In article , Roderick
Stewart writes

I think the proper place to make the distinction is between killing things
humanely to make some use of them, and killing things for fun.

So ban all cats then!

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Ad C
writes

hunting for food I can understand, but not hunting just for a bit of fun.

It isn't just a bit of fun though, most hunts are called upon to get rid
of a pest by the landowner. And who are you to determine which fun is
allowable and which isn't? Ban smoking - that has killed millions
purely for the sake of "fun", and those are human lives, not pests!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Ad C
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I think the proper place to make the distinction is between killing
things
humanely to make some use of them, and killing things for fun.
So ban all cats then!


Cats do eat what they catch, well mine do anyway.

Your's may, but the majority of domesticated cats don't.

We are also suppose to be more cizalised

By imposing *your* definition of civilisation on others you merely
demonstrate your own lack of civilisation in the first place!

As Gandhi replied when asked what he thought of Western civilisation:
"I think it would be a very good thing!"
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Sam Nelson wrote:



Hunting to destroy vermin in order to protect food sources?


No, that is not an excuse, keep food sources somewhere that the fox can
not get to.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I think the proper place to make the distinction is between killing
things
humanely to make some use of them, and killing things for fun.


So ban all cats then!


Cats do eat what they catch, well mine do anyway.
We are also suppose to be more cizalised

In article , Ad C
writes
Sam Nelson wrote:

Hunting to destroy vermin in order to protect food sources?


No, that is not an excuse, keep food sources somewhere that the fox can
not get to.

You really are a prat.

In your previous post you wrote this:
hunting for food I can understand, but not hunting just for a bit of fun.

ie. You freely admit you do not understand hunting or the need for it.

Then you follow up with the line above about how food sources should be
kept, indicating that you know little about food sources, animal
husbandry or the countryside in general.

But all of that demonstrable ignorance doesn't stop you telling the
people who do understand their own circumstances and way of life what
they can and cannot do to maintain it and, by implication, your way of
life too!

Just like the sheep^H^H^H^H^H lefty-politicos in Westminster who voted
for the ban in the first place - despite their own sponsored study into
the process recommending otherwise. Too ignorant and too arrogant to be
bothered by the facts. Exactly the same stupid political decision
motivated by a vocal minority which led the US into the debacle of
prohibition in the 20's.

As the subject says, it is the thin end of the wedge - and next time it
will probably be something you or I partake in. How about banning
electricity completely - it consumes far to much of the earths resources
resulting in the death of millions of animals through the destruction
and pollution of their habitat. Acid rain anyone?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Ad C
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

It isn't just a bit of fun though, most hunts are called upon to get
rid of a pest by the landowner. And who are you to determine which
fun is allowable and which isn't? Ban smoking - that has killed
millions purely for the sake of "fun", and those are human lives, not
pests!

If you smoke, you kill yourself, so that is up to you, a fox have no choice.

Which is, of course, why smoking should be banned in public places -
because it doesn't *just* kill yourself!!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:


It isn't just a bit of fun though, most hunts are called upon to get rid
of a pest by the landowner. And who are you to determine which fun is
allowable and which isn't? Ban smoking - that has killed millions
purely for the sake of "fun", and those are human lives, not pests!

If you smoke, you kill yourself, so that is up to you, a fox have no choice.
These people who hunt are cowards, some tried to chase a fox onto my
mates land and he told them if they did not get off his land, then he
would send his dogs onto them. They moved like hell, and even faster
when he did let his dogs out.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
No, that is not an excuse, keep food sources somewhere that the fox
can not get to.


You really are a prat.

The prats are the ones that go aorund hunting.


In your previous post you wrote this:

hunting for food I can understand, but not hunting just for a bit of
fun.


ie. You freely admit you do not understand hunting or the need for it.


I understand hunting, it was a way to get food.



Then you follow up with the line above about how food sources should be
kept, indicating that you know little about food sources, animal
husbandry or the countryside in general.

I live very close to the countryside, but still in the city, I know a
fair bit about the countryside.


But all of that demonstrable ignorance doesn't stop you telling the
people who do understand their own circumstances and way of life what
they can and cannot do to maintain it and, by implication, your way of
life too!


It is a bit late, foxhunting will be banned in February, and I hope
anyone who do fox hunt, get the book thrown at them.



Just like the sheep^H^H^H^H^H lefty-politicos in Westminster who voted
for the ban in the first place - despite their own sponsored study into
the process recommending otherwise. Too ignorant and too arrogant to be
bothered by the facts. Exactly the same stupid political decision
motivated by a vocal minority which led the US into the debacle of
prohibition in the 20's.

As the subject says, it is the thin end of the wedge - and next time it
will probably be something you or I partake in. How about banning
electricity completely - it consumes far to much of the earths resources
resulting in the death of millions of animals through the destruction
and pollution of their habitat. Acid rain anyone?


It would not worry me, we would all be in the same boat, but since mosat
people rely on electric I do not think it will happen.
It is a small majority that fox hunt, and most of them are poshed up
snobs and when they do not get their way, they act like prats, as we
have seen.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Which is, of course, why smoking should be banned in public places -
because it doesn't *just* kill yourself!!

I agree,one of the reasons I do not go out is because I hate coming back
home stinking of smoke.