Hunt Ban Protest Kicks Off

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

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

How about making an on topic point before you succeed in getting the thread locked? For starters, explain why this is a clash of "cultures" between rural and urban society (small s by the way) and not about class conflict as tories have claimed repeatedly over the years.

Examples:

"Does it occur to him [John Prescott] that we might find his stupid working-class face and attitudes as irritating as he finds ours? If the class war is to be encouraged, there are few sports we can ban in order to annoy the "workers"[...] If Mr. Prescott wants a class war, we would be foolish to let him win it by default." - Auberon Waugh, Daily Telegraph.

"This is not an issue of morality but of class hatred. [....] By supporting the anti-hunt activists and reneging on the earlier compromise for licensed hunting, Mr Blair is opening the Pandora’s box of class warfare." - Anatole Kaletsky, The Times.

The UK Labour party’s support is overwhelmingly urban based and so it’s not too bothered where it comes to introducing laws that will be unpopular with people who won’t vote for them regardless.

Labour has made plenty of decisions that have been unpopular with its support base eg, that war thing, so that's rubbish.

The whole thing should be a non issue, if poor sociopaths aren't allowed use puppies as footballs, then rich sociopaths shouldn't be allowed to kill foxes for fun. There are serious problems in rural areas over there alright, but the pro hunt types, who, as the profiles of the commons protesters showed, are principally a mob of overprivileged spoilt nabobs whose links with reality are tenuous at best, have made it quite clear that what they're most concerned about is losing the "right" to kill bloody foxes for fun. That's what makes it a class issue. The toffs simply can't deal with the fact that they're not running the country and automatically getting their own way for the first time in a very long time. God knows what would happen if a Labour government abolished fee paying schools or something.


*To whoever gave me the neg rep and the "Straight out of the pages of the SWP newspaper" note, read some papers you cretin.

dublinario

Definitely your most vacuous posting to date, but out of pure stubbornness I will pick it apart as per usual.

The Corinthian wrote:

Does name calling make you feel like a bigger man?

No. Did your earlier suggestions that myself and the rest of your debate opponents were teenage and ignorant make you feel like a bigger man? Because it is precisely from that posture that I set my tone. True, you have ceased with those particular jibes (ostensibly because you were picked up on it numerous times, not just by myself, but by another poster), but the audacity to adopt some kind of bastardised moral high ground just because you have mellowed over the last 2 or 3 posts? Sheer hypocrisy.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

“…simply redefining who has the rights in the first place”. Don’t be ridiculous. Of course it wouldn’t be remotely that simple. This is my entire point. How ridiculous does an analogy have to become before you accept that it is no longer analogous to a real life situation?

Let’s recap: you started by asking me what would stop a parliamentary vote, ala the Fox Hunting ban, enacting legislation to ethnically cleanse the Travelling community. I said the constitution. You said the constitution could be amended. I said that it would need to be thrown out. You said the definition of who has rights could be changed. But changed such that an Irish person of Irish lineage would no longer have rights? With its primary tenet abolished, that would not be the same constitution. And let’s not forget your complete dismissal of the role of International Law. You say International Law and Charters are not democratic. That’s debateable. For instance, in Europe we democratically elect MEP’s, and they legislate from Brussels. Come back down to Earth Corinthian.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

There is nothing to guarantee any such decision is morally just (whose morals), but they would both be decisions that were arrived at democratically. However, every decent implementation of a democratic system sports a constitution. Combined with international law, a core set of rights for the citizens of the democracy are protected, such that they cannot be unjustly disenfranchised. And that is why your analogy is invalid.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

I have already. Too many times to count. You just keep moving the goal posts.

The Corinthian wrote:

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?

Who is ‘we’? It is a long time since anybody else replied to any of my postings. The problem with your ‘what if’s Corinthian, is that they are potentially infinite. Taken to the nth degree, having exhausted all possibilities, I would not be overly surprised to see you eventually resort to something as loony as “…but what if, em….the people rose up in arms and just killed the travellers….”. If you have to keep supplementing your analogy with ‘what if’ appendages, it isn’t a good analogy. In fact, it probably (in my opinion, definitely) never was an analogy in the first place.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

I’ve answered all of this above.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

Pure b*llocks Corinthian. Are you really suggesting that you have somehow ‘debunked’ the concepts of constitution and international law? Because last time I checked, both are working to good effect, in many countries around the world. It is only your farcical ‘analogy’ (I use the term lightly) that requires them to be disregarded as if they never existed. Thank God we don’t exist in your hypothetical world.


....continued in next post

dublinario

...continued from last post

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

You poor thing. You must have been utterly traumatised by my relentless, ferocious attack on your ‘rolling eyes’ graphic, and your age, which I don’t even know.

Firstly, as a matter of preference I don’t like, and have never used any of those cutesy graphics. I don’t believe they should be necessary if the message itself is written well enough. Secondly, you introduced the age card, so the hypocrisy to now bemoan it’s use is unconscionable. And as I have already stated, just because you haven’t made an age related jibe in a few posts, doesn’t mean we have to conform and mirror your newfound sensibility. Should we also stop referring to your age until you reintroduce the age jibes?

If my references to your use of ‘rolling eyes’, and your age (which I don’t know), are what you deem insults, I have no idea how you survive in the real world.

The Corinthian wrote:

Roffle. And this last paragraph was what exactly?

Well, I’ll help refresh your memory, but I’d really prefer if you overcame your laziness and bothered to re-read the postings yourself instead. I caught you out twice in quick succession being fallacious, or erroneous, once in relation to the amount of times you had insulted my age, and the other time in relation to whether or not you had touted your support one way or the other for the hunting ban.

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

Perhaps I could have printed it in its entirety, but don’t be so disingenuous as to suggest that I chopped it off mid sentence. You said “apologies”, then had a hyphen, and then a sarcastic comment. Regardless of the sarcastic appendage, there was no reason to suspect that the original “apologies” was not genuine, considering you had been blatantly caught out accusing me of something that I had not done. You don’t think that warranted an acknowledgement? Says a lot.

The Corinthian wrote:

And where does slang get its definitions then?

Who cares? You tried to supplant the word ‘slang’ with ‘heresay’. They are not synonymous in any context. Your one-line irrelevant retorts are exceptionally dire. I think you believe that they will slip past me or something, that I will forget what they originally refer to. Although it would be justifiable to forget, considering they usually have no baring on the quote they are actually commenting on.

The Corinthian wrote:

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?

Silly. I was merely pointing out that I didn’t originally use the word ‘deadly’ in the debate. I used it only in analogy.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

Not at all. And my nose is no more out of joint than yours. We are both debating fervently.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’d imagine to some it could well be.

Pure, 100% grade ‘A’ boll*x and you know it. You may as well throw your entire case out the window if you are going to attempt to stand by the statement above.

The Corinthian wrote:

More abuse. Can you do otherwise?

Patently so. If I could do nothing but insult, we wouldn’t still be debating. And vice-versa too.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

Not at all, so please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. You asked for differences, and one difference is that the first is racism, and the second is not. I would have thought that obvious.

The Corinthian wrote:

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, you continually use this ‘…but 200 years ago…’ style argument in your completely baffling refusal to admit that a monocle is not as offensive as the word “n*gger”. I’ll tell you once and for all why that particular style of argument is nonsense. You see, we don’t actually live 200 years ago Corinthian. We live now. I will be happy to revisit this issue in 200 years to see if the word “n*gger” has ameliorated with age. But as for right here, right now, in a place and time called reality which your analogies don’t seem to inhabit, the word “n*gger” is arguably thee most infamously racist word in the English vernacular.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

This particular quote relates to my critique of your English. It is non-coincidental that you left out the part where I explained the catalyst for my critique, namely a disparaging remark you made about my vocabulary. And I love Joyce.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

I wasn’t speaking non-specifically, as well you know. Specifically, I was stating that you should be (and I believe are) embarrassed by your awful monocle/n*gger analogy.

The Corinthian wrote:

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

How come you always try to finish your postings with a sassy put down? The end of your postings never resemble the rest, and the sass always falls flat on it’s face and makes you look ridiculous.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

How about making an on topic point before you succeed in getting the thread locked? For starters, explain why this is a clash of "cultures" between rural and urban society (small s by the way) and not about class conflict as tories have claimed repeatedly over the years.

The problem with accepting opinion pieces in newspapers is that there is a tendency for them to hype up issues so as to sell newspapers. Given that, if enough people hype and agitate, I would accept it would well end up as a class issue.

Labour has made plenty of decisions that have been unpopular with its support base eg, that war thing, so that's rubbish.

Actually, opposition to war was not as great in the UK as it was in the other European coalition members, such as Italy and Spain and there was broad popular support to it at the time and shortly thereafter.

The whole thing should be a non issue, if poor sociopaths aren't allowed use puppies as footballs, then rich sociopaths shouldn't be allowed to kill foxes for fun.

Are you suggesting that there is a connection between this incident and the foxhunting issue? You yourself admitted earlier in this thread that sadistic behavior was equally common within the lower classes as with the upper, so why highlight this issue unless you believe it to be related or are promoting the idea of class war yourself?

There are serious problems in rural areas over there alright, but the pro hunt types, who, as the profiles of the commons protesters showed, are principally a mob of overprivileged spoilt nabobs whose links with reality are tenuous at best, have made it quite clear that what they're most concerned about is losing the "right" to kill bloody foxes for fun. That's what makes it a class issue.

Does that make the anti globalization issue a class based one too, seeing as many of it’s more violent proponents are principally a mob of over privileged spoilt nabobs?

The Corinthian

I’m going to cut out all the adolescent abuse (I don’t thing there’s any other vaguely polite term for it at this stage) from your last post and stick to the arguments. If in doing so I miss one, feel free to repeat the bit I’ve missed out, but only if it is indeed an argument other than a rant.

dublinario wrote:

Let’s recap: you started by asking me what would stop a parliamentary vote, ala the Fox Hunting ban, enacting legislation to ethnically cleanse the Travelling community.

No, I asked you whether you were “that a democracy should not consider or protect the rights of minorities?” Not one organ of that democracy, but the democracy as a whole.

I said that it would need to be thrown out.

And I pointed out that it would need not and gave reasons why.

You said the definition of who has rights could be changed. But changed such that an Irish person of Irish lineage would no longer have rights?

Sure you can, with popular support. They would no longer be Irish. Constitutions have been amended or superceded repeatedly throughout history to do this to specific groups; Germany and Uganda come to mind.

With its primary tenet abolished, that would not be the same constitution.

Why not? The citizens of the democracy would still be represented. There simply would be a redefinition in who fall into that category.

And let’s not forget your complete dismissal of the role of International Law. You say International Law and Charters are not democratic. That’s debateable. For instance, in Europe we democratically elect MEP’s, and they legislate from Brussels. Come back down to Earth Corinthian.

Are you suggesting that if we had a popular vote or referendum in Ireland to leave such charters or organizations we could not, for democratic reasons?

I also note that you now accept that the point is debatable. A few posts ago it was assumed, according to you, which is why you did not consider it important enough to specify.

There is nothing to guarantee any such decision is morally just (whose morals), but they would both be decisions that were arrived at democratically. However, every decent implementation of a democratic system sports a constitution. Combined with international law, a core set of rights for the citizens of the democracy are protected, such that they cannot be unjustly disenfranchised. And that is why your analogy is invalid.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, constitutions may be amended. They are as susceptible to popular votes as any other organ of democracy. The only difference being that they have additional safeguards to dissuade (but not stop) such excesses. As for international law, what exactly is that? A democratic institution (we are, after all talking about democracy)? Was the invasion of Iraq legal by that law, or is the point moot because of raw military power?

The problem with your ‘what if’s Corinthian, is that they are potentially infinite. Taken to the nth degree, having exhausted all possibilities, I would not be overly surprised to see you eventually resort to something as loony as “…but what if, em….the people rose up in arms and just killed the travellers….”.

Of course they are potentially infinite, but you’re already having difficulty with the first few possibilities.

Pure b*llocks Corinthian. Are you really suggesting that you have somehow ‘debunked’ the concepts of constitution and international law? Because last time I checked, both are working to good effect, in many countries around the world.

Just like Iraq, North Korea or Guantamino Bay.

Perhaps I could have printed it in its entirety, but don’t be so disingenuous as to suggest that I chopped it off mid sentence.

Which of course was not in any way disingenuous for you to do, I suppose.

Silly. I was merely pointing out that I didn’t originally use the word ‘deadly’ in the debate. I used it only in analogy.

You used it as an example, not an analogy.

Pure, 100% grade ‘A’ boll*x and you know it. You may as well throw your entire case out the window if you are going to attempt to stand by the statement above.

Given your obvious sympathy for people you would consider toffs I doubt you could ever conceive such a comment to be true, but I would certainly know individuals who find that stereotype at the very least tiresome, if not offensive, due to the hostility that it invokes in persons such as yourself.

Not at all, so please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. You asked for differences, and one difference is that the first is racism, and the second is not. I would have thought that obvious.

But you are claiming that one is offensive because it is racist while the other is not offensive, presumably because it is not racist. This is your argument; you’ve not proffered any other.

Corinthian, you continually use this ‘…but 200 years ago…’ style argument in your completely baffling refusal to admit that a monocle is not as offensive as the word “n*gger”. I’ll tell you once and for all why that particular style of argument is nonsense. You see, we don’t actually live 200 years ago Corinthian. We live now. I will be happy to revisit this issue in 200 years to see if the word “n*gger” has ameliorated with age. But as for right here, right now, in a place and time called reality which your analogies don’t seem to inhabit, the word “n*gger” is arguably thee most infamously racist word in the English vernacular.

Ahhh... so to call someone a n*gger is perfectly acceptable is society deems it so (as it did 200 years ago).

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

The problem with accepting opinion pieces in newspapers is that there is a tendency for them to hype up issues so as to sell newspapers. Given that, if enough people hype and agitate, I would accept it would well end up as a class issue.

Are you going to come up with something to back up your opinion that it's an urban vs rural issue or not.

According to Mori there's no support for foxhunting in either urban or rural areas.

Surveys conducted by MORI Social Research Institute over the past few years repeatedly show that support for a ban in both urban and rural areas clearly outweighs calls for hunting's retention. In 2000, for example, a study on attitudes towards fox hunting among countryside dwellers showed that in the countryside, there is a majority in favour of a ban of almost two to one (52% for, 28% against). Those in favour of a ban are more likely to hold this view strongly - in the middle of the countryside, two in five people (41%) strongly support a ban and less than one in five (15%) strongly oppose it.

Are you suggesting that there is a connection between this incident and the foxhunting issue? You yourself admitted earlier in this thread that sadistic behavior was equally common within the lower classes as with the upper, so why highlight this issue unless you believe it to be related or are promoting the idea of class war yourself?

The point is that no matter how entertaining foxhunting or puppy football may be to the participants, most people in the UK believe that the level of cruelty to the animals involved is unacceptable.

Does that make the anti globalization issue a class based one too, seeing as many of it’s more violent proponents are principally a mob of over privileged spoilt nabobs?

?

Carry on making no sense whatsoever.

bonkey

Firstly.....

the insulting stops here. I don't care who started it, who you're "retaliating" against, why you're saying it, or whether or not its deserved. The insulting stops, or the insulters get banned.

Now, regarding the topic itself....

I'm at a loss to understand how people are equating the current wishes of the majority with some sort of mandate for the government.

The government is under no obligation to follow the wishes of the majority, even if that involves breaking with election-platform promises. Their job is to legislate for the nation - taking all issues into consideration - as best as they see fit.

Election promises are almost worthless. The entirety of their worth comes at the next election when the public can look at what the government promised to do, and what it did in practice. The public can then decide whether or not broken promises constitute a sufficient reason to change their vote.

A majority of the population may be against blood-sports, but come next election, will they vote against Labour for no other reason then that Labour didn't do anything about it, despite saying they would? Realistically - there is little reason to believe they will. On the other hand, it is probable that there is a Labour following amongst those engaged in bloodsports which will vote against Labour if the decision is made.

As with the NRA in the US Presidential elections, we are seeing a classic situation where a well-organised, single-issue-focussed minority can wield far more pressure than their numbers would apparently suggest.

As for the issue itself....

Blood-sports are - in my opinion - barbaric. While there is some argument to be made for using animals as pest-control mechanisms, there is little argument to be made in teaching people to rejoice and revel in the suffering of animals. Yes, its a tradition, but simply being a tradition isn't enough. Regardless of whether pro-bloodsport posters here agree or not with the analgies already drawn, I'm fairly sure that individually there is at least one cultural tradition somewhere that you will denounce, whether it be animal-related or not.

Also, please bear in mind that while it might be all to easy to argue that we're "only" talking about animals and not humans, I'd ask you all to consider the plethora of laws in place for protecting the well-being of animals. (Also, if you have a pet, consider that any argument for inflicting needless suffering on "only" an animal would apply to someone harming your pet as well)

So what other arguments are there?

Financial? Financial gain is generally not considered a reason to keep a disasteful action legal. After all, I'm sure bestiality could be a highly profitable enterprise if legalised, but I don't see anyone clamouring to get the British Government to decriminalise or legalise that.

Pest Control? Well, if someone can show me the numbers to show that bloodsports in all of their currently legal forms play an effective role in pest-control, then I'd consider it, but I somehow doubt that the numbers are really that significant, nor that the bloodsports are the only way to manage said pest-control.

Social or Cultural importance? Just a euphemism for "tradition" really, from where I stand.

Ultimately, I see no logical reason for the continuation of bloodsports, but I honestly don't see this - or any successive - government doing anything about it for quite some time.

jc

Sparks

Y'know, I'm not a fan of hunting with hounds myself (bit squeamish about killing animals - to the point where I can't even eat spare ribs), but this has to be the best defence idea for hunting yet.

It seems that last June, during Prime Minister's question time, Tony Blair was asked about making a law to ban the ritual slaughter of animals.

Blair replied, that while he agreed that such slaughtering were cruel, there was nothing that could be done because these were religious matters, and therefore could not be touched. This made some attentive people in Devon wonder about what constituted a Religion. Apparently the definition of religion is an organisation with a minimum of five thousand followers, which has leaders who are distinguishable by their special form of dress, which holds regular meetings, that have their own vocabulary and incantations, etc.

End result?

The Free Church of Country Sports