the animals? I honestly don't know.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:45 PM - - 11318 Cathy, you are right, this has happened before, but I don't believe it was ever properly resolved. I brought it up again, because I believe there must be a way to do so; though I'm unsure how... Thus far, I believe Fisher is the only one to have put up an argument pro fox hunting that I consider the least bit challenging. - What he says, if I understand correctly, is that NO animals should be protected by law.. I've wanted to get that clear from him, but he has apparently been reluctant to commit himself to his argument.. Anyhow, what this means, is that those that wish to, should be allowed to treat animals in any way they desire, and no one should be able to intervene.. Again, to put this in perspective, his argument is semi equating animals to innate material objects, and if one doesn't feel to, one needn't necessarily take any notice of their feelings as individuals at all. Perhaps he thinks that animals have no feelings.. My argument is that animals are not innate objects, and should therefore be given rights and be protected from abuse. I follow through consistently by doing my utmost to avoid all animal based consumer goods. Thus my argument is not hypocritical (this has been the crux of Fishers argument toward those arguing against fox hunting, who themselves eat animal flesh, - and yes Cathy, you are right, for most people the argument has been more politics than out of genuine care for the animal itself).. I have to ask these question, as I don't fully understand your points of view: Do you think that animals don't have feelings, and that they are unable to experience suffering and pain? and I would like also to ask, as this, I believe, is fundamental to this argument: why is it pointless to compare behavior towards animals with behavior towards humans? (although not openly stating so, fisher seems to be comparing animals to innate objects, which would appear to me to be far more estranged than any human/animal comparisonon) - What I ask, is the difference between animals and humans, if this question is considered stupid, then please don't just ignore it, tell me why?. The truth is not something to be afraid of. True Cathy, we are not a vegan society.... Yet. - No aspect of society is permanent. I don't understand your approach that you find it hard to stomach animals being hurt, yet you are unable to act positively toward preventing that suffering. You say also Cathy, that you don't think our society should be hypocritical, and yet unless we become a nation of cold blooded feelingless unsympathetic individuals, or at the other end of the scale, embrace compassion fully into our lives, we are unavoidably hypocritical. Take our kids to the park on Sundays to feed the ducks, and be nice to them, and come home to eat chickens. The only way this kind of behaviour can be justifiable, with the knowledge that we can live   at least just as healthily on a vegan diet, is to have zero compassion for animals. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:46 PM - - 11319 Mango, it's really late and I can't get my fuzzy brain to act in a coherent manner, so I'm just going to try to spill out ONE thought at the moment and make a better attempt at a more wakeful moment! You asked why I agree with Fischer that it is pointless to compare behaviour between groups of humans to behaviour from humans to animals. I believe that even you stated in a previous post that if a choice had to be made between the life of a person or the life of an animal, you would choose the person. As would anybody. Although this may be a highly theoretical circumstance, it serves to highlight that their are two moralities at work here. When debating this matter, then, it is most unhelpful to interchange the "rights" and "wrongs" between the two groups. Comparisons to Hitler or paedophiles is highly irrelevant to a debate on animal welfare. That is all I can manage for now - good nights and sweet dreams (although I suspect you are fast and happily asleep right now!)
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:48 PM - - 11320 Hi Cathy.. In extreme situations, one may be forced into actions one wouldn't normally undertake. I.e. If we find ourselves or anyone for that matter, threatened, we would probably do our utmost to protect ourselves/them, which may theoretically, unavoidably, result in injury to the attacker.. This is the kind of situation I was talking about. In case that isn't clear, I would prioritize toward the person being attacked, not any highly theoretical animal attacker. The emphasize here is on (self)defense. - not on what kind of being is disturbing the peace. - If a civil/human rights activist is attacked by a thief--and he defends himself, thus harming his/her attacker it doesn't mean that he is against civil/human rights... Thus I insist, that comparing the way we treat animals, and the way other people might treat humans, is very relevant, unavoidably so, to this debate. I m aware that there is more than one code of moral at work, but what I am asking is "why is this so?"; (a white anglosaxon racist would probably have a very different set of morals governing how he treats blacks to how he treats whites, and my argument to them would be similar; firstly I'd ask - "Why do you treat these 2 groups differently?". This would be fundamental to the debate, as without first stating reasons why this discrimination should exist, the debate cannot really progress.) - Ficsher has concluded that due to us each having different sets of morals, there should *therefore* be no laws protecting animals from any form of abuse. (if one is to be logically consistent with this line of thought, there is actually no reason why one shouldn't then also conclude that humans also should not be protected from willful abuse by law, as clearly some peoples morals would allow themselves to commit acts of abuse to other humans.. i.e., however you look at it, law is unavoidably forcing the morals of some onto everyone else.) I'll be (probably annoyingly) persistent, and ask once more: - "What is the difference between human animals, and other animal species, that would merit one to be treated with respect and protected from abuse by law, and the other to be totally disregarded in the eyes of the law?" Hugs to all, Mango ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:49 PM - - 11321 I think Mango, as a vegan, you are in a position to argue your point with integrity. I admire your commitment to your beliefs, the way you think about these things is attractive. The only way that I can imagine thinking and acting similarly would be if the motivation came from within me. I dont think you can legislate to force people to be more "caring", its something of a contradiction to me. Rather like a parent raising their hand to a child in an effort to compel them to "play nicely". So please continue to persuade others - and you are persuasive - to empathise with other life forms by all means except by the means of law and punishment. I have every reason to believe that like a great many "traditions" this one too will eventually be eroded and marginalised to the point where it dissapears altogether. If that happens naturally there will be no resentment, if it never happens naturally then what does that say about our human nature? maybe it indicates that these activities ARE natural. Should no form of life be protected under threat of punishment? no, there are areas where the law serves to promote harmony amoung every group in society. The law serves to protect one group from another, i.e. the law protects the freedom of one group to act how it desires despite other groups disliking their chosen activities. That is legitimate law in my eyes, hence murder is illegal. But I dont think a law which essentailly protects me from me is legitimate. er. yeah.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:51 PM - - 11322 Hello again, I think the idea of a lawless society, where people didn't commit harmful acts, purely because they just didn't do things to others, that they wouldn't like done to themselves, (and not because a big brother dictates not to), is very attractive.. (it'd be good if it could all come from the heart).. And I have every optimism that that day will come.. The whole idea of government I find quite oppressive.. However our society has chosen to live by its rules. Whether we like it or not, we are already legislatively controlled to be more "caring". As a parent, I am left to answer the question, what should one do if a child is not playing nicely? My own answer, would be to join in if possible, teach them to play more nicely, and if they are up to a bit of reasoning, then explain to them why not playing nicely is not right. Let's face it, I am not creating any laws, I have no power to do so, I am just trying to show by power of logic and gentle debate, that it is inconsistent to give rights to some beings by law, but not to others.. If one can say that law serves to promote harmony among every group in society, then one could also say that potential laws to protect animals from human abuse would serve to promote harmony between humans and nature. So, yes, making murder(I include killing animals) illegal might be reasoned as promoting that harmony.. 'm not sure what you were thinking of with your last sentence, but .. please don't do it! ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:52 PM - - 11323 Hi Mango...I warn you in advance that I am going to wander off the topic a little here, but I have been trying to find a way to try to rationalise an attitude I have that I'm not sure is particularly rational. I've touched on this before, but I find it disturbing how our particular society is insulating itself from death and suffering more and more, trying to create a sterile world where we don't have to face up to the ugly realities of life, and yes, nature. You talk of us living in harmony with nature in a time where there is no violence or killing, but I don't see that sort of relationship with the earth being a particularly "natural" one. I'm not trying to change your mind about what you believe, I have the highest respect for your lifestyle and your decisions. My argument would be that it is not so natural for us to be so removed from the physical world and all its guts and blood. Your lifestyle is one that I see as having the minimum physical interaction with the rest of nature, by this I mean limiting your participation in the food chain. As rational beings, this is definitely a choice we can make, but I prefer a relationship with the Earth that is more involved. Hunting is a ritualised activity that probably plays a very important role in a cultural context. I dont participate, but legalising against it is just further reinforcing an attitude of squeamishness in a society that doesn't have any other ritual to replace it. As I see it, our reality is shrinking all the time as it is, less types of behaviour are considered acceptable as we constantly strive to be more "civilised". And the most depressing thing of all is that this type of legislation that could potentially narrow our societal morality even more is being done so, not for any noble purpose such as the one you are advocating, but for the ususal underlying suspects, politics and money. If this debate were truly about the possibility of re-defining our relationship with the animal kingdom the issues being debated would be very different, and as a result all our takes would probably be slightly different. But, for most people, it is not and so I worry more about this piecemeal attitude we are legislating onto ourselves that I see as being fundamentally without substance. As a group we are without any deep spiritual connection, we have a very divorced reltionship from the planet and organic, physical matters. I think we do need to eat and hunt animals to keep us connected to life (through death). I know you don't agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince you to, but I just want to try to explain how I see these matters.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:54 PM - - 11324 Yes, rationalising the irrational is not an easy task... Firstly, I'd like to point out that this debate is not about the death of anyone, physical abuse followed by willful killing of a being, and death are 2 very different things. It's true, I concede, that what goes on out there in nature, isn't exactly a harmonious picnic in the park. Animals do kill and eat other animals. Yes. But this is no reason why we should be doing likewise. Should we hold ourselves to the lowest common ethical standard possible? - If we were to use other animals behaviour to justify our own, then we could also say some species kill members of their own species-if you are saying it is okay to kill other species because a lion does it, then a child murderer could say we have a right to kill our children because lions do it too (may attack and kill cubs of other prides). I see nothing wrong with us trying to avoid suffering of ourselves and others. Why should we add to the suffering just because it is there? Your point that ones contact with nature is limited if one doesn't eat other beings is quite bizzare. Do you really consider that this constitutes a more involved relationship with nature? So if you eat pigs and sheep, you are living closer to nature? I think not. I have spent much of my last years living in places far away from town, supermarkets, growing my own food when possible. Besides, as far as what is natural for us, I urge you to look at <http://folk.uio.no/runehau/herbivorehuman.htm> where you will see a detailed comparative anatomical chart that shows conclusively that as an animal species we belong without doubt physiologically to the herbivorous group.. Ie. not to the omnivore one, and certainly not to the carnivore one.. By habit, we may be omnivores, but it is debatable as to whether we have always been such.. To show just how unnatural this is for us, think about this, the only way we can normally face eating animal flesh, is to first give it 3rd degree burns (cook it). Every other meat eating animal eats the flesh raw. You then use the cultural hunting tradition argument, to this I'd like to say if you use tradition as your moral standard it allows that human slavery, the oppression of women, ethnocentricity and religious based discrimination would also be tolerated. You would need to show why humans are deserving of an exemption from this ethical standard. Why a racist or a religious bigot could not discriminate on the basis of race or religion while others could discriminate on the basis of species. ie. I ask once more my unanswered question: "What is the difference between human animals, and other animal species, that would merit one to be treated with respect and protected from abuse by law, and the other to be totally disregarded in the eyes of the law?" - come on, no one up to the challenge? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:55 PM - - 11325 Continued.. I agree, that most people debating against fox hunting are doing so out of politics. The hypocracy involved with any surface altruistic posts has already been pointed out. However, you are again missing the point, as it is of little consequence how many people are genuinely arguing to ban fox hunting through the method I am using.. Even if I were the only person decidedly against slavery, I would still debate for it's abolishment, and my stance would still be as valid.... Well.. seeing as nobody has risen to the challenge of my question (end of previous 2 posts), I will answer it myself. Although the answer wont be pleasing, it will be truthful.. The answer is speciesism... I'll explain.. I find it almost amusing to see how up in arms Ficsher has been everytime I've made a comparison to the situation (of the fox/animal abuse in general), and similar ones experienced by exploited human minorities... Naturally one doesn't wish to be associated with racism, sexism, canabalism and religious bigottary. The people that express such attitudes are generally uneducated and specifically unable to reason for themselves. They harbour a discrimination, which when confronted, cannot be explained. - Ask an NF member why they dislike(and are willing to mistreat) foreigners, and the crux of the matter is that the foreigners are not British, they are foreign. Their skin may be different. Their eyes may be different. Their language is probably different. Their culture is probably different... These are clearly not sound reasons for discrimination, but the prejudism is culturaly inbred, and not everyone is capable of freeing themselves from it, even when faced with a clear reasoning as to why these prejudisms may be unjust.. So, perhaps one would like to think one was above all this illogically induced hatred..? ... and this is where one needs to examine speciesism, to realise that this is often not so. My argument for the fox and against animal abuse in general, has been fundamentally to show that there is no logical reasoning, short of discrimination, morally very similar to ones mentioned above, as to what would merit humans to be treated with respect and protected from abuse by law, and the other animals to be totally disregarded in the eyes of the law. Logically, either one should be totally opposed to all protective laws, or one should embrace protective law fully, and protect all groups in abusive situations.. If this is not so, then you would need to show with clear sound reasoning, (a good practice is to see how your reasoning might compare to pro-slavery arguments) why certain groups should not be protected.. There is just as much reason to confine protective laws to human species, as there would have been to confine them to ones own gender or race. Whether we are illogically opposed to it or not, the circle of compassion is growing.. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:56 PM - - 11327 Hi Mango, I haven't been ignoring your posts, I just haven't had a chance to visit this site all week, and yet again it is very late and I'm feeling knackered so I can only make a half hearted attempt (bloody work!!). I have been thinking over the things you are saying, and I can't fault your arguments. I don't know why we view animals differently to humans, all I DO know is that I do. An example would be that if my cat were to die or run away I would be upset but not devastated (much as I love him), but if something were to happen to my boyfriend, or family members or friends, I WOULD be devastated and find it very difficult to keep on going as normal. Fellow human beings who are suffering and dying needlessly causes me more distress than similar plights happening to animals. Why? Maybe this is how I have been taught to react. Can I change? Maybe, but I don't feel the impetus from within that makes me want to. Am I alone in feeling this way? No. This is where I stand, and this is where most members of this society stand. The majority condones mistreatment of animals - however rationalised or justified (food, sport etc) - so why should the law focus on one group (fox hunters) and make an example of them? This may be the beginning of a re-evaluation of our human/animal relations as I think you suggest (and hope). Only time will tell. But at this stage I am more concerned that a media campaign can make people be such blatant hypocrites on a huge scale and said people don't seem to stop to think about the ramifications of allowing themselves to be influenced in this way. A class issue is being debated under the cloak of animal rights - will this really make any long-term difference to the treatment of animals? This passion for a "righteous" cause could easily be channeled into different areas with consequences the opposite of what you are hoping for. I don't know....it's a mess, but wielding the law left, right and centre isn't going to solve any fundamental problems. I do admire your strength and conviction, but I'm afraid my tastebuds are too spoilt to follow suit!
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 12:58 PM - - 11328 Cathy, thankyou for your honesty. Firstly, it is natural that we have different degrees of affection for different beings in our life, depending on degree of familiarity and interdependency. Thus it is not surprising that you would grieve more for your partner, than you would for a cat that is living with you. However, would you grieve more for unknown Stan, who might have passed away last night in his sleep 3 doors away, or for your cat that just got run over outside? We are generally more familiar with humans, than we are with animals, so we will naturally feel closer to humans.. however, I'm sure the same could probably be said within groups of humans too.. i.e., you would no doubt feel more devastated and upset if a bunch of neighbours that you didn't particularly know, lost their lives through a fire, than if a bus load of innocent Iraqis were bombed by US terrorists.. Or if you heard that a plane full of British tourists crashed into the Atlantic, it would probably affect you more than hearing about an earthquake in Cambodia that killed 200 people... Note: This wouldn't make you a racist.. Besides this is probably irrelevant to the topic, as in none of these cases, would you personally be involved in inflicting injury on others... Secondly.. I have asked before, if you think that no animal species what-so-ever (outside of human) should be protected by law?.. I ask this question, with full knowledge that there ARE already laws governing how we are allowed to treat animals. I.E. If reported to the RSPCA you could be punished if you are mistreating your cat.. And there are international treaties setup governing whaling and poaching of certain animals.. So the law IS already protecting some other species of animals. - If people were to be releasing cats or other dogs into the field to be chased by hounds, the law WOULD intervene. So, I ask again: Do you think the law should offer no protection to any animal species what-so-ever, except humans? If not, why not? .. Any media campaign will not make people be hypocrites; you can't make people be something they already are. I am not debating a class issue.. My stance is 100% animal rights, and as I am politically a nobody, there is realistically little chance that my passion will be channelled into areas with opposite consequences to those I wish for, I am not wielding the law at all, I am basically just pointing out the inconsistency of law, and trying to find out if there is any justifiable reason for this... My playful side wishes to point out that all your arguments you have just given here, for why you personally will continue the flesh habit, could just as easily be coming from a cannibal, feabely trying to justify his/her own choice of meats: (1) I don't know why I view other tribes differently to my own, all I DO know is that I do. (2) Maybe this is how I have been taught to react. (3) Can I change? Maybe, but I don't feel the impetus from within that makes me want to. (4) Am I alone in feeling this way? No. This is where I stand, and this is where most members of my tribe stand. (5) This passion for a "righteous" cause could easily be channeled into different areas with consequences the opposite of what you are hoping for. (..pushing at straws, that one) (6) I do admire your strength and conviction, but I'm afraid my tastebuds are too spoilt to follow suit! that other tribe, the wzungus are just too tasty! - chewy on the outside, crunchy in the middle. - Ha! - ........ Now, if you'll pardon a little experiment in thought; - if you were a member of that cannibal tribe, but didn't participate in this ancient of wzungu eating traditions, and even, you had compassion for the wzungu, and felt you could no longer stand by and let them be attacked and eaten, how would you present your case to the majority of the rest of your tribe if they were to argue using such irrational justifications? And would you, or not, were you given the power, make it prohibited by law to abuse the wzungus, even though the majority were opposed to such a law? ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 12:59 PM - - 11329 Hmmm, lots of questions there, I don't know if I will be able to remember to answer them all. Firstly, the issue you keep coming back to about whether ANY other species should be protected by law and I can only say that I have already admitted that this is a problem I have been unable to resolve personally. I will have to leave it for now to someone who is better at logically constructing and deconstructing arguments than myself. All I will maintain (and I think you agree with me here although with different intentions and conclusions) is that we enter into different relationships with different individuals (human or animal), and decide how to proceed with our behaviour towards them based on this relationship. Hence, I don't see any hypocrisy in feeding ducks in the park and then eating chicken at home. The consumption of chicken is in no way betraying the "friendship" (for want of a better word) with the ducks. As for those who torture and mistreat their pets, again I admit that my reasoning is not entirely rational, but there you go - I AM a woman!! I guess I think of domestic animals as ones which rely on their owners and have a stronger relationship with them based on trust and (maybe) affection. I suppose that there is a tacit understanding between humans that one who chooses to care for a domestic animal has a responsibility to care for that animal, domestic animals have in a way been "humanised", and are seen as dependents. Seen in this way, our reaction is that one who could harm a cat or a dog is probably capable of inflicting harm on another person, or a child. This assumption may be right or wrong, but I think that is where our abhorrence of the wilfull torture of pets is rooted. There is not that relationship between humans and wild animals. So, I suppose a tentative answer to your question would be that not all animals are equal in terms of our relationship with them. With all the supposed best intentions, we haven't even managed to achieve equal status for all humans at this stage, so I guess there is still a long way to go. My comment about passions being rechannelled into areas with resulting opposites was not in any way aimed at you. I meant that you are happy in this instance for the media manipulation to fuel this debate as it achieves an end which you feel is right. All I meant was that a majority that is so easily swayed in one issue could be equally easily swayed regarding another issue. (OK, I'll put away my claws now!) Next: your example about busloads of English tourists and Cambodians and so on. You may be surprised to know that I don't feel any greater deal of empathy for people who share my nationality than those who don't, and so both events would effect me equally (that is, with a degree of detached sadness). I am not particularly enamoured of the notion of patriotism or nationhood, and rarely feel any 'special' connection with those who share my nationality, based on solely that criteria. Next: (I'm on a roll now!) - the cannibal example. You are making one fundamental assumption that I don't agree with, namely that cannibalism is inherently wrong. Don't panic, I'm not advocating that we should go out and chow down on those who annoy us, but cannibalistic societies developed as validly as any other culture. The only example I can use with any amount of expertise is the Aztecs as I have a little knowledge about this subject. They killed a lot, and ate human flesh, but all this behaviour was highly ritualised and intimately tied up in their understanding of and relationship to the Earth. OK, 500 years of colonisation has broken them of this habit, and I don't think that it should be reversed in any way, but in your hypothetical example I doubt that I would feel any need to convince my tribe members of the errors of their ways. This 'ability' we have to objectively justify and explore moralities only comes after having a great deal of exposure to different moralities and the tribal situation you are talking about would not have that degree of exposure. Rationalised, logical debate such as we are engaging in, is a European rhetoric, which is why it is too misleading to try to mix and match your subject matter in such a way. They are hypothetical examples that simply could never exist. One last note:I know we are digressing off the topic here, slowly but surely, but before someone comes along and raps us on the knuckles for taking such liberties with the topic, I would just like to say that I am really enjoying this chance to have a civilised debate (discussion) that hasn't descended into name calling and insults. Cheers, Mr Vegan Man!!!
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 1:05 PM - - 11330 Hello Cathy, I'll be systematic with your points. 1. "we enter into different relationships with different individuals (human or animal), and decide how to proceed with our behaviour towards them based on this relationship." - There is nothing to disagree with there, this is how things generally are. However, you will probably find that if you are a reasonable person, which I'm assuming you are, then in ALL your individual relationships, with ALL beings in your life, you will probably be doing your best to create as much harmony as possible. (This may be more difficult with some humans, than it is with most animals). 2. "Hence, I don't see any hypocrisy in feeding ducks in the park and then eating chicken at home. The consumption of chicken is in no way betraying the friendship with the ducks." My point here was not so much centered around the 2 different species of bird.. but if there were chickens in the park, then our relationship to them would be the same.. we would probably feed them too.. And some people may well be feeding the ducks, then going home to roast duck. Would this then be betraying the friendship of the duck? My point is, our true nature is not the one of the omnivore.. When we are in the park, looking at the ducks, on a potentially empty stomach, it is very doubtful we are thinking "mmm, roast duck". Whereas, any true omnivore would be doing so. except it'd be raw duck.. 3. "I will have to leave it for now to someone who is better at logically constructing and deconstructing arguments than myself. but there you go - I AM a woman!!" - No one can come up with any logical argument pro animal abuse. There is no logical pro-racist argument, and there are no logical pro-speciesist arguments either. all prejudism is based in irrationality and inconsistency.. You can have all the testostrone in the world, and it'll make no difference. 4. "I suppose that there is a tacit understanding between humans that one who chooses to care for a domestic animal has a responsibility to care for that animal, domestic animals have in a way been "humanised", and are seen as dependents.. ..There is not that relationship between humans and wild animals." So what about the responsibility to care for cattle and pigs? and should it be ok then to go out and shoot the wings off of swans, set traps for squirrels, or poison pigeons in the park? Yes, I know what you are saying, that we treat different species differently, but I'm still insisting there is no valid reason for doing this. If someone is allowed to chase a fox on horseback, and have it ripped to shreds by a frenzied hound pack, then someone else should be allowed to shoot the wings off swans, etc. 5. "With all the supposed best intentions, we haven't even managed to achieve equal status for all humans at this stage" Yes, but I imagine there is a general consensus that there should be. Human nature is one of compassion, though unwittingly media and clever advertising trick us into forsaking our humanity. 6. "(OK, I'll put away my claws now!)" - Look again, I think you'll find you don't have any. We are not omnivores! 7. "your example about busloads of English tourists and Cambodians and so on. You may be surprised to know that I don't feel any greater deal of empathy for people who share my nationality than those who don't" - Good. This shows maturity, but even if you did in these circumstances, it wouldn't constitute you being a racist! 8. "cannibalistic societies developed as validly as any other culture." - So did society based around importing slaves from Africa, and perhaps women should never have been given the vote as our society never used to let them do so (I speak tongue in cheek). No one can justify causing unnecessary harm to others by citing tradition, ritual or cultural background. 9. "in your hypothetical example I doubt that I would feel any need to convince my tribe members of the errors of their ways." - Correction; in my hypothetical situation, you had compassion for the Wzungu, and felt you could no longer stand by and let them be attacked and eaten. What you are in effect saying here, is that were you to be a member of the tribe, you would probably not be experiencing compassion for the Wzungu, and would be eating them like everyone else. - So you can't picture yourself having insight enough to be able to reason that what you were doing was questionable? Cathy, i don't believe you give yourself enough credit. 10. "This 'ability' we have to objectively justify and explore moralities only comes after having a great deal of exposure to different moralities" - No; Buddhists and Jainists have been exploring such moralities for centuries. There is nothing new about this way of thinking. 11. "..which is why it is too misleading to try to mix and match your subject matter in such a way. They are hypothetical examples that simply could never exist." - I see nothing misleading in pointing out similarities in other existing situations of discrimination, Sometimes examples help us see things more clearly. 12. "I would just like to say that I am really enjoying this chance to have a civilized debate (discussion) that hasn't descended into name calling and insults." - Me too, thanks for not getting into a huff, and walking out on me. Nothing I'm saying is meant to be taken directly personally. So I'll just add here, that I have clearly been trying to appeal to your better sense through logic, and through anatomical fact (see: <http://folk.uio.no/runehau/herbivorehuman.htm>), with seemingly little success. But try these thought experiments: a. Put a hamster and an apple down, next to a child, and see which one it eats... b. Imagine you are walking in the forest, and you haven't eaten since breakfast, you are hungry, and you spy an injured baby squirrel on the path in front of you, what is your reaction? .. It is unlikely that you will walk away with blood on your lips, and fur between your teeth. Now what do you think a hungry omnivore would do? .. and.. c. Imagine yourself.. hungry again.. This time, you have a fridge and freezer full of fruits and veggies.. There is a lamb in front of you, and a big butcher knife in your hand. - Still want that lamb chop? d. Look a pig in it's eyes, and understand the truth behind bacon. Not wishing to commit acts of murder, is not what constitutes being squeamish and weak. This is rather a part of our true compassionate natures, but it needs strength and conviction to overcome tribal peer pressure, the addiction of culturally inbred lies and to admit our true compassionate natures unashamedly. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Wolf636etta	Created on May 6, 2003 1:06 PM - - 11332 I am coming very late into this discussion but would just like to add a small comment. I believe all animals should have protection, if even more protection than a human gets. Why? Because animals cannot speak for themselves. It is up to us, the humans, who are in charge of the world to help them, protect them and speak for them. Most humans can protect themselves and make choices that will better their situations. Humans are freer on earth than animals. Some-thing has to protect animals and it should be the human. Unfortunately, most humans care more for themselves and other humans than they do for the animals. It is not wrong to care for your family, friends,etc but it is not right to not to care for the earth and the other creatures on it. All creatures are not born with the same abilities, including the humans(meaning some are more intelligent, physically stronger,etc). If you are to help one species, why can you not help all? Everything is un-equal, making it equally important for every species to have a fair chance on earth. Stronger species will overcome the weaker, but each species should be given the chance to live in freedom, until such a times comes that they are destroyed by natural or un-natural means(meaning being eaten by another or by just plain killing).
Eric Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 1:47 PM - - 11339 i want say that i think cathy and ficsher are the same person. - no woman would say women are illogical and irrational.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 1:48 PM - - 11340 Wolf, thankyou, finally someone who agrees with what I am saying, - I was beginning to think I was alone with my convictions! - Although I suspect some would argue that being eaten by another would not be constituted as an unnatural way to die.. But this doesn't weaken the argument.. whether or not it is natural, it is still unkind, and if some humans insist that we should not abuse humans, there is no reason to not insist likewise for animals.. Eric, I also found Cathy's comment, about women being irrational, slightly dubious, but it matters not to me.. I will tackle all points unbiasedly, systematically no matter who is giving them, it's not difficult as there are no arguments pro legalising animal abuse that are either logical or rational. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 1:49 PM - - 11341 Oh dear, I disappear for a couple of days, and my very identity is questioned! Eric, I was making a joke when I said that women are illogical and irrational. Although, I have to admit to some growing doubts about the "purity" of logical and rational arguments. A good example is this very debate. Intellectually, I agree with Mango, I can't fault his logic. However, there is still a part of me that remains unconvinced - and it is this reaction that seems neither logical nor rational that I am exploring through my arguments. Anyway, I will leave aside my thoughts on the masculine and feminine for another, more relevant time. Mango, I think you missed the point in what I was saying regarding cannibalistic societies, but I don't think I explained myself very well I believe that we are entirely a product of our cultures, and so if you want me to place myself as a member of a hypothetical tribe that engages in cannibalism, I have to leave behind all my "Cathyness" that is European and 21st century and create a hypothetical identity. It his this identity that I doubt would have this compassion that you ask of it. If I go back to my example of the Aztecs I may be able to explain myself better. As I mentioned, their gruesome behaviour was highly ritualised, they had developed a belief system that was ruled by gods that required human sacrifice. Failure to abide by the rituals and practices would spell doom and disaster for the entire group. The individual was always subordinate to the continuation of the group. A compassionate attitude towards the individual would develop at the expense of the future of the entire people. I also imagine that most, if not all, cannibalistic societies engaged in this practice for ritual or religious purposes, rather than sustenance. Whatever the reasoning or mythology behind it is in such opposition to our own morality as it has developed, that it is almost nonsense to try to make value judgements through a comparison. Do you see my point?
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 1:51 PM - - 11342 Hi Cathy,.. I understood where you were coming from with the canibal scenario.. you just didn't give the reaction I wanted is all.. I was trying to get you to hypothetically think of -you-, -21st century cathy-, with 21st century cathy opinion on canibalism, growing up in a canibalistic society.. i realise it is an unrealistic hypothesis, and i accept that if you were to have grown up there, you would probably have just acted like the rest of them. I find it odd though, that it almost seems, as if you believe that their behaviour was somehow justified. If you are judging canibalism to be wrong today, then there is no reason for it not to have been wrong then either.. and if it was ok then, then it should be ok today too.. given whatever religious rituals etc. So if it is at all justifiable, then law should allow for it under those circumstances.. Well.. this may seem like it's completely off the track, but my point was to try to get you to see how difficult my task is, to argue rationally, when all i appear to get back is irrationailty. The purity of rational thought cannot be questioned, this is just another irrational response because contrary arguments are not working. I agree that we are mostly a product of our culture. I am just trying to point out that our culture is hypocritical.. However, the child who catches and eats the hamster, is most definitely not a product of our culture. - We don't do that kind of thing.. In fact the very very most of us don't do that kind of thing.. There is only a tiny fractional percentage of us that are hired assassins, there to keep the graveyard of our bellies full. Our culture, predominantly tells us to be nice to animals.. this hidden subculture of animal abuse has to remain hidden to survive, because if it were out in the open, we would be shocked and appauled. People only know on an intellectual basis that bacon comes from pigs, they haven't really looked a pig in it's eyes and understood the truth behind bacon, but when they do, there will be a lot more vegetarians. Could you realistically be conceivably enough hungry to kill and eat that wounded squirrel? Be truthful.. And the thing is, that we are almost never in a do or die situation with our food.. so neatly packaged on the market shelf.. When we are, people have been known to eat humans too under such conditions, so this kind of situation can hardly be considered relevant. Even in societies where animal abuse is much more out in the open, you will find it quite normal for children to be appaled when they first see an animal being killed.. This is our true nature, not the one that any culture will with time, force upon it.. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I know, but if the opinion involves causing harm to others then there is usually a generally accepted restriction on ACTING upon such opinions. I.e. "I think Christians like me are superior to non-Christians, therefore we should be able to enslave non believers." If it is wrong for white supremacists, Christian supremacists, anti-gays, male chauvinists, etc to act upon their opinion, thus it should be the same for ALL forms of unfair discrimination -- including willful discrimination against animals. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Ficsher Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 1:52 PM - - 11343 If we can get humans to stop killing EACH OTHER, then that might be a good start... maybe then we can move on to animals! We've got criminal leaders trying to dehumanise the whole world right now - I think that is somewhat more of a priority.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 1:53 PM - - 11344 I can see no reason why one should wait until all human to human abuse has stopped before undertaking to stop our continual mistreatment of animals. There is no need to be narrow minded and just deal with one at the exclusion of the other, besides, it should not be a big deal, all we have to do is stop buying butchered dead animals' parts.. and to stop turning our stomachs into graveyards. Using the fact that there are wars and such as reasoning for not doing so, is not really an argument. Even if it is not within our powers to stop others abusing foxes sadistically, we can still help stop other animal abuse by stopping supporting the flesh trade, and becoming vegetarian/vegan ourselves. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 1:54 PM - - 11345 I am not necessarily justifying cannibalism, but it is a VERY good example to highlight that concepts of right and wrong are cultural, and that ultimately there is no action that is inherently wrong. This is where your logic fails. You said that "If you are judging canibalism to be wrong today, then there is no reason for it not to have been wrong then either.. and if it was ok then, then it should be ok today too" No...it is wrong today because our culture tells us this, this is our morality not your hypothetical tribe's morality. And vice versa. Which is why laws vary between countries and over history, conceptions of right and wrong are constantly changing. My doubts about this obsession with the most logical argument being the most correct one is that I don't consider humans to be only logical or rational, we are also emotional and intuitive and probably at heart a bundle of contradictions. Why is the rational argument that only appeals to my intellect always the correct one? Just a question I have been asking myself... You said "Our culture, predominantly tells us to be nice to animals". I disagree. Our culture tells us to be nice to DOMESTIC animals, it tells us to eat farm animals, it tells us it is OK to hunt animals (privately and commercially). This is the crux of my problem with the whole fox hunting issue. It is NOT about the protection of animals, a lot of people on this site are not opposed to fishing, or even shooting animals for pleasure, they are opposed specifically to fox hunting. This is a law, that if passed, is not a reflection of any moral shift in our group, it is a reflection of the still deep-rooted class division in this country. I can't imagine at any time being remotely interested in participating in a hunt, but I am certainly getting very weary of choices being constantly limited as the government tries to increase its strangehold on our choices and freedoms. And on a final note, I find it interesting that you consider the consumption of meat a " hidden subculture of animal abuse", when farming is what has underpinned any form of civilisation for thousands of years, in this part of the world farming crops AND animals. We have always been meat eaters, and until quite recently I think that in general people WERE more involved in the killing and preparation of their food and that we haven't developed into a vegetarian society. I know that certain parts of India have developed differently, and that there is an influence on us from them. Maybe one day your dream will be realised, but I personally have my doubts and I certainly don't think that day has come.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 1:55 PM - - 11346 If you believe that no action is inherently wrong, then why are you supportive of some laws, and not others?.. If the issue is about what society deems as acceptable, then why debate about allowing fox hunting, when the majority are so clearly opposed to it? In this case, it doesn't matter that they are hypocrites or not, so long as the masses don't want it, it makes it right not to have it... It seems all rationality has already been forsaken anyway.. I think you'll find that there is no failing in my logic, "If you are judging cannibalism to be wrong today, then there is no reason for it not to have been wrong then either". I am talking of a time difference, not a culture difference, which is why I then added, ".. given whatever religious rituals etc." .. i.e., if that culture that existed then, were to be in existence today, it would be just as justified, or not, as it was then. I agree that we are also emotional and intuitive, and a bundle of contradiction. I am questioning that.. Supposedly rational thought has been used to define current laws, so why shouldn't rational thought continue to define further laws? The whole point of Ficshers original argument was that those against fox hunting were using illogical emotion.. I am coming at this from a completely different angle, using rational debate, and now you are saying that you question rational debate because we are emotional.. duh? And, I will insist, that our society DOES predominantly tell us to be nice to animals. Predominantly we are not an open nation of animal abusers. Not just with our relationship with cats and dogs, but birds, and squirrels, and pretty much any animal wild or domesticated that we happen to come across. Wildlife fascinates us. The subculture that will actually go out and physically abuse animals, and kill them are a very small minority.. We may pay them to do it, but it remains hidden because we don't want to be faced with the bloody truth.. It is not a big deal to stop turning our bodies into a cow/pig/chicken graveyard, and we will feel better for it. At least we are more likely to behave rationally. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 1:56 PM - - 11347 The majority are clearly opposed to fox hunting? You raise an interesting point. If this site were representative of Britain as a whole, it would certainly seem so. I don't think that the few thousand people that use this site ARE truly representative, so how does the Government know what the majority think about this issue? In fact, when do they Government ever make a decision to pass a law based on the opinion of the majority? Without a referendum, they just never know. Of course, whether we like it or not, our collective power is voted onto a handful of people who then make decisions for us, and use the media as a tool to "educate" us with "facts" and "information", and convince us what the majority of our fellow citizens feel about a certain issue, while manipulating others who would never have considered the issue in the first place to take a political stance. This same "majority" also believe that Britain should close its doors to all asylum seekers, and even all immigrants full stop. Do you believe that a law should be passed in favour of this opinion, because it seems most people want this too? There are no cannibalistic societies today (I assume there aren't, but I could be wrong), not because they developed away from this practice naturally themselves, but because European morality and religion has spread itself all over the world and either forbidden the practice, or supplanted the worldview that required it with a Christian one. Has Europe ever been cannibalistic? I don't think so (although again, I could be wrong), so for us all through history this has been a practice that we abhor. It has been at the crux of European thinking that "primitive" peoples would "evolve" eventually and "catch up" to Europe given enough time. This assumption is wrong, if African and American cultures had not been "discovered" they would NOT have ended up like Europe and their moralities would NOT have resembled ours. If Fischer's point was that the reaction to fox hunting was emotional rather than rational it's up to him to argue with you against this matter. I repeat, I am NOT Fischer cloaked under a girl's name, and although we may have the same opinion, I suspect that our reasons for arriving at this conclusion aren't the same. So, duh yourself!! You keep referring to the body as a graveyard for those of us who consume meat, presumably to stir up feelings of repugnance. As far as I am concerned, this whole planet is a graveyard, it's the "natural" way. And I will ask you again to justify calling killing animals a "subculture" when it has, historically, in Europe, been the practice which has underpinned our development into civilisation and today is supported by the vast MAJORITY of meat eaters in this country. And one last point, you said in conclusion, "at least we are more likely to behave rationally". I am not interested in always behaving rationally - NOT simply because I am woman (I'm trying to avoid getting myself in trouble again!!) - but because I also want to develop and listen to my intuition and emotions, and I find a life that is completely logically correct all the time to be a tad boring.
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 1:56 PM - - 11348 Cathy, you seem to have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick in your last post, you have twisted things around and asked me if I "believe that a law should be passed in favour of an opinion, because it seems most people want it.." - I had asked you, "if the issue is about what society deems as acceptable, then why debate about allowing fox hunting, when the majority are so clearly opposed to it?", and I didn't ask this because I think this is a correct thing to do (to follow blindly what majority say), but I asked it because you yourself were making the argument that animal abuse was justifiable because the majority of our society supports it, so perhaps you should ask yourself the same question.. Well, I can see what you are saying about our society and it's flesh eating culture. Perhaps my definition as a subculture was wrong, I am not trying to deny that animal abuse does play a fundamental role in our society, what I am insisting though, is that on an individual level, we are taught, with our personal inter-reactions with animals, to have respect and care for them, and that all animal abuse goes on in a shameful manner behind closed doors, out of site, out of mind.. When was the last time we saw an animal openly being killed deliberately? it saddens me that you are using intuitive thinking in this way, I would have thought, perhaps wrongly, that intuitive thinking would make one more compassionate toward other beings, our intuition would tell us not to eat flesh because of the unnecessary suffering it will cause. I would suggest you visit a slaughterhouse, and then tell me what your intuition tells you. I will insist on insisting also, that people would generally agree, that discrimination based on biased, subjective criteria is wrong.. In our society too.. All I am doing, is going further than the normal race, gender, culture discriminations, and pointing out one further one, species. For one to get out of the jam of being opposed to biased discrimination, but supportive of animal abuse, one would have to show how speciesism is somehow different than racism in a fundamental way. i.e. make it objective or absolute. Nobody has been able to do this (because it cant be done). You might like to say that racism is wrong, while speciesism is not (because the majority practise it), except that all the criteria you use to defend speciesism is also unfair, biased and subjective. That's what the entire argument rests upon: your belief that some discrimination is acceptable, and others not so.. So the problem is, either one proves that speciesism is somehow different in principle and design from all other forms of discrimination (which is impossible), or one would have to say that people should be free to discriminate against other humans (based on race, gender, religion as well as species). BUT YOU DONT say that, because you want to have your cake, and eat it too. But you cant. So the only other choice is to say we should try to be as fair and as compassionate to others as possible, and lose this desire to discriminate according to biased, subjective criteria. This would help human relations with humans and non humans alike. Its also more consistent ethically than your view. So, again, in terms of rational reasoning, either we say anyone can do whatever they want to anyone else (human or not) or we expand our circle of compassion and fairness to include non humans. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Cathy Guest user	Created on May 6, 2003 2:00 PM - - 11349 I've kinda run out of steam on this one, work and college are imposing and I don't have the time or energy to continue this debate (note: I'm NOT going off in a huff!!!). As far as I am concerned, you and I have very differing outlooks on life and could continue this indefinitely, so for now I'm calling a time out. Thanks for the thought-provoking posts, and although I don't feel that my stance has changed, I am happy to have had a chance to work through my thoughts and feelings about this issue with an intelligent and reflective person such as yourself. All the best!!
Mango Moderator	Created on May 6, 2003 2:01 PM - - 11350 Cathy, well.. I have to admit, I have enjoyed the debate, and I am sorry that you weren't converted, I will have to reconsider my method of explanation to make it even more inescapably undeniable in future. I wish you goodwill in your endevours, and compassion to all sentience. hugs. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
R.T. Guest user	Created on Mar 1, 2004 6:55 PM - mango, i have read thorugh most of your pages at fruitnut, and am now starting on the message board. this thread has fascinated me, i knmow it is dead, but i really loved your conversation with cathy and others. it made me so aware of the paradoxical world we live in. you expressed yourself very well, and it must have been very frustrating to maintain your position against such illogical thought. i loved your fiction section, mostly that jeremy story which really made me emotional. what abou the unfinished ones? when do you plan to finish them? who was the girl at the end of the jeremy story? huggs from a budding fruit nut. r.t.
Mango Moderator	Created on Mar 2, 2004 9:20 PM - Dear R.T. yes.. this thread is so old, I had thought to remove it, as it is just too big really, I can't believe you have read through it all, I don't think i would ever bother again. As for JeremyMan, thankyou for appreciating him, he is my alterego.. The secret dream me. The girl.. well.. you will have to wait and see.. but don't know when I will get it finished.. or the other ones.. good luck with being a fruit nut, hugs to you, mango. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..
Blondie Guest user	Created on Mar 7, 2004 6:38 PM - I think fox hunting should be banned. No matter what people say whether it's tradition or not. How would you feel if you were being chased for fun so that some houds could come a rip you to peices, and then the people who actually chased u and killed you enjoyed doing it. Now correct me if i'm wrong but dont people get put in prison for murder? Why murder something as helpless as a fox and get a thrill out of it? I went to a county festival and they actually had a fox chased a ripped up in front of an audience. it was sickening. I wanted to stand up infront of all the people and tell them what i thought. But my friend and her family held me back and we left we were all shocked. This happened last summer. What do you think about it Love Rhia xxxx
Jinglebelle	Created on Mar 9, 2004 9:23 AM - 81924 Gee....I'd really have to disagree with that statement about foxes not having a tear because they don't know what's happening to them......imagine, for the sake of illumination here...you are walking along the edge of a forest, enjoying a beautiful morning meander....suddenly a group of men on horseback come charging at you...they're yelling but you don't understand the language....there are dogs with them that are charging right for you with frantic gleams of the hunt in their eye.... I think you'd turn tail and run like the wind, and while not perhaps sparing a moment to get teary, I really think you'd have the beet juice scared out of you, no? I think you'd be aware that something bad/negative/not nice was happening to you. Now if we assume they caught you, which I do believe they would....and the dogs start tearing your flesh off of your body excitedly....I think you'd feel a tad sorry for yourself in your predicament....just before you died. Sheesh, that truly seems to lack quality fun-factor, in my opinion My tuppence worth Love and hugs, Jasmine ---------- Today is the tomorrow I worried about yesterday.
Jinglebelle	Created on Mar 9, 2004 9:27 AM - 81925' Ooops...kodak blonde moment there again....forgot to finish before I hit submit...pardon I agree with you Rhia...and Mango....I think it's long overdue to ban fox-hunting...it's such a barbaric and cruel sport, if you can even call it a sport :/ We've done away with other barbaric traditions (piking someone's head in victory over their demise etc) so there's no reason to hold onto "tradition" as being the reason to maintain this cruelty....some traditions need to be done away badly ---------- Today is the tomorrow I worried about yesterday.
Mango Moderator	Created on Mar 9, 2004 8:29 PM - 81926' I get tired looking at this thread.. I gave it so much time as I tried my hardest to make myself understood, but found I wasn't really getting anywhere, I was up against a lot of illogical insonsistent debating, and no matter how rational I believe I put things, I was not understood.. Which is ok I suppose.. I learnt a lot from this debate, if only how to tackle irrational thought. Anyhow, this debate was actually originally at another website, I became so attached to it, that I copied it all to my own message board, which is why all the dates and times are so close together. I think it is too big and bulky, and past its use by date.. So I will terminate it here. Thanks all for participating. hugs, mango. ---------- Truth, Simplicity, Love..