Baron Max: Please, try not to sound ridiculous. There is no comparison between the ethical testing of pharmaceutical products on animals and the deliberately cruel method of killing foxes for discussion here. Were the foxes killed quickly and (relatively) free of pain, it would be another matter. There is no valid argument in favour of fox hunting - if they are overpopulated, it is easier and cheaper to shoot a few rather than to maintain a pack of dogs bred for killing. And an appeal to tradition is the weakest of all arguments. Not a quantitative one, but I feel my life is worth more than anyone else's, or indeed that your life is worth more than that of a fox.
There isn't? Why not? In the testing, they deliberately induce cancers and other diseases into the mice ....and you call that "ethical"??????? ...LOL!! So ...it's not the death of the foxes that you're upset about, it's the fun that the hunters and dogs have that you object to, right? Do you do anything, have any kind of fun that someone else might object to? If so, why do you do it? Baron Max
Is that more than 10? More than 20? Over how many years? "Many" is not a very precise number, is it? Baron Max
No, it's the needless suffering of the foxes that I object to. Yes, for me I find it ethical to kill any number of mice, bred specifically for the purpose, if it can help cure cancer, or Alzheimer's or so on.
so where does the slippery slope stop? killing roaches probably makes them "suffer" and who knows, maybe bacteria can even feel suffering, is it wrong to kill them? the problem here is moral inconsistency, people only want to save things that they can empathize and anthropomorphize with. we can't see many human traits in spiders, so we kill them. we can see human characteristics in foxes, so we don't want to kill them. I am against fox hunting for sport, unless they are over populated, but I don't think it should be banned. we have enough neo cons making laws on one side and enough liberal nutjobs on the other telling us what we can and can't do.
bacteria are single celled, they follow out pre programmed paths, to me they are not truly living things. insects however, although at the most simple end of the scale of conciousness are still 'living'. and i oppose all testing on animals to prolong human, or any other animal life. diseases have worked for millenia to eliminate weak genes and ensure the survival of species. i support tests on terminally ill or consenting patients. but destroying life in order to prolong a life whose success will kill many later on(though a weak genepool) is ridiculous. what gives us any more right to life than the simplest animal? we say that they do not feel as we do, so maybe they are the ones with a true conciousness, maybe they are superior to us. all that is certain is that we think we are more evolved. we adapted to use tools to become higher beings than other animals in a primitave sense(ie, our judgement of superiority is who can kill the other better)
So if the foxes were bred specifically for the fox hunts, so humans could have some hunting fun, you'd be okay with that? Interesting! ...LOL! Oh, I agree! I agree wholeheartedly. It seems that everyone is trying to tell someone else what to do and how to do it ....don't that get tiresome? Baron Max
So does that include killing animals for human food? You oppose fishing and the slaughter of animals to prolong human life? How interesting. Baron Max
I guess I just disagree with the moral basis. I am a social contract ethicist, so I don't even think human life is worth anything, intrinsically that is. it is our contract to each other that makes things right and wrong. the only rights animals have are the ones someone gives them by empathizing with them, and thus if you hurt the animal, you hurt the person (their feelings). however, hurting someones feelings is not a big deal IMO.
What's the difference? You prolong one life by taking life from other. Ultimately nothing is achieved, just suffering caused. Besides humans don't really need meat to live, there are other products. Of course there are areas where animals are the main source of food. So, those who need it, kill it, eat it. But there is no need to rip alive foxes apart with dogs. Imho that is a really pervert and lowly thing to do.
And some others don't think so. So why should you be able to tell someone else how to live and how to act? ...and if it were the other way 'round, would you like others to tell you how to live and how to act? Baron Max
this is an entirely circular arguement which goes............. why do we need fox hunting? to control the fox population but its unnecessarily cruel... they hardly ever catch the fox why do we need fox hunting? and so on for ever.
"So why should you be able to tell someone else how to live and how to act?" so you support complete anarchy? the eradication of all laws? i think that fox hunting is cruel and should be banned under animal cruelty laws
Well, that is how the society works. Of course total american individualism is another problem which we could all see in the looting scenes in New Orleans. Animals (humans included) have a right to life too, you know, it's called ius naturale which was lay down in principle by some lawyers of the ancient Rome after lots of cruel animal slaughter in the arena and discussions about it later in society.
I think that the foxes are overcrowding our cities however foxes are only hunter in the coutryside by bumpkins Sniper them in urban areas if you are going to kill foxes
Of course not! I'm talking about the "you", as in people here on the forums. The goverments should make the laws and the governments should be elected by ALL of the people, not just by the people who don't like fox hunting!!! Big difference between that and anarchy ...or can't you understand that? Well, when it comes up for a vote, please vote according to your conscience, but in the meantime, don't be trying to tell others what to do and how to do it. It's not very nice of you. Baron Max
Where is that written? Who made that determination? When? And do all peoples/nations/cultures abide by it? ...or is it just something you like to say because it sounds so cool? And do roaches and spiders have a right to life? Do mosquitos and the tsetse fly have a right to life? Or do you draw the line somewhere? And if YOU make a distinction, then why can't others make a similar distinction that's different to yours? Baron Max
