Hare Coursing

Zombienosh

Honestly, I'm in shock at the poll.

Hunter21

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

I'm sure the Conspiracy Theories forum on boards.ie could facilitate you and your assumptions.

fourleafclover

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

how was s sabotaged? i have been on/off this thread since it began and the biggest difference between the vote was 10 votes either way.

it looks like sour grapes alright if this poll is not suiting the agenda you side with.

archer22

Blay wrote: »

How do ya know that? Was there a poll done...maybe that was 'manipulated' too:pac:

Keep sending out the alerts you might manage 99.99% yet .

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

That's the accusation. Re-read the law; being cruel to animals is illegal under the act.

Jesus Christ you're easily set off aint ya ? You're a cmod, if I have accused anyone here of criminal activity report the post. Its not something thats taken lightly, several posters have admitted to being hunters and I stand by my statement that killing for sport is unnecessary and cruel. So report me or withdraw your ridiculous assertion.

No, you were just saying they had rights without thinking about what that statement meant.

I didnt say they had rights at all, you made the absurd statement that there are trade offs in society similar to that with the trade off with animals. I showed you that wasnt true, you then changed and argued that was because humans have rights and animals dont. Then tried to turn it around to me arguing for animals to have rights rather than being protected from cruelty under law.

It might; or it might not.
However, that's all in the future. The law today is what we live by today.

Just because we live by it dont mean its right. Was the act of dogs killing the Hare for sport ever right ? Or was it right up until the law told people it was wrong ? It was cruel before it was outlawed and its still cruel. Law didnt change anything other than how its dealt with.

Indeed; and we have a means for doing just that. You pick up the phone, dial Gardai and report it.

You don't start a petition accusing someone of breaking the law without proof.

Well if its illegal to do that why not pick up the phone ? Unless its not illegal in which case, how is it wrong according to you ?

semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word.

Yeah, because arguing over that would be utterly pointless since we're all telepathic...

You knew what I meant by it so whats the issue ?

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

Honestly, I'm in shock at the poll.

So do you agree with speciesism?

Zombienosh

fathersymes wrote: »

So do you agree with speciesism?

?
What are you implying?

ManMade

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

The majority of urban dwellers or rural people?

I'm not pro or anti. I just don't judge other people's way of life or traditions on principle. So a ban IMO is an interference in a way of life I've never lived, and don't understand.

yubabill1

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

What about the anti-fieldsports trolls getting it out on Twitter?

There are 300,000 people out there who have drawn a line in the sand.

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

?
What are you implying?

Well first you're a vegan, second you started this poll.

Oh yes also, Are you or have you ever been a member of an Animal Rights Organisation?

archer22

fourleafclover wrote: »

how was s sabotaged? i have been on/off this thread since it began and the biggest difference between the vote was 10 votes either way.

it looks like sour grapes alright if this poll is not suiting the agenda you side with.

We all know how you do it...the sudden surge in votes are the give away.Anyhow its only a joke now but keep going it gives an insight into the dishonesty involved.

Zombienosh

fathersymes wrote: »

Well first you're a vegan, second you started this poll.

Oh yes also, Are you or have you ever been a member of an Animal Rights Organisation?

What has any of that got to do with refusing to enjoy violence towards animals?

fourleafclover

yubabill1 wrote: »

What about the anti-fieldsports trolls getting it out on Twitter?

There are 300,000 people out there who have drawn a line in the sand.

is this true? so the antis have been tweeting looking for votes on this and are still losing!! the crowd in clonmel for the national meeting was right - 30,000 inside coursing and 25 people outside protesting. the numbers stack up alright.

yubabill1

archer22 wrote: »

Look if you like a bit of blood in your sport there are plenty of options Boxing,Cage Fighting,Kick Boxing etc..beating up a little animal for so called sport is a Cowards activity and I would have nothing but contempt for those who engage in it.

For any latecomers

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

What has any of that got to do with refusing to enjoy violence towards animals?

You haven't answered my question, so I'll take it on good guidance that you do believe in Speciesism.

For those that don't know, "The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism".

So was it John Fitzgerald, Bernie Wright, John Tierney or Roger Yates who put you up to it?

Gotta run now before my steak gets too well cooked, nice bloody and rare is how I like it. I will be back once I've eaten it.

yubabill1

fourleafclover wrote: »

is this true? so the antis have been tweeting looking for votes on this and are still losing!! the crowd in clonmel for the national meeting was right - 30,000 inside coursing and 25 people outside protesting. the numbers stack up alright.

Be fair, fourleafclover, RTE reported there were at least 70.

Zombienosh

The term is used to embrace two ideas: "human speciesism," which is the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the protections afforded to humans, and the more general idea of assigning value to a being on the basis of their species, so that human beings favouring rights for chimpanzees over rights for dogs because of human-chimpanzee similarities, would be an example of "human-chimpanzee speciesism

I can read wikipedia too. And I still don't get your point? I haven't raised any specific species above any other?

fathersymes

fourleafclover wrote: »

is this true? so the antis have been tweeting looking for votes on this and are still losing!! the crowd in clonmel for the national meeting was right - 30,000 inside coursing and 25 people outside protesting. the numbers stack up alright.

Apparently so, John Fitzgerald has been really busy send out tweets in the last 24 hours, he's managed about 100 votes, he needs a thousand.

I'm guessing its too much like work for his target audience, a drumming workshop really tires them out.

fourleafclover

yubabill1 wrote: »

Be fair, fourleafclover, RTE reported there were at least 70.

RTE would not be the brightest with their maths though, hence their budget problems. I saw myself who was there and i counted 25.

StinkyMunkey

Blay wrote: »

The poster was talkign about the town/country divide. Foxes being shot is the most common complaint you hear on threads like these. Farmers don't shoot foxes themselves., generally they have hunters do it for them.

Alot of the guns licenced (shot guns) in Ireland are owned by farmers for this very purpose, to kill what they see as threats to their live stock. Im totally fine with that tbh.

Artful_Badger

Good contingent over from the hunting forum to troll the thread I see. :rolleyes:

Sparks

archer22 wrote: »

I would say the poll might as well be knocked off as its obviously being deliberately manipulated.Or else the People of Ireland have gone mad pro coursing in the last few hours :rolleyes:

Or put another way, it's a poll where both sides had a vote.

Witcher

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Alot of the guns licenced (shot guns) in Ireland are owned by farmers for this very purpose, to kill what they see as threats to their live stock. Im totally fine with that tbh.

To be out foxing efficiently to protect lambs you need a rifle..so they bring in hunters with the right equipment.

Zombienosh

What has shooting foxes got to do with Coursing?

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

I can read wikipedia too. And I still don't get your point? I haven't raised any specific species above any other?

Ah so you're taking the 5th on my questions, why I thought you'd be proud to tell us about your beliefs or are you concerned we make think it's a bit nutty for vegans to sympathise with Peta's video about the poor fish?

http://features.peta.org/joaquin-phoenix-is-drowning/

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

What has shooting foxes got to do with Coursing?

Well you'd like to ban both? Or am I mistaken?

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

Or put another way, it's a poll where both sides had a vote.

In fairness the rallying cry in the hunting forum directing people over here to vote would tend to skew it. You have the usual AH people which would fall either side depending on their views, then a group with a certain view active in finding votes for their side.

Witcher

Zombienosh wrote: »

What has shooting foxes got to do with Coursing?

Read back a few pages and do try to keep up in future:)

Cocolola

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Good contingent over from the hunting forum to troll the thread I see. :rolleyes:

Ah now in fairness they're not. This is in AH, not Shooting or A&PI, views from both sides are to be welcomed.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

In fairness the rallying cry in the hunting forum directing people over here to vote would tend to skew it. You have the usual AH people which would fall either side depending on their views, then a group with a certain view active in finding votes for their side.

Start a thread in Animal and Pet Issues then and rally your supporters. Thread won't last long though...they really don't like hunting topics.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Good contingent over from the hunting forum to troll the thread I see. :rolleyes:

Is disagreement trolling?

This notion that hunters having their say on a topic like this is in some way nefarious is a notion with some really disturbing undertones and implications.

yubabill1

fathersymes wrote: »

Ah so you're taking the 5th on my questions, why I thought you'd be proud to tell us about your beliefs or are you concerned we make think it's a bit nutty for vegans to sympathise with Peta's video about the poor fish?

http://features.peta.org/joaquin-phoenix-is-drowning/[/QUOTE]

Or what about PETA's dog rescue centre, where most of the dogs are put to sleep, rather than being rehomed?

That's People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

In fairness the rallying cry in the hunting forum directing people over here to vote would tend to skew it. You have the usual AH people which would fall either side depending on their views, then a group with a certain view active in finding votes for their side.

Really?
What would you say all the lobbying by ICABS on twitter and facebook is doing to petitions and polls like this?

To chose a phrase with tongue in cheek, what's sauce for the goose should do for the gander :P

Grizzly 45

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

What exactly are you basing that assumption on??The majority of who??
There has only ever been one recognised survey carried out on this in Ireland in the 1970s by ICABS.....Maybe now with their recent money windfall they might want to try conducting another survey...So we can accuse them of buying votes???:p:p:p
Honestly ,can you expect an accurate scientific poll anymore on the internet and chat media forums???
However the fact does stand,whenever historclly a poll goes against the anti side here or a TV or radio show has more a pro fieldsport agenda.The cries of foul and rigged is by the anti camp.despite them refusing to participate after being invited to do so.

Zombienosh

You're all just derailing this with some anti-animal rights agenda.
Bringing up PETA videos about fish does nothing for you're argument to defend hare coursing and only makes you silly and immature trying to poke fun and belittle someones beliefs to be honest.

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

Both are condemned by ICABS et al in the same breath, by the same means, and as part of the same agenda.

It's not a slippery slope argument if it's a stated agenda of someone to ban everything in a set order.

I dont see the connection myself. One is for fun/betting, the other is a farmer protecting his livelihood.

A farmer paying a hunter to kill a fox is a win win for both parties, the farmer gets rid of the threat to the livestock, and the hunter gets his rocks off killing an animal. Seems like an ok arrange to me. Farmer needs a service, hunter provides a service.

Killing animals for fun doesnt appeal to me, or mistreating them such as hare coursing does. But each to thier own, dont agree with it, but im not going to go out and be a militant animals rights head either.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

Is disagreement trolling?

This notion that hunters having their say on a topic like this is in some way nefarious is a notion with some really disturbing undertones and implications.

I have no problem with anyone having their say but when posts from this thread were posted in the hunting forum to scoff at the point made followed by several hunting forum posters turning up here and going on and on about it it looks to me like trolling.

fathersymes

yubabill1 wrote: »

fathersymes wrote: »

Ah so you're taking the 5th on my questions, why I thought you'd be proud to tell us about your beliefs or are you concerned we make think it's a bit nutty for vegans to sympathise with Peta's video about the poor fish?

http://features.peta.org/joaquin-phoenix-is-drowning/[/QUOTE]

Or what about PETA's dog rescue centre, where most of the dogs are put to sleep, rather than being rehomed?

That's People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Ah yes thanks for reminding me, It amuses me that PETA uses the word euthanise when they kill animals instead of their usual murder.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/10/13/peta-still-has-it-all-wrong/

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

Really?
What would you say all the lobbying by ICABS on twitter and facebook is doing to petitions and polls like this?

To chose a phrase with tongue in cheek, what's sauce for the goose should do for the gander :P

Are they directing people to vote in this poll as those in the hunting forum are doing ? No ? Then I'm sure an intelligent person like you would have to concede it might be a little bit skewed by the organised effort to skew it.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Be fair, fourleafclover, RTE reported there were at least 70.

AH COME ON!! There was EIGHTY!!! there honestly!!!:D:D:DJohn "streaker " Carmody said so ,so it must be true...They had just slipped off for some museli and herbal tea when the pic and body count was taken.:p:p:p

Cass

archer22 wrote: »

Anyhow its only a joke now but keep going it gives an insight into the dishonesty involved.

If it were going for "yes" would it still be a joke or a "true reflection of Irish people's views".

The double standards when things don't go as planned is staggering.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

If it were going for "yes" would it still be a joke or a "true reflection of Irish people's views".

The double standards when things don't go as planned is staggering.

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

Grizzly 45

Zombienosh wrote: »

You're all just derailing this with some anti-animal rights agenda.
Bringing up PETA videos about fish does nothing for you're argument to defend hare coursing and only makes you silly and immature trying to poke fun and belittle someones beliefs to be honest.

Maybe the inconvient fact that they are all interconnected might be somthing you cannot accept??Or that the fact that if you support animal rights you are supporting a terrorist organisation called Animal Liberation Front??Whose ligit [shin fein style] front is PETA???

Hunter21

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I have no problem with anyone having their say but when posts from this thread were posted in the hunting forum to scoff at the point made followed by several hunting forum posters turning up here and going on and on about it it looks to me like trolling.

Its a free country we from the hunting forum can post here in After Hours all we want, now unless your category moderator stop calling us trolls.
They are there to do a job, and they do it well they don't need you to act judge and jury for them.

Zombienosh

What's staggering is how a bunch of people come on to a thread about hare coursing and start arguing about shooting and hunting and poking fun by assuming anyone who opposes hare coursing is some peta, vegan, hippy tree hugger.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

On what grounds do you assume this?
Could it just be that you're incorrect about the number of supporters you believed your argument had?

Cass

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

I know no such thing.

Perhaps for the first time you are not having it all your own way, and it's a shock.

StinkyMunkey

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

In fairness, better their on here voting than out there shooting:p.

Artful_Badger

Hunter21 wrote: »

Its a free country we from the hunting forum can post here in After Hours all we want, now unless your category moderator stop calling us trolls.
They are there to do a job, and they do it well they don't need you to act judge and jury for them.

Can a cmod call people trolls ? Who's there to do a job ? What job are you talking about ?

Artful_Badger

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

In fairness, better their on here voting than out there shooting:p.

True enough. :pac: