Hunt Ban Protest Kicks Off

Rabies · 16-09-2004 11:23am

I think I am one of a few on boards that is pro hunting. I have hunted many times in the past and loved it. There is a thread about it some where in Animals/Pet Issues.
The ban of fox hunting in England will certainly increase the amount of tourists to this country purely to hunt. Local riding schools will make money from the hiring of horses and hunting organisations will get more international members.
Some people have said that fox hunting is for the "toffs", that isn't true. If you ever follow a hunt or take part you will notice that many of the members are farmers or just regular working people. Of course there are members that are from the richer end of the scale, upper middle and upper class. But they would probably be a minority in Irish hunting circles.
The protest in England did get out of hand. If the police needed to use force to control the front of the crowd then so be it. Very few protests go ahead without any incidents.

mycroft · 16-09-2004 11:32am

Are you also opposed to fishing?

Am I opposed to fishing? Hmmmmmmm

Dragging myself to a lake at dawn to throw a line into the river in the freezing cold, and stand there all day......

Then yes I'm morally opposed to fishing if you expect me to do it.

However if a fisherman is going to eat what he catchs then no I'm not. We've hunted and killed for food since recorded time. It's part of human nature.

Fox hunting is chasing, hunting, and dismembering an animal for pleasure. It's morally abhorant.

So yes I see a difference.

Some people have said that fox hunting is for the "toffs", that isn't true. If you ever follow a hunt or take part you will notice that many of the members are farmers or just regular working people. Of course there are members that are from the richer end of the scale, upper middle and upper class. But they would probably be a minority in Irish hunting circles

In order to hunt, you'll need at least one horse, membership of a hunt, clothes, a 4x4, and a horse box, you'll need to be able to pay stable fees. This is the hobby of the wealthy and the powerful.

ReefBreak · 16-09-2004 11:45am

mycroft wrote:

So yes I see a difference.

So you're against fishing where they throw the fish back? Correct? But not when they eat it. What if they eat it, but still get loads of fun out of it and call it a sport? Are you also against using leather for sport?

I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but a bit of consistency wouldn't go astray among the foamy-mouthed anti-hunt lobby - who, by no coincidence, are generally very left-wing.

Rabies · 16-09-2004 11:56am

mycroft wrote:

In order to hunt, you'll need at least one horse, membership of a hunt, clothes, a 4x4, and a horse box, you'll need to be able to pay stable fees. This is the hobby of the wealthy and the powerful.

No you don't.

Horses can be hired and transported to the hunt for you.

The riding clothes you see people where on most hunts on TV are not worn by everyone. Some wear jeans, riding boots and a waterproof jacket.

Membership to a hunt club is about the same as gym membership (but more fun

). Some hunts will allow people to take part in hunts even if they are not members, just pay a fee for the day and that will do.

It definitly is not a hobby of the wealthy and powerful. It is a hobby for all social classes if they wish to take part.

dublinario · 16-09-2004 12:03pm

ReefBreak wrote:

Are you also opposed to fishing?

Well, I'm not opposed to fishing, but you certainly seem to have the memory of a Goldfish the way you repeat yourself.

I have heard this whole "why don't you support the cows/chickens/sheep/fish?" argument countless times, and it is sheer sophistry. Firstly, you purposely fail to recognise that Fish have long been a part of the diet of Humans. Yes, people fish recreationally too, but it is abundantly apparent that, as any dietician would tell you, Fish are a source of nourishment and a worthy addition to a balanced diet, and this is the reason why it has become largely acceptable. This is not comparable to a stylised ritual wherein a bunch of horse-mounted morons salivate as a pack of hounds tear a frightened animal limb from limb. And for the record, Vegans would deem Fishing morally reprehensible, so let's not pretend that everybody loves fishing.

But then there is the more glaringly obvious flaw in your dismal Fish analogy:
what if we agree with you that Fish are treated disgracefully? Is that then a reason not to hate the plight of Foxes? Because there is another creature that is treated equally as badly if not worse, is that any reason to stop caring about the first creature? That is analogous to saying "well I think the the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is a great cause, but because there are charities that are even more worthwhile, I've decided to help NONE of them." Pathetic logic.

ReefBreak wrote:

I also have to say that I get very annoyed when I see clueless city people such as dublinario spouting on about the countryside, when they the only piece of grass they ever see is while watching the football on sky.

Actually ReefBreak, my family are from the country, and my best mate partakes in the Fox Hunts (he assures me that an already dead fox is dragged through the fields to provide the scent for the Hounds, but I'm skeptical about his claim) in Wicklow and other parts of Ireland, which is a source of much debate between us.

I do find it interesting though, that you, just like the British Toff I mentioned earlier, would make disparaging, bizzarly irrelevant comments about Football fans. Rest assured ReefBreak, Football, as the most popular sport in the world, will survive long past the inevitable time when the barbarous niche sport of the rich that you seem oh so moved to support, has been rendered illegal in all civilised democracies.

The Corinthian · 16-09-2004 12:34pm

Redleslie2 wrote:

anyone who says it's not a class issue is quite obviously talking total bollocks.

I’m sure any topic could be turned into a class issue if one looks long enough - the SWP has made a career of that. However, the ban on hunting is not being proposed on a basis of class war, but on the basis of cruelty. You’ll also find that rural lower classes broadly support it too, while most of the opposition to hunting will tend to come from middle class urbanites rather than Joe ‘Salt-o-the-Earth’ Bloggs from the council estate.

So the reality is that it’s primarily an urban-rural divide, as opposed to a class one. Ascribing it to class war is little more than superficial PR or wishful thinking on the part of twenty-something teenage rebels who haven’t grown up.

dublinario wrote:

So what? I'm not trying to sound glib, but seriously, so f*cking what? The will of the people, is the will of the people. There is overwhelming support for a ban on Fox Hunting in Britain. What are you suggesting, that we set up a new government for rural society so that the 'clash of cultures' won't occur? Or should rural folk be able to veto any laws made by 'urban' folk which tread on their idyllic, country-woven sensibilities?

I wasn’t making a moral judgment, I was making an amoral observation. Nonetheless, are you suggesting that a democracy should not consider or protect the rights of minorities?

All generalisations by their very nature will dilute slightly under scrutiny Corinthian, but it doesn't make it entirely groundless. I would stand firm in my belief that Fox Hunting is a past time, predominantly, of the upper and middle classes. I'm astonished you would try to suggest otherwise. Don't be disingenuous.

To begin with, you’re now being disingenuous as you only suggested it was the preserve of toffs and never mentioned the middle classes until now. Secondly, it’s something I’ve already pointed out enjoys broad support in rural areas from all classes. Finally, there are plenty in the lower classes who have adopted the activity. Ever come across the nouvelle riche? Who do you think pays for many of these hunts?

Will you be disingenuous a second time and suggest that this moron didn't use 'football supporters' as a euphemism for 'working class'? Because that is exactly what he meant.

As opposed suggesting they were hooligans? After all, hooligans are to be found in which particular sport? Perhaps if he’d called them skittles players or pigeon fanciers I’d take your point more seriously.

Jesus, develop a sense of humour. If you can't discern between the literal and the farcical, then kindly p*ss off and let the grown ups talk.

I heard someone who was cracking nig*er jokes once use that same excuse. So I suspect you’ve overestimated your position of maturity in this discussion by a decade or two.

Gizzard · 16-09-2004 12:38pm

Redleslie2 wrote:

Where I grew up it was common for kids to hunt cats and dogs and kill them through various means for fun. So recreational sadistic cruelty is not necessarily a class issue no, but fox hunting is just a hobby of the landed classes and the saddos who aspire to that class. Hardly needs to be said but considering that hunting has been the preserve of the ruling class since the Normans and vast swathes of the country have been their private playgrounds, anyone who says it's not a class issue is quite obviously talking total bollocks. Especially since even some Countryside Alliance spokestoff or tory MP (indistinguishable) accused Tony Blair of fomenting class war today.

are you serious?, kill dogs and cats?, is this some kind of redneck joke?, where do you come from? so I can avoid it :eek:

Gizzard · 16-09-2004 12:41pm

Redleslie2 wrote:

You've put up two posts about my "ill-informed" views without being able to explain why they're ill-informed so here's a direct question.

Why is saying that fox hunting is a hobby "ill-informed"?

Answer or shurrup and go away. Good lad.

Now this is what I call ill-informed nonsense. You obviously don't know what went on at the protest but you're more than happy to say what "most likely" happened. Why don't you just go away and try find out how things actually happened at the protest before coming out with this useless speculative garbage please.

Speaking of ill informed nonsense, see your own sig

mycroft · 16-09-2004 12:42pm

I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but a bit of consistency wouldn't go astray among the foamy-mouthed anti-hunt lobby - who, by no coincidence, are generally very left-wing.

I think you'll find that the miltant anti hunt lobby generally consistents of a mixture of ALF types and old dears.

So you're against fishing where they throw the fish back? Correct? But not when they eat it. What if they eat it, but still get loads of fun out of it and call it a sport? Are you also against using leather for sport?

Okay this is what I call the spluttering "you like this...but how can you condone that" You'll try to argue me into a corner where the next thing you'll try to have me saying "everything barring militant veganism is morally wrong".

Okay, I can't condone or prove that someone who kills and eats fish enjoys the killing more the catching and eating.

Just as I can't condone or support someone who enjoys the fighting and hacking aspects of say hurling over the team sport and winning.

I don't see an inconsistency is condemning once practice which cannot demostration that there is more enjoyment in it than simple sadism.

So a question back at you, is there anything moraly redeming or justifibly in hunting aside from the pleasure and enjoyment in the hunting and killing of a defenseless animal?

Fishermen don't daub the blood of the fish onto the cheeks of their children after their first "kill"

Merrion · 16-09-2004 12:47pm

The hunting debate in the UK is simply another leg in an ongoing clash of cultures between urban and rural Society.

As someone who was raised in rural Lincolnshire I'd have to disagree with this. A large number of those involved in our local hunts were recently wealthy townspeople from Lincoln and Sheffield and a large number of those opposed to the "sport" were local land owners fed up with having their land trashed by these visiting hordes.

dublinario · 16-09-2004 1:19pm

The Corinthian wrote:

I wasn’t making a moral judgment, I was making an amoral observation. Nonetheless, are you suggesting that a democracy should not consider or protect the rights of minorities?

Not at all Corinthian. But nor can the minorities ignore the law. The majority has not illegally subjugating the minority. The majority have voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. That's democracy. If you don't like it, then why don't you make a donation to the British Conservative party. They are bound to repeal the ban if and when they ever get back to power anyway.

And I find it amusing that you want to wax lyrical about the "...right of minorities", because this whole issue comes down to rights, specifically the amorality that the right of a Human to have a bit of fun could supercede the right of an animal to live. Let's not act like some fundamental, constitutionally protected right has been taken away from Rural dwellers. All that has occured is the enactment of a law to say Foxes can't be savagely murdered for kicks.

The Corinthian wrote:

To begin with, you’re now being disingenuous as you only suggested it was the preserve of toffs and never mentioned the middle classes until now.

Untrue. Reread my posts, and you will find that I explicitly mentioned that Fox Hunting was the persuit of the Upper class and bourgeois. Look 'bourgeois' up in the dictionary. Also, why do you assume that I don't include middle class people as 'toffs'. A middle class person could quite easily be a Toff, just as easily as an upper class person may not be one. It isn't all about wealth. It's about attitude and actions too.

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, it’s something I’ve already pointed out enjoys broad support in rural areas from all classes.

Pointing something out is not the same as proving it Corinthian. I have already pointed out that Fox Hunting is predominantly the persuit of the middle and upper classes. Neither of us have produced statistics to support our theories, so don't try and take the moral highground in that respect.

The Corinthian wrote:

As opposed suggesting they were hooligans? After all, hooligans are to be found in which particular sport? Perhaps if he’d called them skittles players or pigeon fanciers I’d take your point more seriously.

That is your perception of the intended meaning, and it is valid opinion. But I think there is more intent beneath the surface. I think the protestor meant to suggest that those who initiated the violence, were more 'common' than himself, and probably like Football, which could be generalised to be the sport of the working class, just as Rugby could be generalised to be the sport of the middle/upper class. I think you are partly right in your inference, but I just read a little deeper into it.

The Corinthian wrote:

I heard someone who was cracking nig*er jokes once use that same excuse. So I suspect you’ve overestimated your position of maturity in this discussion by a decade or two.

Definately, not just your own, but overall, thee most ludicrous, baseless, and histrionic comment of the whole thread. To try and equate a humerous joke I made about people wearing an inanimate piece of eyewear to "nig*er jokes" is absolutely disgusting. You had been arguing well until this point Corinthian, but you made yourself look like a total f*cking knobend with this particular comment.

The Corinthian · 16-09-2004 2:10pm

dublinario wrote:

Not at all Corinthian. But nor can the minorities ignore the law. The majority has not illegally subjugating the minority. The majority have voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. That's democracy.

I don’t think you understand the principle of protecting the rights of minorities. If the majority voted for a law that saw to the sterilization of the Traveling community in Ireland, are you seriously suggesting that this would simply be democracy?

And I find it amusing that you want to wax lyrical about the "...right of minorities", because this whole issue comes down to rights, specifically the amorality that the right of a Human to have a bit of fun could supercede the right of an animal to live.

Irrelevant. I’ve not commented at any stage on whether such a ban is just or not, only on the definition of the roots of this issue as being fundamentally class based or that blood sports are the preserve of the upper class.

Untrue. Reread my posts, and you will find that I explicitly mentioned that Fox Hunting was the persuit of the Upper class and bourgeois.

Apologies - I must have missed it buried under all your references to monocle wearing toffs.

Look 'bourgeois' up in the dictionary.

I’ve no need to do so. I probably understood the word before you were born.
Also, why do you assume that I don't include middle class people as 'toffs'. A middle class person could quite easily be a Toff, just as easily as an upper class person may not be one. It isn't all about wealth. It's about attitude and actions too. [/QUOTE]
The term toff is exclusively used as a derogatory term to describe affected upper class aristocrats. And I never said or even implied that class was based upon wealth, so where did you get that from?

Pointing something out is not the same as proving it Corinthian. I have already pointed out that Fox Hunting is predominantly the persuit of the middle and upper classes. Neither of us have produced statistics to support our theories, so don't try and take the moral highground in that respect.

So it’s all right that you and other teenage rebels in this thread take the moral high ground and claim the issue as a battleground in the class war, then? Because, that’s exactly what you were doing.

I think you are partly right in your inference, but I just read a little deeper into it.

I think you’ve read too much into it. Your assertion is extremely tenuous, not mention fanciful.

Definately, not just your own, but overall, thee most ludicrous, baseless, and histrionic comment of the whole thread. To try and equate a humerous joke I made about people wearing an inanimate piece of eyewear to "nig*er jokes" is absolutely disgusting.

Yet such people would be equally convinced that they were just being humorous. What makes it all right to abuse one group for the sake of humour and not another? Other than your own conviction, that is?

You had been arguing well until this point Corinthian, but you made yourself look like a total f*cking knobend with this particular comment.

Well, that’s a cogent argument. Of course, I should not have expected anything else when pointing out that you may in fact be guilty of those things that you would most likely claim to despise. Ironic, innit?

Redleslie2 · 16-09-2004 2:54pm

The Corinthian wrote:

So the reality is that it’s primarily an urban-rural divide, as opposed to a class one. Ascribing it to class war is little more than superficial PR or wishful thinking on the part of twenty-something teenage rebels who haven’t grown up.

Zzzzzzz. Both the tory and labour press as well as the countryside alliance have stated repeatedly over the years that this is a class issue. It is. As much as the miners' strike was, except the miners' strike was about something a bit more important than a hobby. Deal with it.

Title of The Times article posted by Reefbreak - "Labour will regret reigniting class war."
Guardian article - Class War On The Hoof.

And it seems that every time you disagree with someone, instead of providing any decent argument, you instead instinctively go on about how they're obviously much younger than you (and therefore immature or thick?) and they should just grow up. That in itself does not seem to be a very mature attitude to the likes of me but if it's bred into you then there's not much to be done. Anyway if being grown up means adopting loony political views and supporting kitsch military dicatorships over any sort of democracy then personally I'm with Tom Waits on the whole growing up issue.

emaherx · 16-09-2004 2:56pm

I was wondering if any of the people who partake in fox hunting could tell me how many hunts they have been on that actually catch the fox.

Would I be correct in saying not too many.
I would be only too happy if hunts kept the fox population under control, but they don't. I am a farmer and have lost plenty of lambs to fox's and I have no problem going out with a gun to shoot a fox or two to protect my livestock.

fox's are verman. I keep a terrier and cats to keep the mouse and rat population under control and they (espessially the terrier) tear small defensless animals apart. Dose any one object to keeping cats and dogs for the sole purpuse of tearing shreads out of rodents. (is it ok because its not for sport)

I am not completly pro hunt! many a hunt has caused damage to land and crops

emaherx · 16-09-2004 3:01pm

Redleslie2 wrote:

Zzzzzzz. Both the tory and labour press as well as the countryside alliance have stated repeatedly over the years that this is a class issue. It is. As much as the miners' strike was, except the miners' strike was about something a bit more important than a hobby. Deal with it.

Title of The Times article posted by Reefbreak - "Labour will regret reigniting class war."
QUOTE]

In england it is mostly upper classes who partake in hunts

In ireland it is not a class war. more people from lower and middle classes take part.

Redleslie2 · 16-09-2004 3:11pm

emaherx wrote:

I would be only too happy if hunts kept the fox population under control, but they don't.

I am a farmer and have lost plenty of lambs to fox's and I have no problem going out with a gun to shoot a fox or two to protect my livestock.
fox's are verman. I keep a terrier and cats to keep the mouse and rat population under control and they (espessially the terrier) tear small defensless animals apart. Dose any one object to keeping cats and dogs for the sole purpuse of tearing shreads out of rodents. (is it ok because its not for sport)

Some of my family on my mother's side are farmers and have cats and dogs for the same reason. I don't think anyone objects to it. If fox numbers fell dramatically it wouldn't be long before the hunters would be importing this "vermin" from elsewhere as happened in the late 19th century, so they could continue to pursue their hobby.

dublinario · 16-09-2004 4:02pm

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t think you understand the principle of protecting the rights of minorities. If the majority voted for a law that saw to the sterilization of the Traveling community in Ireland, are you seriously suggesting that this would simply be democracy?

No Corinthian, ethnic cleansing definately isn't democratic. What a totally spurious and ridiculous analogy. I repeat: the majority of people in Britain oppose Fox Hunting. They voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. The ban was then enforced, by vote, in Parliment. Instead of attempting to counter this point with a wholly surreal, ludicrously incommensurable hypothetical, why don't you instead simply tell me what was undemocratic about what actually transpired?

Of course the rights of minorities should also be protected. But unfortunately Corinthian, by definition, the losing side of any vote is a minority. Take referenda: when a matter is put to public ballot, every single person who votes on the losing side instantly becomes a minority group. Your crude, one-size-fits-all farcical analogy has no baring. Sometimes the will of the majority CAN override the right of a minority, especially if the right in question is as trivial and vulgar as the right to savage Foxes to death.

The Corinthian wrote:

Irrelevant. I’ve not commented at any stage on whether such a ban is just or not, only on the definition of the roots of this issue as being fundamentally class based or that blood sports are the preserve of the upper class.

Well I know you would like to make the argument thus Corinthian, to keep the debate abstract. But unfortunately, you cannot separate the causal factors of this debate. If you want to debate merely whether or not the issue is fundamentally class based, then perhaps start a new thread. As for the rest of us, I think we find it hard to debate the Fox Hunting ban without discussing......Fox Hunting!

The Corinthian wrote:

Apologies

Apology accepted.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve no need to do so. I probably understood the word before you were born.

I think that is the second time you have referred to my age. Corinthian, I don't presume to know if you are 15 years old or 150. Why do you presume to know my age? Not that it is relevant, but I am in my late 20's.

The Corinthian wrote:

The term toff is exclusively used as a derogatory term to describe affected upper class aristocrats.

Corinthian, I will bow to your pedantic, dictionary like definition of the term 'toff'. I would however argue, that it's perceived meaning, especially in my social circle, would trascend it's lexiphanic definition. To me, a 'Toff' is a middle or upper class person that displays a certain type of arrogant, lofty behaviour seemingly associated with their wealth. Therefore, neither middle nor upper class people are necessarily Toff's.

The Corinthian wrote:

And I never said or even implied that class was based upon wealth, so where did you get that from?

Who said you did?

The Corinthian wrote:

How teenage rebels in this thread.....

Again with the age jibes. How grotesquely patronising of you to assert that everybody who disagrees with you is some ill-informed youth. For somebody of your, presumably advancing years, it would appear to me you still have a lot of growing up to do.

The Corinthian wrote:

I think you’ve read too much into it. Your assertion is extremely tenuous, not mention fanciful.

Perhaps, but it is my opinion, and in and of itself is perfectly valid.

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet such people would be equally convinced that they were just being humorous. What makes it all right to abuse one group for the sake of humour and not another? Other than your own conviction, that is?

Corinthian, if you cannot discern between the comedic stereotype of an aristocrat wearing a Monocle, and the historical gravitas associated with the word "n*gger", then I genuinely feel sorry you. The Monocle is only one of a series of accessories applied to the stereotypical aristocrat, along with a top hat, handle bar moustache, and a cane, all of which I believe are present on the emblem of the board game Monopoly. Are you suggesting that the board game Monopoly is as offensive as the word N*gger? Once again Corinthian, I would implore you to drop a totally revolting and invalid analogy, because you are making yourself look like a complete idiot, which I DON'T believe you to be.

The Corinthian wrote:

Well, that’s a cogent argument. Of course, I should not have expected anything else when pointing out that you may in fact be guilty of those things that you would most likely claim to despise. Ironic, innit?

No. You should have looked up 'irony' while looking up 'bourgeois'.

chewy · 16-09-2004 4:19pm

"....but do not give a damn about leather shoes?"

this is a great example of of patronising reporting of the highest order, i know plenty the more committed hippy/punk friends who go out of there way to find plastic boots or whatever....

Redleslie2 · 16-09-2004 4:22pm

I'm wrong. Foxhunting is not a class issue at all, look at the pro-hunt protesters who staged that disgraceful display in the commons. They're a diverse social mix of rich polo players, rich rock star's sons, rich stud farm owners and other types of rich people according to the BBC.

Otis Ferry :: Master of the hunt in south Shropshire
The 21-year-old is the son of 1970s pop star Bryan Ferry. He gave up his public school education at the age of 16 to indulge his passion for countryside sports.

Luke Tomlinson :: Polo player from Gloucestershire
Eton-educated Luke Tomlinson, 27, has represented England at polo and is reported to be good friends with princes William and Harry. His family are close to Prince Charles and live near to the prince's Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire.

David Redvers :: Stud farm owner from Gloucestershire
Mr Redvers, 34, is married to Laura Montgomery whose father is a baronet. The father-of-one owns a stud farm at Hartpury in Severn Vale, near Gloucester.

The Corinthian · 16-09-2004 5:34pm

Redleslie2 wrote:

Both the tory and labour press as well as the countryside alliance have stated repeatedly over the years that this is a class issue.

Really? Where?

As much as the miners' strike was, except the miners' strike was about something a bit more important than a hobby. Deal with it.

Oh, I take it the Tories said that was a class issue too then? :rolleyes:

Guardian article - Class War On The Hoof.

An opinion piece. Like your post, but with a little bit more substance.

And it seems that every time you disagree with someone, instead of providing any decent argument, you instead instinctively go on about how they're obviously much younger than you (and therefore immature or thick?) and they should just grow up.

I notice that you’ve not levied a similar accusation against dublinario, even though he was the first to make maturity related comments. Wait, you agree with him so it’s different.

Anyway if being grown up means adopting loony political views and supporting kitsch military dicatorships over any sort of democracy then personally I'm with Tom Waits on the whole growing up issue.

Or Fidel Castro. More your type of kitsch military dictator.

dublinario wrote:

No Corinthian, ethnic cleansing definately isn't democratic. What a totally spurious and ridiculous analogy. I repeat: the majority of people in Britain oppose Fox Hunting. They voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. The ban was then enforced, by vote, in Parliment. Instead of attempting to counter this point with a wholly surreal, ludicrously incommensurable hypothetical, why don't you instead simply tell me what was undemocratic about what actually transpired?

How is the point spurious? You’ve argued that the will of the majority may impose it’s will upon the lives and values of a minority. Just because you personally disagree with one imposition and agree with another makes no odds as you’ve not shown how one is different to the other at all in terms of your definition of democracy.

Of course the rights of minorities should also be protected. But unfortunately Corinthian, by definition, the losing side of any vote is a minority. Take referenda: when a matter is put to public ballot, every single person who votes on the losing side instantly becomes a minority group. Your crude, one-size-fits-all farcical analogy has no baring. Sometimes the will of the majority CAN override the right of a minority, especially if the right in question is as trivial and vulgar as the right to savage Foxes to death.

So how are you judging what is moral or not? Were the majority to decide to sterilize the Traveling community tomorrow, by democratic vote, would that make it moral? According to popular opinion it would. Yet, such a case is magically different in your eyes for some, as yet undefined, reason. Enlighten us as to your logic.

Well I know you would like to make the argument thus Corinthian, to keep the debate abstract. But unfortunately, you cannot separate the causal factors of this debate. If you want to debate merely whether or not the issue is fundamentally class based, then perhaps start a new thread. As for the rest of us, I think we find it hard to debate the Fox Hunting ban without discussing......Fox Hunting!

And I have indeed discussed the issue of Fox hunting, and in particular the horseshìt that people will ascribe to the debate.

I think that is the second time you have referred to my age. Corinthian, I don't presume to know if you are 15 years old or 150. Why do you presume to know my age? Not that it is relevant, but I am in my late 20's.

It is the only time I have referred to your age. If you’re in your late twenties, you’re probably a little long in the tooth to still be waving the class war flag though.

Corinthian, I will bow to your ... definition of the term 'toff'.

Apology accepted.

I would however argue, that it's perceived meaning, especially in my social circle, would trascend it's lexiphanic definition.

So how you and your mates see it is more correct that the real meaning? Good way to develop an understanding of the World.

Who said you did?

It was the only possible reason for you to have brought it up. Otherwise it was just an irrelevant filler to your argument.

Again with the age jibes. How grotesquely patronising of you to assert that everybody who disagrees with you is some ill-informed youth. For somebody of your, presumably advancing years, it would appear to me you still have a lot of growing up to do.

Indeed. Your well crafted arguments (or your own grotesquely patronizing comments) have convinced me of this :rolleyes:

Perhaps, but it is my opinion, and in and of itself is perfectly valid.

Then state it as such, don’t state it as fact.

Corinthian, if you cannot discern between the comedic stereotype of an aristocrat wearing a Monocle, and the historical gravitas associated with the word "n*gger", then I genuinely feel sorry you.

The power of words to evoke emotion is entirely based upon what we ascribe to them. That you can consider it acceptable to deride on group and be offended when another is says more about your values than the words themselves.

Applying different standards because you agree with one discrimination but not with another is called hypocrisy. So have a good look in the mirror. And no, I don’t feel sorry for you.

No. You should have looked up 'irony' while looking up 'bourgeois'.

Should I ask your social circle for a better definition then?

SkepticOne · 16-09-2004 6:37pm

Profile of protesters who entered the House of Commons and were subsequently arrested here (BBC).

Eton-educated Luke Tomlinson, 27, has represented England at polo and is reported to be good friends with princes William and Harry.

His family are close to Prince Charles and live near to the prince's Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire.[...]Mr Redvers, 34, is married to Laura Montgomery whose father is a baronet.

The father-of-one owns a stud farm at Hartpury in Severn Vale, near Gloucester. [...]

I'm not particularly interested in the hunt issue. As far as I'm concerned the hunters and hunt sabateurs can go at each other in the English countryside if that is what they are into.

What puzzles me is the tactics of the protesters. Why, if they feel so passionately about hunting, did they break into the UK parliament buildings managing in the process to alienate the political establishment there? Inevitably the whole subsequent debate has been about security "if these morons can get in, what about terrorists...", etc.

I support peoples right to protest and express frustration, but you've got to wonder what is going on inside some peoples heads sometimes.

dublinario · 16-09-2004 7:21pm

The Corinthian wrote:

So how are you judging what is moral or not? Were the majority to decide to sterilize the Traveling community tomorrow, by democratic vote, would that make it moral? According to popular opinion it would. Yet, such a case is magically different in your eyes for some, as yet undefined, reason. Enlighten us as to your logic.

Jesus, and you accuse the other posters here of being child like? Thus far in this thread you have proffered two of the most dismal, woefully ill-conceived analogies. The one above, and the Monocle versus use of the word "N*gger" one, which I will deal with at the end of this posting.

I tried to dismiss your 'ethnic cleansing' analogy in my last posting, as much to spare your blushes, as well as my own at having to stoop to answering such a vacuous, child-like proposition. But you have pressed me on it, so I will quash your analogy. Don't worry, this won't take long. Along with countless peripheral impracticalities, the primary reason there could not be a democratic vote (I can't believe I'm answering this nonsense) to ethnically cleanse the travelling community is because it would violate any number of their constitutional rights. It would also violate any number of international charters on human rights. Seriously Corinthian, hang your head in shame for wasting both our time posing such a puerile question.

The Corinthian wrote:

And I have indeed discussed the issue of Fox hunting, and in particular the horseshìt that people will ascribe to the debate.

That's funny. In an earlier posting you state that you have never asserted whether or not such a ban is just. That leads me to believe that you are the type of person who likes to spew a whole lot of rhetoric, and yet ultimately sit on the fence, lacking the courage of their convictions.

The Corinthian wrote:

It is the only time I have referred to your age.

Wrong as usual Corinthian. You referred to my age twice in the same posting, once as a bizzare boast that you have known a certain word since before I was born (???), and the other, by proxy, by saying "...you and all the other teenage rebels". I'm not going to read back over the thread, but I'm pretty sure you have also referred to my age, again by proxy whilst insulting all the pro-ban debaters, in other postings. I'm at a loss as to explain this strange revulsion you seem to hold toward the young.

The Corinthian wrote:

If you’re in your late twenties, you’re probably a little long in the tooth to still be waving the class war flag though.

Why? More indecipherable nonsense from the master of the same.

The Corinthian wrote:

Apology accepted.

I never apologised. Try to keep up.

The Corinthian wrote:

So how you and your mates see it is more correct that the real meaning? Good way to develop an understanding of the World.

Myself and my mates don't exist in a vacuum. My point, which obviously soared far, far over your head, was that if myself and my friends are representative of a larger portion of Irish people, the word 'Toff' has a more broad definition than the dictionary citation. Believe it or not Corinthian, this is not at all uncommon. For instance, the word 'deadly' has come to mean 'excellent' in Irish slang. Get out there and talk to the people, you'd be amazed how the organic English language mutates with time!

The Corinthian wrote:

Indeed. Your well crafted arguments (or your own grotesquely patronizing comments) have convinced me of this :rolleyes:

Wow, the 'rolls eyes' graphic, bringing out the big guns? Corinthian, this particular quote of yours refers to my assertion that you are disgustingly arrogant. No matter what you say about me, I have done nothing as arrogant as to continually suggest that my co-debaters are young ignoramuses. The irony (observe the use!) is that by doing so, you show yourself to be an old ignoramus, which is far worse. At least a young ignoramus has youth as an excuse.

The Corinthian wrote:

Then state it as such, don’t state it as fact.

Virtually everything on this thread from myself and others is pure opinion. I have not seen any statistics or hard evidence from anyone. The sheer gall to try and hold me to a double standard you yourself do not observe.

The Corinthian wrote:

The power of words to evoke emotion is entirely based upon what we ascribe to them. That you can consider it acceptable to deride on group and be offended when another is says more about your values than the words themselves.

Applying different standards because you agree with one discrimination but not with another is called hypocrisy. So have a good look in the mirror.

You pressed me on your awful ethnic cleansing analogy, and I answered. And yet I asked you, directly, was the emblem on the Monopoly box, of the aristocrat, with monocle, as offensive as the word "n*gger". And what was your reply? Well, you start with "The power of words to evoke emotion....". What the f*ck is this, a primary school poetry class? Talk about mincing your words. You then proceed with two paragraphs of meandering bluster without actually coming close to answering the question.

I personally believe that you are slightly embarassed that you ever went down the "a monocle is as offensive as the word n*gger" road, but that you are now so deeply entrenched in your myopic argument as to be rendered immovable. I wonder, would you try explaining to a black person how a monocle is as offensive as the word n*gger? Congratulations again on the worlds worst ever analogy.

The Corinthian wrote:

And no, I don’t feel sorry for you.

What? What do you mean 'and no,...'? I didn't ask you anything, so why are you answering an imaginary question? How flimsy does your argument have to be to set yourself up like that? God that's really pathetic.

The Corinthian wrote:

Should I ask your social circle for a better definition then?

If you like, we'd be happy to help you out with any of your myriad of English language failings.

Rabies · 16-09-2004 9:21pm

emaherx wrote:

I was wondering if any of the people who partake in fox hunting could tell me how many hunts they have been on that actually catch the fox.

Would I be correct in saying not too many.
....
....

I am not completly pro hunt! many a hunt has caused damage to land and crops

I have only been on a few hunts over the years, probably about 7-8 hunts in total. Enjoyed them all. The fox doesn't always get caught. Some hunts will not dig a fox out if it goes to ground or use a terrier to bring it out. I am in favour of this practice. I don't agree with digging a fox out if it managed to reach safe ground.

emaherx, some of the hunting groups discuss it with farmers about access to their land prior to a hunt. Some farmers allow a hunt to pass through only if gates are used and closed after all horses have passed and the ride must stay to the hedge if possible at all times. This reduces the damage to farmers land.

pete · 16-09-2004 10:12pm

Rabies wrote:

I have only been on a few hunts over the years, probably about 7-8 hunts in total. Enjoyed them all. The fox doesn't always get caught. Some hunts will not dig a fox out if it goes to ground or use a terrier to bring it out. I am in favour of this practice. I don't agree with digging a fox out if it managed to reach safe ground.

how jolly sporting of you.

emaherx, some of the hunting groups discuss it with farmers about access to their land prior to a hunt. Some farmers allow a hunt to pass through only if gates are used and closed after all horses have passed and the ride must stay to the hedge if possible at all times. This reduces the damage to farmers land.

Does it reduce the damage to the fox?

Rabies · 16-09-2004 10:28pm

pete wrote:

how jolly sporting of you.

Does it reduce the damage to the fox?

This one time, at hunting camp we flooded a foxes earth with boiling water to enourage it to come out so we could rip its skin off. It was jolly good fun.

I love hunting because I'm wealthy, upper class and don't know what I'm talking about.

Run away peasant before I set my hounds after you.

pete · 16-09-2004 10:54pm

Rabies wrote:

This one time, at hunting camp we flooded a foxes earth with boiling water to enourage it to come out so we could rip its skin off. It was jolly good fun.

I love hunting because I'm wealthy, upper class and don't know what I'm talking about.

Run away peasant before I set my hounds after you.

hey that's really funny!

almost as amusing as watching a pack of dogs tear another animal apart in front of you! for sport!

The Corinthian · 17-09-2004 1:07pm

dublinario wrote:

Along with countless peripheral impracticalities, the primary reason there could not be a democratic vote (I can't believe I'm answering this nonsense) to ethnically cleanse the travelling community is because it would violate any number of their constitutional rights. It would also violate any number of international charters on human rights. Seriously Corinthian, hang your head in shame for wasting both our time posing such a puerile question.

Constitutional rights can be equally amended by the same democratic process. Have we not recently had such a referendum that has affected the rights and definition of citizenship recently, after all?

As for international charters, there is nothing stopping us from choosing to democratically leave any or all of these. We could choose to leave the UN if we wanted to. Of course, this might result in sanctions or worse, but that’s outside the scope of our democracy - you can hardly claim that international intervention is part of our democratic process.

The danger of democracy is that it can become tyranny by the majority - and by the limited definition you gave, it certainly could. For you it was perfectly acceptable to impose a majority decision upon a minority that would affect their rights. You’ve not put any boundaries upon how for our self determination may go to do this to any minority, outside of your late addition of international peer pressure.

That's funny. In an earlier posting you state that you have never asserted whether or not such a ban is just. That leads me to believe that you are the type of person who likes to spew a whole lot of rhetoric, and yet ultimately sit on the fence, lacking the courage of their convictions.

Are you going to just whine at me or make a point related to the topic?

the other, by proxy, by saying "...you and all the other teenage rebels".

Jumping to conclusions and paranoia seems to be a thing of yours.

I never apologised. Try to keep up.

Neither did I.

Myself and my mates don't exist in a vacuum. My point, which obviously soared far, far over your head, was that if myself and my friends are representative of a larger portion of Irish people, the word 'Toff' has a more broad definition than the dictionary citation.

I never said you or your mates existed in a vacuum, but neither would I use hearsay as a reliable point of reference.

Believe it or not Corinthian, this is not at all uncommon. For instance, the word 'deadly' has come to mean 'excellent' in Irish slang. Get out there and talk to the people, you'd be amazed how the organic English language mutates with time!

Neither my friends or I would use the term ‘deadly’ as meaning ‘excellent’. Neither would I expect you to accept the intended meaning of ‘queer’ unless you were from Wexford, or ‘savage’ unless you were from Cork. That’s why we tend to speak a standardized language rather than a collection of dialects when attempting to debate a topic as peers.

Wow, the 'rolls eyes' graphic, bringing out the big guns? Corinthian, this particular quote of yours refers to my assertion that you are disgustingly arrogant. No matter what you say about me, I have done nothing as arrogant as to continually suggest that my co-debaters are young ignoramuses. The irony (observe the use!) is that by doing so, you show yourself to be an old ignoramus, which is far worse. At least a young ignoramus has youth as an excuse.

What on earth are you blubbering about? Your posts are degenerating to no more than insulting rants.

You pressed me on your awful ethnic cleansing analogy, and I answered.

No, you indignantly got onto a high horse, rejected the notion and began to insult me. That’s pretty much it.

And yet I asked you, directly, was the emblem on the Monopoly box, of the aristocrat, with monocle, as offensive as the word "n*gger".

Tell me then, were the minstrels on the old Lyons Tea boxes offensive? They weren’t once, and oddly now they are. Explain how they are different to you Monopoly box, outside of one presently being acceptable and one formerly so.

And what was your reply? Well, you start with "The power of words to evoke emotion....". What the f*ck is this, a primary school poetry class? Talk about mincing your words. You then proceed with two paragraphs of meandering bluster without actually coming close to answering the question.

Read and understand. Don’t dismiss because the words are too big for you.

I personally believe that you are slightly embarassed that you ever went down the "a monocle is as offensive as the word n*gger" road, but that you are now so deeply entrenched in your myopic argument as to be rendered immovable.

No, that is incorrect. Another attempt at abuse, rather than argument.

What? What do you mean 'and no,...'? I didn't ask you anything, so why are you answering an imaginary question? How flimsy does your argument have to be to set yourself up like that? God that's really pathetic.

No, I don’t feel sorry for self deluded hypocrites it what I meant, seeing as you need it spelt out for you.

If you like, we'd be happy to help you out with any of your myriad of English language failings.

Wooosh! There goes another point over your head...

sovtek · 17-09-2004 4:21pm

Yea those protestor lot...bunch of soap dodgin trouble makers.

dublinario · 17-09-2004 4:30pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Constitutional rights can be equally amended by the same democratic process. Have we not recently had such a referendum that has affected the rights and definition of citizenship recently, after all?

I think you will find amending an article of the constitution would not allow for the ethnic cleansing of the traveling community, you half wit. Ethnically cleansing an entire people would probably violate so many articles of the constitution, as to make it defunct i.e. we would have to throw it out. It amazes me that you fail to see that the more you pursue this most inappropriate, badly thought out analogy, the more moronic you appear.

So, let’s recap on your analogy for a second. You now juxtapose

a) a democratic, parliamentary vote by elected public representatives to repeal the right to hunt and kill foxes utilising hounds

with

b) throwing out the entire constitution of Ireland and ignoring international law in order to ethnically cleanse the traveling community.

Do me a favour Corinthian. Jump back up and read a) and b) again. Then feel both ashamed and stupid in which every order suits you.

The Corinthian wrote:

As for international charters, there is nothing stopping us from choosing to democratically leave any or all of these. We could choose to leave the UN if we wanted to. Of course, this might result in sanctions or worse, but that’s outside the scope of our democracy - you can hardly claim that international intervention is part of our democratic process.

Corinthian, you are acting like a person who is panicking because they forgot something they shouldn't have, namely the constitution and the international community. Your latest posting is an only slightly more articulate (I will come to your English skills very soon) version of "oh...em.....but what if we um.....also changed the constitution and em....ignored international law and em....".

Hitherto, every valid reason I utilise to further demolish your laughable, dismal analogy, has been met with a further 'what if' appendage to said analogy. Unfortunately, constitutions and International charts are part of the real world Corinthian. How much disbelief has to be suspended before your analogy starts to hold enough water to seem remotely passable?

The Corinthian wrote:

The danger of democracy is that it can become tyranny by the majority - and by the limited definition you gave, it certainly could. For you it was perfectly acceptable to impose a majority decision upon a minority that would affect their rights. You’ve not put any boundaries upon how for our self determination may go to do this to any minority, outside of your late addition of international peer pressure.

Late addition? Corinthian, some things are so obvious as to require no utterance. They are not late additions, they were already there, perpetually so. And it is an indictment of you Sir, not me, that the concepts had to be spelled out.

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you going to just whine at me or make a point related to the topic?

I point out a fallacious assertion in one of your previous posting, and this is your reply? I could be insulting here Corinthian, but by not answering the question you have conducted the job for me.

The Corinthian wrote:

Jumping to conclusions and paranoia seems to be a thing of yours.

Again, I pointed out another fallacious assertion in your previous posting, and you deliver another strange, totally nonsensical, banal non-denial. Is this the pattern we are going to follow from here on? I illustrate the lies/mistakes of your postings, and you reply with one-line, asinine bleating’s?

The Corinthian wrote:

Neither did I.

Really, saying ‘apologies’ isn’t an apology? Corinthian, aren’t you starting to feel chagrined, or at least bored with me continuously picking apart all of your posts like this. Honestly, I’m not being flippant, but it isn’t even challenging. I’m definitely bored. I’m stubborn enough to keep replying, but I’ve encountered more stimulating, demanding debate with my nephew, and he has only just learned to talk.

The Corinthian wrote:

I never said you or your mates existed in a vacuum, but neither would I use hearsay as a reliable point of reference.

What exactly is it that you think that hearsay means? Hearsay, in any context, is not synonymous with Slang. But, as mentioned earlier, I will come to your English skills presently.

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s why we tend to speak a standardized language rather than a collection of dialects when attempting to debate a topic as peers.

Thanks, and could you send me over the rule book as soon as you print the first edition? And I wasn’t talking about a regional dialect. I was talking about the word ‘Toff’, which I would argue is perceived by many people to mean a certain type of person from either ‘middle’ or ‘upper’ class, as opposed to just ‘upper’. I never used the word ‘deadly’, other than is analogy, and as anybody reading this thread will no doubt conclude, you haven’t a leg to stand on in relation to criticising analogies (Monocle/N*gger, Hunting ban/Ethnic Cleansing).

The Corinthian wrote:

What on earth are you blubbering about? Your posts are degenerating to no more than insulting rants.

I’m sorry Corinthian, but feigning ignorance doesn’t negate my point. But, in case you truly are as ignorant as you are portraying, I will dumb it down for: Your belligerent belief (seemingly ubiquitous in early parts of this thread) that your debating opponents were all young and ignorant, actually make you look old and ignorant. The irony being that old and ignorant is far worse than young and ignorant. But this irony is definitely lost on you, because you must first comprehend the word before you can discern it’s potency.

The Corinthian wrote:

No, you indignantly got onto a high horse, rejected the notion and began to insult me. That’s pretty much it.

And the question as to whether a sterotypical application of a Monocle is as offensive as the word 'N*gger' is dodged again. How depressingly predictable. You aren’t very good at this, are you?

The Corinthian wrote:

Tell me then, were the minstrels on the old Lyons Tea boxes offensive? They weren’t once, and oddly now they are. Explain how they are different to you Monopoly box, outside of one presently being acceptable and one formerly so.

Well, I’m really under no obligation to be pushed on any such question considering you continually dodge the initial catalytic question. Tell me, do you actually possess the intellectual prowess to defend your position without resorting to answering questions with questions?

But, nevertheless, as I have done throughout, I will answer your question. For starters, the minstrels on the Lyons Tea boxes were racist, as is the word “n*gger”. There is no such thing as the ‘Toff’ race. But Corinthian, where your argument quite ostensibly falls down is in your pseudo-idealistic notion that all forms of offense that may or may not be taken by an individual are equal. In the real world, they aren’t. A stereotype of a Toff wearing a Monocle is less severe by orders of magnitude than the use of the word “n*gger” by a racist. The word “N*gger” has a historical gravitas that actually makes your comparison between the two more offensive than my original ‘Monocle’ reference ever did. That you fail to see this speaks volumes, it really does. And I love the way you avoided my question as to whether you would argue the merits of your analogy with a Black person. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? Corinthian, I notice all the parts of my postings that you dodge. And, as I illustrated earlier, they are many.

The Corinthian wrote:

Read and understand. Don’t dismiss because the words are too big for you.

It finally happens. I have been saving up a tirade of abuse against your English skills for one reason, and one reason only: because I didn’t want to descend into needlessly ostentatious, pedantic criticism. But all through this debate I have been harboring a grudge for having to decipher what has been, at times, your extremely poor writing. I said to myself ‘I wont bring it up, but if he stoops to criticising as much as a missing full-stop of mine, he is getting it full on’.

Corinthian. Re-read your postings. Your grammar, spelling, and punctuation (or rather, lack thereof) are absolutely atrocious. In pretty much all of your postings I have encountered several sentences which have required multiple readings to decrypt their intended meanings. It’s possible that a lot of this can be put down to poor typing, but lots of the mistakes cannot be justified in this way. I don’t want to be an Asshole about this, because I don’t derive any smug pleasure from nit-picking people’s postings. But you need to take more care in your writing, and it would be remiss of me to let you insult my English skills without saying so. And please, for the sake of your ego and my time, don’t argue with me on this, because I am diligent enough to go back through your postings to compile a very large list of examples.

The Corinthian wrote:

No, that is incorrect. Another attempt at abuse, rather than argument.

Jesus Corinthian, how could you not be embarrassed?

The Corinthian wrote:

No, I don’t feel sorry for self deluded hypocrites it what I meant, seeing as you need it spelt out for you.

Corinthian, I don’t need anything spelt out for me. But you can’t just pretend that I asked you a question that I never asked. You wouldn’t see writing of that standard in the Sun!

The Corinthian wrote:

Wooosh! There goes another point over your head...

Makes absolutely no sense in relation to the quote you were answering. It appears to me you simply wanted to end your posting with a sentence containing “Woosh”. Pathetic.

The Corinthian · 17-09-2004 6:08pm

dublinario wrote:

I think you will find amending an article of the constitution would not allow for the ethnic cleansing of the traveling community, you half wit. Ethnically cleansing an entire people would probably violate so many articles of the constitution, as to make it defunct i.e. we would have to throw it out. It amazes me that you fail to see that the more you pursue this most inappropriate, badly thought out analogy, the more moronic you appear.

Does name calling make you feel like a bigger man?

Amending a constitution to allow for ethnic cleansing or any other form of abuse of minorities can probably be done by simply redefining who has rights in the first place. Even if it took multiple amendments, they can be bundled into the one referendum. Both of the above cases, incidentally, have taken place in the last decade in Ireland.

Do me a favour Corinthian. Jump back up and read a) and b) again. Then feel both ashamed and stupid in which every order suits you.

Not at all. Of course one is abhorrent and the other is not, which is the point of the analogy - because both may be argued to be democratically just by the same criteria of majority support.

Corinthian, you are acting like a person who is panicking because they forgot something they shouldn't have, namely the constitution and the international community. Your latest posting is an only slightly more articulate (I will come to your English skills very soon) version of "oh...em.....but what if we um.....also changed the constitution and em....ignored international law and em....".

Thank you Freud. Now try countering with an argument rather than a rant.

Hitherto, every valid reason I utilise to further demolish your laughable, dismal analogy, has been met with a further 'what if' appendage to said analogy.

You came out with a sweeping statement and I countered by pointing out its flaws - the ‘what if’ situations. Or did you think we were just going to accept everything you said?

Unfortunately, constitutions and International charts are part of the real world Corinthian. How much disbelief has to be suspended before your analogy starts to hold enough water to seem remotely passable?

Military dictatorships, and unilateral regime changes are part of the real world too – but I challenged you on your definition of democracy and how it deals with minority rights, to which you responded that it was a majority decision alone. Constitutions may be change arbitrarily by referendum, if there is support and International charters are simply agreements that are not enforced by democratic will, but by the economic and military might of other States - A treaty is not a democratic tool, it is a political and diplomatic one.

Late addition? Corinthian, some things are so obvious as to require no utterance. They are not late additions, they were already there, perpetually so. And it is an indictment of you Sir, not me, that the concepts had to be spelled out.

Rubbish. Either is debatable, as I’ve already pointed out, so you are alone in thinking them so obvious.

I could be insulting here Corinthian

Why stop now, you’ve not held back recently on the name calling. I responded to nothing more than a rand devoid of argument, designed only to offend. Let’s recap on it shall we?

“Wow, the 'rolls eyes' graphic, bringing out the big guns? Corinthian, this particular quote of yours refers to my assertion that you are disgustingly arrogant. No matter what you say about me, I have done nothing as arrogant as to continually suggest that my co-debaters are young ignoramuses. The irony (observe the use!) is that by doing so, you show yourself to be an old ignoramus, which is far worse. At least a young ignoramus has youth as an excuse.”

So you begin with a comment on the 'rolls eyes' graphic. Then apparently you’ve never said anything about young ignoramuses, but while we’re on the subject, I’m an old one. But at least youth is an excuse, to cap it all.

So other than being another vehicle to insult me, what was your point? You apparently seem far more concerned with my age than visa versa. Did it make you feel better to get it off you chest?

Again, I pointed out another fallacious assertion in your previous posting, and you deliver another strange, totally nonsensical, banal non-denial. Is this the pattern we are going to follow from here on? I illustrate the lies/mistakes of your postings, and you reply with one-line, asinine bleating’s?

Roffle. And this last paragraph was what exactly?

Really, saying ‘apologies’ isn’t an apology?

Not when it’s sarcasm, Sherlock. Perhaps you should have quoted the ‘apology’ in its entirety, rather than only the bits you wanted to read.

Corinthian, aren’t you starting to feel chagrined, or at least bored with me continuously picking apart all of your posts like this. Honestly, I’m not being flippant, but it isn’t even challenging. I’m definitely bored. I’m stubborn enough to keep replying, but I’ve encountered more stimulating, demanding debate with my nephew, and he has only just learned to talk.

More personal comments.

What exactly is it that you think that hearsay means? Hearsay, in any context, is not synonymous with Slang.

And where does slang get its definitions then?

I never used the word ‘deadly’, other than is analogy

Oh, the definition of some slang can be accepted in debate, while other slang cannot. How did you decide that you definition of ‘toff’ fell into the former category then?

I’m sorry Corinthian, but feigning ignorance doesn’t negate my point. But, in case you truly are as ignorant as you are portraying, I will dumb it down for: Your belligerent belief (seemingly ubiquitous in early parts of this thread) that your debating opponents were all young and ignorant, actually make you look old and ignorant. The irony being that old and ignorant is far worse than young and ignorant. But this irony is definitely lost on you, because you must first comprehend the word before you can discern it’s potency.

Is this what this is all about? Is your nose that out of joint?

And the question as to whether a sterotypical application of a Monocle is as offensive as the word 'N*gger' is dodged again. How depressingly predictable. You aren’t very good at this, are you?

I’d imagine to some it could well be.

Tell me, do you actually possess the intellectual prowess to defend your position without resorting to answering questions with questions?

More abuse. Can you do otherwise?

There is no such thing as the ‘Toff’ race.

So you can only be offensive if it’s a separate race?

But Corinthian, where your argument quite ostensibly falls down is in your pseudo-idealistic notion that all forms of offense that may or may not be taken by an individual are equal. In the real world, they aren’t. A stereotype of a Toff wearing a Monocle is less severe by orders of magnitude than the use of the word “n*gger” by a racist.

Who are you to judge? One or two centuries ago it was no more offensive to use nig*er than we would perceive toff today. Negro, which was acceptable fifty years ago, is now offensive. As, apparently, is tinker. However, both are equal in so far as they are used to ridicule a group in society based upon stereotypes. That fact is not going to change, and neither is the fact that you don’t have a problem ridiculing some minorities and not others.

Corinthian. Re-read your postings. Your grammar, spelling, and punctuation (or rather, lack thereof) are absolutely atrocious.

Christ, how petty can you get? I’d hate to see what you’d make of Joyce.

Jesus Corinthian, how could you not be embarrassed?

Why should I be embarrassed? You’re the one who’s been ranting and hurling insults and abuse.

Makes absolutely no sense in relation to the quote you were answering. It appears to me you simply wanted to end your posting with a sentence containing “Woosh”. Pathetic.

What did you want me to do? Explain the point again with finger puppets or diagrams?

Hunt Ban Protest Kicks Off

Comments