Support NeoGAF

[Kuros]

Sounds like the fox hunting vote has now been dropped.

Theyll drop it. Push through English Votes for English laws then push through a full repeal rather than just the loosening of regulations.

Bravo SNP.

Also. I'm much more right wing than left but I do not support thd Tory stance stance on Fox hunting at all.

 

[phisheep]

I really hope that the "ban"* isnt relaxed, absolutely disgusting practice that needs to be abolished.

Well, that's an argument that we need to be careful about using isn't it. Banning stuff because people find it disgusting doesn't have a great track record recently (see, for example, gay marriage).

Sounds like the fox hunting vote has now been dropped.

I imagine that, given the SNP change of mind, it will deferred until after the English Votes for English Laws thing is done.

 

[JonathanEx]

A plan so cunning they could stick a tail on it and call it a fox. Tories show justification for EV4EL, and push this through later.

 

[FlammableD]

But I really can't rationalise why they'd vote against fox hunting.

Because they disagree with it? Is that not a good enough reason?

Well, that's an argument that we need to be careful about using isn't it. Banning stuff because people find it disgusting doesn't have a great track record recently (see, for example, gay marriage).

 

[Jackpot]

Well, that's an argument that we need to be careful about using isn't it. Banning stuff because people find it disgusting doesn't have a great track record recently (see, for example, gay marriage).

Did you just compare equal marriage to killing animals for pleasure?

 

[phisheep]

Did you just compare equal marriage to killing animals for pleasure?

Don't be ridiculous, of course I didn't. I compared an argument used for banning foxhunting with an argument used for banning gay marriage - I could have picked any number of other historical examples (Catholicism, alcohol, drugs, miscegenation, non-halal slaughter etc etc etc) - I just picked the most recent and most high-profile that's all.

In both cases it is a bad argument and is not made any better by the apparent worthiness of the cause.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Agreeing with them by definition isn't a meaningful answer.

Sure it is. Liz Kendall probably agrees with the Tories when they say that rape is bad, too. Opposition for the sake of opposition isn't that useful imo.

The pro foxhunting lobby arguments are all over the place. Personally I couldn't give a fuck if it's banned or not

Same, and it's bizarre to me how many people care about something that matters absolutely not a jot to their lives, impacts so few people and animals and occurs in a environment - ie the country side - where the vast majority of the public have no experience living. I mean, I say it's bizarre - it's not that bizarre, because there's one very obvious reason why people care.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Because they disagree with it? Is that not a good enough reason?

They're MPs and they're free to vote on whatever they want (sadly), but it's legislation that doesn't affect their constituents in any way and, unlike certain finance bills whose direct effects aren't felt in Scotland but which have repercussions via Barnett, this is an entirely English and Welsh issue. They said they wouldn't vote for such things and, since it's been put back in its box for now, it doens't look like they will need to. But the threat of it demonstrates how little their promise is worth, imo.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Well, that's an argument that we need to be careful about using isn't it. Banning stuff because people find it disgusting doesn't have a great track record recently (see, for example, gay marriage).

Playing devils advocate so much where you just become a devil yourself is when you start spouting this level of stupid shit.

 

[Jackpot]

In both cases it is a bad argument and is not made any better by the apparent worthiness of the cause.

Morality is a bad argument? Are you saying we should only concern ourselves with the practical and logistical arguments when passing laws?

Killing something for fun being morally wrong is the core issue of fox hunting for many people. Denying adults born with a different sexuality basic rights being morally wrong is also the core issue of gay marriage. Or did you think its support came from people concluding there's no technical specification of gender in the definition of marriage?

Same, and it's bizarre to me how many people care about something that matters absolutely not a jot to their lives, impacts so few people and animals and occurs in a environment - ie the country side - where the vast majority of the public have no experience living. I mean, I say it's bizarre - it's not that bizarre, because there's one very obvious reason why people care.

Because it's in that "far-away fairytale land" called the countryside people shouldn't have an opinion on it? Does this extend to other laws?

I never once attended a circus but I still supported the proposed ban on using circus animals due to the extensive evidence of cruelty.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sure it is. Liz Kendall probably agrees with the Tories when they say that rape is bad, too. Opposition for the sake of opposition isn't that useful imo.

You're shifting the goal posts. The opposition (see name) saying "I agree!" with everything the government proposes is not meaningful, you may as well just not have an opposition. This is not to say they need to oppose everything - some things can and should be uncontroversial, as you say; but then you're not "answering" their challenge/trap/etc. anyway because it's not something that was worthy of an answer and shouldn't have been set out as a political challenge/trap anyway, it's not meaningful to do anything in response to it.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Im sorry but anyone that thinks its ok to hunt and kill animals for pleasure have some serious messed up morals.

Not only is the main pro-hunting argument a load of rubbish since it has been shown that hunters actually feed foxes to enable the hunt to go on which goes completely against the argument that they are providing a service to reduce vermin but it has also been shown that at least 4,000 hounds are killed every year if they are not up to scratch hunting wise. Read here about some examples of the actions taken – tortured for hunting wrong animals, killed for not being strong enough:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-healthy-foxhounds---including-6061265

The idea that you can be ok with treating animals this way is so foreign to me and it always makes me think of this question:

If aliens came to earth who were significantly higher in intelligence and strength than humans and decided to move in and start culling what they considered ‘vermin’, would that be ok? It’s the exact same thing that has happened with foxes and yet because they are ‘animals’ its ok for many people.

Of course instead of looking at it in this way we have shitty arguments like “Its for English people to decide/Its their land/it’s a part of tradition” instead of looking at the facts that this is a barbaric, cruel, unnecessary blood sport that brutalises innocent animals that are just trying to survive, all for the entertainment of privileged, old, rich white people, the kind that would have probably fit right in with that harrowing Django Unchained scene with the dogs and the slave.

 

[FlammableD]

They're MPs and they're free to vote on whatever they want (sadly)

wat

 

[phisheep]

Did you just compare equal marriage to killing animals for pleasure?

Playing devils advocate so much where you just become a devil yourself is when you start spouting this level of stupid shit.

Hmmm. I think you guys missed the point somewhat.

Morality is a bad argument? Are you saying we should only concern ourselves with the practical and logistical arguments when passing laws?

That's more like it. Something with reasoning behind it.

Actually I do think morality is a bad argument in general, at least for politically controversial things. That's because morality only works as an argument if the particular moral stance you are arguing is held in common, and if it were held in common then there wouldn't be an argument anyway. So, if used, it basically comes down to "my morals are better than your morals" which is a pretty shitty argument.

I'd prefer arguments to focus on actual (and potential) harm rather than presumed shared morals. Plus of course practicality and logistics and cost and enforceability and personal and social benefits and so on and so forth.

Killing something for fun being morally wrong is the core issue of fox hunting for many people. Denying adults born with a different sexuality basic rights being morally wrong is also the core issue of gay marriage. Or did you think its support came from people concluding there's no technical specification of gender in the definition of marriage?

You speak as if the moral position is clear and uncontroversial, which of course it isn't. I think the real sensible arguments on both these matters are entirely different.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

All of law is fundamentally morality and I challenge you to find an example of a law which does not have a moral basis.

 

[phisheep]

All of law is fundamentally morality and I challenge you to find an example of a law which does not have a moral basis.

You have probably challenged the wrong guy here Crab!

For starters there's the whole of the Act of Union 1707, all of the Weights and Measures Acts, most of the Companies Act 2006, the Easter Act 1928, the War Damage Act 1965 ...

Need I continue?

 

[CyclopsRock]

You're shifting the goal posts. The opposition (see name) saying "I agree!" with everything the government proposes is not meaningful, you may as well just not have an opposition. This is not to say they need to oppose everything - some things can and should be uncontroversial, as you say; but then you're not "answering" their challenge/trap/etc. anyway because it's not something that was worthy of an answer and shouldn't have been set out as a political challenge/trap anyway, it's not meaningful to do anything in response to it.

It's not just a trap, though - This isn't like the legal requirement to run a surplus, it's like the 50% tax bracket; whoever becomes Labour leader is going to have to choose between keeping the limit (and going with public opinion) or opposing it (and going against it). When they get asked "Do you support this policy", they need an answer. I think we both agree that the opposition should neither oppose everything nor oppose nothing; the choices of what they choose to oppose and what they choose to agree with are the thing that defines them as a party, so both their agreements and their disagreements are meaningful, always.

wat

Did you read the rest of the post? It might give you an idea as to why I said "sadly." I think it's "sad" that MP's - empowered to their position by their constituents - can help pass or strike down laws that don't affect those same constituents. I understand why it's the way it is, but if this were the case in some tin-pot third world shit hole, we'd all be saying "blimey, that's mad - why are people from Part A passing laws in Part B that don't affect them?"

 

[Pie and Beans]

Hmmm. I think you guys missed the point somewhat.

Nah, I think accusing you of jumping down the tedious lawyer mode devils advocate hole is pretty spot on again.

Fox hunting is such a sticking point because its a fantastic and easy "this is why people hate the Conservatives" highlight. Its truly black and white.

>>Get into power and close to top of the list is bringing back some barbaric bullshit to please the nobility's thirst for bloodsport because "tradition".
>>Wonder why your party is always personified as "the bad guys"
>>Do it again. And again.

When you start whipping out the old legal folders and rattling off "well, not all law is morality" stuff, everyone else in the room begins to wonder if you're auditioning for TinMan in a new Oz broadway show or some shit.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You have probably challenged the wrong guy here Crab!

For starters there's the whole of the Act of Union 1707, all of the Weights and Measures Acts, most of the Companies Act 2006, the Easter Act 1928, the War Damage Act 1965 ...

Need I continue?

All moral. Act of Union is founded in the right of kings and of parliament, Weights and Measures Acts all suppose that the utility people get from being able to produce more goods because of a standardized weights system is better than the utility people get from sticking to comforting and traditional conceptions of weights, Companies Act 2006 depends on particular conceptions of property rights which are by nature moral, etc, etc. There is no law which is not moral, because the act of applying "good" or "bad" as a descriptor is moral.

So yes, pray continue.

Another way to put it: all laws will make at least some group worse off and some group better off. Whether we pass a law is therefore fundamentally a decision about which group has a stronger moral claim to be better off.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

George really does know what he's doing. And whilst Labour being leaderless obviously doesn't help, the only one with a meaningful answer to his traps is Liz Kendall, who is basically agreeing with them anyway. Let's see what happens with this SNP, because generally they're a much more political capable party than Labour. But I really can't rationalise why they'd vote against fox hunting.

Kendall is awful. She comes off as someone who has no idea what she's talking about but is incredibly condescending about it.

 

[FlammableD]

Did you read the rest of the post? It might give you an idea as to why I said "sadly." I think it's "sad" that MP's - empowered to their position by their constituents - can help pass or strike down laws that don't affect those same constituents. I understand why it's the way it is, but if this were the case in some tin-pot third world shit hole, we'd all be saying "blimey, that's mad - why are people from Part A passing laws in Part B that don't affect them?"

I did. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work, you elect representatives from each area to make decisions for the country. And they vote. You don't get to decide that people shouldn't use that just because you don't want them to. If you want to start barring people from votes because they're in a different country, then you should be giving them total control over their country.

It should be one or the other, either anyone can vote on anything (the way it's always been, that no-one had a problem with until they weren't Labour/Tory whipped...), or if you're barring people from voting cause it doesn't affect "their country", you shouldn't be getting a say over their country. At all.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I did. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work, you elect representatives from each area to make decisions for the country. And they vote. You don't get to decide that people shouldn't use that just because you don't want them to. If you want to start barring people from votes because they're in a different country, then you should be giving them total control over their country.

They have control over that aspect - that's the point. It's quite obviously not "because I don't want them to", it's because the people who voted for them won't be affected by the decisions they make.

It should be one or the other, either anyone can vote on anything (the way it's always been, that no-one had a problem with until they weren't Labour/Tory whipped...), or if you're barring people from voting cause it doesn't affect "their country", you shouldn't be getting a say over their country. At all.

Lots of people had a problem with it, it was just politically easy to ignore it because the establishment of the Scottish Parliament coincided with a strong Labour majority, both in the country and in Scotland, so it made no real difference. Now, evidently, it does.

And personally I'm happy to devolve as much to Scotland as they want. But right now, Scotland already elects people to decide whether they should be able to hunt foxes with dogs - why are their MPs telling me whether I can or not? You're really reaching if you actually think this is a justifiable way for a parliamentary democracy to function.

 

[Jackpot]

Actually I do think morality is a bad argument in general, at least for politically controversial things. That's because morality only works as an argument if the particular moral stance you are arguing is held in common, and if it were held in common then there wouldn't be an argument anyway. So, if used, it basically comes down to "my morals are better than your morals" which is a pretty shitty argument.

I'm not a moral relativist, though.

You speak as if the moral position is clear and uncontroversial, which of course it isn't. I think the real sensible arguments on both these matters are entirely different.

Seriously? What was the real non-moral argument behind the passing of gay marriage?

 

[FlammableD]

They have control over that aspect - that's the point. It's quite obviously not "because I don't want them to", it's because the people who voted for them won't be affected by the decisions they make.



Lots of people had a problem with it, it was just politically easy to ignore it because the establishment of the Scottish Parliament coincided with a strong Labour majority, both in the country and in Scotland, so it made no real difference. Now, evidently, it does.

And personally I'm happy to devolve as much to Scotland as they want. But right now, Scotland already elects people to decide whether they should be able to hunt foxes with dogs - why are their MPs telling me whether I can or not? You're really reaching if you actually think this is a justifiable way for a parliamentary democracy to function.

OK, by that argument, why are English MP's voting on matters that affect Scotland? Depending on how far down that rabbit hole you want to go, why do London MP's get to vote on matters affecting Leeds?

 

[f0rk]

OK, by that argument, why are English MP's voting on matters that affect Scotland? Depending on how far down that rabbit hole you want to go, why do London MP's get to vote on matters affecting Leeds?

What has an English MP voted on that only affects Scotland

 

[CyclopsRock]

OK, by that argument, why are English MP's voting on matters that affect Scotland? Depending on how far down that rabbit hole you want to go, why do London MP's get to vote on matters affecting Leeds?

Because it affects their constituents too. It affects all the constituents, so all the MPs vote.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

What has an English MP voted on that only affects Scotland

God forbid that people who are part of the same country vote against relaxing of laws that torture and kill innocent animals for the fun of some posh sociopaths who enjoy hunting them for sport.

 

[CyclopsRock]

God forbid that people who are part of the same country vote against relaxing of laws that torture and kill innocent animals for the fun of some posh sociopaths who enjoy hunting them for sport.

Well, for the sake of the constitutional discussion, imagine it was the other way around - that Scottish MPs threatening to vote was what was going to keep it legal. Still kosher?

 

[FlammableD]

Well, for the sake of the constitutional discussion, imagine it was the other way around - that Scottish MPs threatening to vote was what was going to keep it legal. Still kosher?

Under the system we have, they have the right to.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Well, for the sake of the constitutional discussion, imagine it was the other way around - that Scottish MPs threatening to vote was what was going to keep it legal. Still kosher?

My thoughts wouldn't change on their right to vote, only on the stance they were taking since its a disgusting choice to be voting for.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Under the system we have, they have the right to.

And I said it was sad.

 

[FlammableD]

And I said it was sad.

In your opinion. In mine, they're exercising their rights. If you want to change the system, change it equally.

 

[CyclopsRock]

In your opinion. In mine, they're exercising their rights. If you want to change the system, change it equally.

They're not mutually exclusive. I recognise they have the right to exercise their votes, I'm just sad that it's the case. In terms of "right and wrong", it's akin to Belgian parliamentarians voting for new laws in France (as opposed to Belgium MEPs voting for laws that affect France, as well as themselves, in the EUP). The only reason it exists is due to the half-arsed way the Scottish parliament was hacked into our constitution, rather than because it's actually a just and right state of affairs to be in.

I also think they're shitbags for lying, but "lying politicians" isn't exactly a newsflash.

 

[kitch9]

Theyll drop it. Push through English Votes for English laws then push through a full repeal rather than just the loosening of regulations.

Bravo SNP.

Also. I'm much more right wing than left but I do not support thd Tory stance stance on Fox hunting at all.

I have a mate who is a farmer that constantly loses stock to them. I know the media likes to paint them as cute, but they are vicious things who kill for fun.

One way or another they need controlling.

 

[jimbor]

I have a mate who is a farmer that constantly loses stock to them. I know the media likes to paint them as cute, but they are vicious things who kill for fun.

One way or another they need controlling.

They're definitely a pest but there are far more effective methods of population control than foxhunting.

 

[FlammableD]

If you need to get rid of them, either improve your security to keep them out, or find a relatively humane way to control the population.

Don't dress in top and tails and chase them with horses & dugs.

 

[Jackpot]

I have a mate who is a farmer that constantly loses stock to them. I know the media likes to paint them as cute, but they are vicious things who kill for fun.

One way or another they need controlling.

They definitely need culling. I would never argue against that or their status as vermin. I would argue against turning pest control into a blood sport.

In fact you state that "they are vicious things who kill for fun" so I'm assuming you are against humans doing the same?

 

[kitch9]

They're definitely a pest but there are far more effective methods of population control than foxhunting.

Shotgun, Poison or traps? They all cause suffering.

None of that leaves a scent of hounds that stop them from venturing too far into a specific area in the first place for a while so they set up home in a safer area. Whilst foxes are caught in a hunt ta lot get away and the hounds put them off from coming back.

I can see why those who don't know about it would find it abhorrent, I don't like needless killing myself but on balance the ban actually doesn't stop foxes getting topped and suffering in the process, in fact more of them probably get culled now.

 

[Kuros]

I have a mate who is a farmer that constantly loses stock to them. I know the media likes to paint them as cute, but they are vicious things who kill for fun.

One way or another they need controlling.

No issue with fox culling but there are better methods than a traditional hunt surely?

edit: seems like this discussion is already going on.

 

[jimbor]

Shotgun, Poison or traps? They all cause suffering.

None of that leaves a scent of hounds that stop them from venturing too far into a specific area in the first place for a while so they set up home in a safer area. Whilst foxes are caught in a hunt ta lot get away and the hounds put them off from coming back.

I can see why those who don't know about it would find it abhorrent, I don't like needless killing myself but on balance the ban actually doesn't stop foxes getting topped and suffering in the process, in fact more of them probably get culled now.

Don't care about the suffering, but all the methods you mentioned are far more effective.

 

[kitch9]

Don't care about the suffering, but all the methods you mentioned are far more effective.

They are far more indiscriminate, traps and poisons will kill anything slowly, not just foxes. One hunt that circles a number of farms and properties is enough to stop foxes attacking for weeks and maybe only one fox and nothing else gets killed during that time.

Are you against hunting then if the perceived suffering you don't care about?

Fox hunts are properly planned usually and follow a set route until a fox is spotted then the hunt goes wherever the fox takes them, which is usually near more foxes, who in turn move away from the area. I live in the countryside so see what foxes do regularly, I also get to see foxes (Badgers, birds, whatever as well) poisoned and stuck in traps so it amuses me that people think that's the better way.

 

[jimbor]

They are far more indiscriminate, traps and poisons will kill anything slowly, not just foxes. One hunt that circles a number of farms and properties is enough to stop foxes attacking for weeks and maybe only one fox and nothing else gets killed during that time.

Are you against hunting then if the perceived suffering you don't care about?

Fox hunts are properly planned usually and follow a set route until a fox is spotted then the hunt goes wherever the fox takes them, which is usually near more foxes, who in turn move away from the area.

As I said previously, don't give a fuck about it really but dressing it up as pest control is bollocks at best.

I'd rather they just said that they love the thrill of the hunt.

 

[kitch9]

As I said previously, don't give a fuck about it really but dressing it up as pest control is bollocks at best.

I'd rather they just said that they love the thrill of the hunt.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, you think more animals should be killed and suffer because someone may be enjoying themselves?

As I've said the scent of dozens of dogs is as good a deterrent for a fox as it gets.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Mhairi Black made her maiden speech as an MP in the Commons today and it was very much worth a listen.

Very impressed by her confidence and how well she came across.

 

[jimbor]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, you think more animals should be killed and suffer because someone may be enjoying themselves?

As I've said the scent of dozens of dogs is as good a deterrent for a fox as it gets.

And as I've said, the pest control claim is bollocks.

 

[kitch9]

And as I've said, the pest control claim is bollocks.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong though? Foxes still die, they just get their heads clubbed in when trapped in snares.

Farmers enjoy that job n all...

 

[jimbor]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong though? Foxes still die, they just get their heads clubbed in when trapped in snares.

Farmers enjoy that job n all...

Eh? What am I not understanding? I've stated the pest control claim is bollocks, which it is. Not sure reading comprehension is your strong point but luckily you're a salesman so it shouldn't affect you too much.

 

[Mr Git]

Mhairi Black made her maiden speech as an MP in the Commons today and it was very much worth a listen.

Very impressed by her confidence and how well she came across.

A brilliant speech, saw it earlier.

Very pleased about the hunting ban not going through. Fucking barbaric. Why anyone would want it to still be here is beyond me. It's not just the foxes that get mauled. The dogs aren't always unscathed. All round cruelty.

 

[Jezbollah]

Mhairi Black made her maiden speech as an MP in the Commons today and it was very much worth a listen.

Very impressed by her confidence and how well she came across.

It's a bit of a shame there were by the looks of it three times the Tory MPs present than Labours to listen to her.

 

[Protome]

Mhairi Black made her maiden speech as an MP in the Commons today and it was very much worth a listen.

Very impressed by her confidence and how well she came across.

She nailed it, completely. Made me feel a bit more positive about SNP after this fox hunting bollocks.

The fact that fox hunting is what SNP are willing to (at least threaten to) break their "We won't vote on things which don't impact Scotland" rule over is disappointing.