Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?

chigley · 12-05-10, 03:09 PM

I, too, agree with Harvez (never thought I'd say that!

)

Your argument is ludicrously flawed and is, frankly, ridiculous.

FurbtasticM · 12-05-10, 03:49 PM

It is inarguable that the original poster MAY be suffering from mental health issues.

(Well, that's what his imaginary friend told me)

Edit - The original question, "Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?", doesn't need debating, there must be thousands of meat eaters who agree with the ban.

Mac-d · 12-05-10, 04:14 PM

@ williamblah

It is impossible to debate with you as you cannot accept the illogicality of your analogies.
Your arguments seem to consist not of your own opinion but rather one of countering anyone else's.
I'm not going to defend my well considered, logical words against illogical blanket analogies and half baked counter arguments. (slavery and eating meat have nothing to do with each other.) If this is your level, then you are not worth debating with... im sorry....... you could go around in circles all day long using those sorts of analogies and prove nothing.

I'm sure if your as smart as your trying to make out, then you can find your own counter arguments for your own replies very easily, so I wont waste my time there.

Please input some of your thoughts if not views on the matter. Until then it is not a proper debate, is it now?

Don't take this post as a refusal to have a intelligent discussion (i enjoy them greatly), but more as a refusal to debate on such a low level.
The answer to the OP question is simple... YES
because they are completely different things.

floz2009 · 12-05-10, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmh16

survival of the fittest

it's not really though is it? i'd like to see you take a bear on one on one without a weapon. Anyway that wasn't my point, you said they were pests. They aren't anymore than we are. So why shouldn't we be hunted?

az87aris · 12-05-10, 04:18 PM

You refer to eating meat as being a preference and it's not, as mac-d said we are omnivores by nature, our bodies are designed to digest and break down nutrition gained from meat.

I've always been under the impression that not eating meat/being a vegetarian was a preference as it goes against nature.

floz2009 · 12-05-10, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by williamblah

Please explain to me how people being hunted follows my logic. You seem to think that I am arguing for or against fox hunting. I have not said ANYTHING about whether I agree with or disagree with the fox hunting ban. I think you are arguing the wrong argument here!

Enjoying this, cheers guys! Keep it coming!

nah that wasnt about your comment, it was about the guy who seems to think it's ok cause foxes are pests.

Thats my point, you cant base an argument on MAY's, thats too much a generalisation. You also cant say for arguments sake that it might not be true. For example your points were:

It is inarguable that slaughtering animals for meat MAY cause them suffering.

It is inarguable that fox hunting MAY cause foxes suffering.

It is inarguable that the reason fox hunters fox hunt is for the enjoyment and fun.

It is inarguable that people these days do not NEED to eat meat, especially in rich countries like ours'.

It is inarguable that the reason people eat meat is because they get enjoyment and fun out of the variety of the food that they eat.

lets take a look at those MAY's,

It is inarguable that slaughtering animals for meat MAY cause them suffering.

It is inarguable that fox hunting MAY cause foxes suffering.

your argument is wrong if:

It is inarguable that slaughtering animals for meat does not cause them suffering because the processes have been designed to be humane

It is inarguable that fox hunting causes foxes suffering because they are yelping when their skin is being ripped apart by the dogs.

Therefore, it is not the same thing...

bmh16 · 12-05-10, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by floz2009

it's not really though is it? i'd like to see you take a bear on one on one without a weapon. Anyway that wasn't my point, you said they were pests. They aren't anymore than we are. So why shouldn't we be hunted?

gave my point. We are the superior species on earth so are lucky enough not to be hunted.

Larkino · 12-05-10, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmh16

gave my point. We are the superior species on earth so are lucky enough not to be hunted.

you obviously haven't read hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

williamblah · 12-05-10, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chigley

I, too, agree with Harvez (never thought I'd say that!

)

Your argument is ludicrously flawed and is, frankly, ridiculous.

Please explain in which ways my arguments are flawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

It is inarguable that the original poster MAY be suffering from mental health issues.

(Well, that's what his imaginary friend told me)

Edit - The original question, "Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?", doesn't need debating, there must be thousands of meat eaters who agree with the ban.

Actually, my imaginary friend doesn't think I have mental issues. I think he might though...

I should expand on that original question, to encompass what I actually mean by it: Are you contradicting the moral values you have if you eat meat (out of preference, not neccessity to live) if you support the ban on fox hunting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac-d

@ williamblah

It is impossible to debate with you as you cannot accept the illogicality of your analogies.
Your arguments seem to consist not of your own opinion but rather one of countering anyone else's.

[b]My opinion is that you are contradicting your moral values as a meat-eating fox-hunt-ban supporter.

I'm not going to defend my well considered, logical words against illogical blanket analogies and half baked counter arguments. (slavery and eating meat have nothing to do with each other.) If this is your level, then you are not worth debating with... im sorry....... you could go around in circles all day long using those sorts of analogies and prove nothing.

You suggested a rule. I simply showed that there was at least one exception to the rule, and as such you will be unable to use it to prove your point.

I'm sure if your as smart as your trying to make out, then you can find your own counter arguments for your own replies very easily, so I wont waste my time there.

Please input some of your thoughts if not views on the matter. Until then it is not a proper debate, is it now?

Don't take this post as a refusal to have a intelligent discussion (i enjoy them greatly), but more as a refusal to debate on such a low level.
The answer to the OP question is simple... YES
because they are completely different things.

[b]Please see above for a more encompassing question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by az87aris

You refer to eating meat as being a preference and it's not, as mac-d said we are omnivores by nature, our bodies are designed to digest and break down nutrition gained from meat.

I've always been under the impression that not eating meat/being a vegetarian was a preference as it goes against nature.

Meat is a preference, in that we choose to add meat to the basic diet we need to survive. We do not need meat to survive. This is what I mean about saying it is a preference to eat meat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by floz2009

nah that wasnt about your comment, it was about the guy who seems to think it's ok cause foxes are pests.

Thats my point, you cant base an argument on MAY's, thats too much a generalisation. You also cant say for arguments sake that it might not be true. For example your points were:

It is inarguable that slaughtering animals for meat MAY cause them suffering.

It is inarguable that fox hunting MAY cause foxes suffering.

It is inarguable that the reason fox hunters fox hunt is for the enjoyment and fun.

It is inarguable that people these days do not NEED to eat meat, especially in rich countries like ours'.

It is inarguable that the reason people eat meat is because they get enjoyment and fun out of the variety of the food that they eat.

lets take a look at those MAY's,

It is inarguable that slaughtering animals for meat MAY cause them suffering.

It is inarguable that fox hunting MAY cause foxes suffering.

your argument is wrong if:

It is inarguable that slaughtering animals for meat does not cause them suffering because the processes have been designed to be humane

It is inarguable that fox hunting causes foxes suffering because they are yelping when their skin is being ripped apart by the dogs.

Therefore, it is not the same thing...

What I mean is, we do not know whether or not slaughtering animals for food and killing foxes does cause them suffering, and if it DOES cause suffering, we do not know to what extent they suffer. If you are against doing an activity that can potentially cause suffering to others, then you should consider this in any decision to pursue that activity.

floz2009 · 12-05-10, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by williamblah

Please explain in which ways my arguments are flawed.

Actually, my imaginary friend doesn't think I have mental issues. I think he might though...

I should expand on that original question, to encompass what I actually mean by it: Are you contradicting the moral values you have if you eat meat (out of preference, not neccessity to live) if you support the ban on fox hunting?

What I mean is, we do not know whether or not slaughtering animals for food and killing foxes does cause them suffering, and if it DOES cause suffering, we do not know to what extent they suffer. If you are against doing an activity that can potentially cause suffering to others, then you should consider this in any decision to pursue that activity.

Exactly, so you cant say it's wrong to eat meat and disagree with fox hunting because you dont know if either a) the fox suffers or b) the slaughtered animal suffers. Though you have to admit it's very likely that the fox does suffer.

floz2009 · 12-05-10, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmh16

gave my point. We are the superior species on earth so are lucky enough not to be hunted.

you implied it was fine to hunt the foxes because they were pests. You keep missing my point which is that humans are no better, we are probably the biggest threat to the world. So it doesnt make it ok to hunt foxes just because they kill some chickens, they are just doing what comes naturally, it doesnt give us the right to torture them.

az87aris · 12-05-10, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by williamblah

What I mean is, we do not know whether or not slaughtering animals for food and killing foxes does cause them suffering, and if it DOES cause suffering, we do not know to what extent they suffer.

Let a dogs chase you down and rip your skin to shreds and see how much you suffer.

Animals killed at slaughterhouses are killed humanely after being stunned, rendering them unconscious.

This thread/debate/arguement is totally ridiculous.

mcgrou · 12-05-10, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmh16

survival of the fittest

That's what the foxes are saying when they neck the chickens

Amiethest · 12-05-10, 06:59 PM

"Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?"

Nope!

Mac-d · 12-05-10, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac-d

@ williamblah

It is impossible to debate with you as you cannot accept the illogicality of your analogies.
Your arguments seem to consist not of your own opinion but rather one of countering anyone else's.
I'm not going to defend my well considered, logical words against illogical blanket analogies and half baked counter arguments. (slavery and eating meat have nothing to do with each other.) If this is your level, then you are not worth debating with... im sorry....... you could go around in circles all day long using those sorts of analogies and prove nothing.

I'm sure if your as smart as your trying to make out, then you can find your own counter arguments for your own replies very easily, so I wont waste my time there.

Please input some of your thoughts if not views on the matter. Until then it is not a proper debate, is it now?

Don't take this post as a refusal to have a intelligent discussion (i enjoy them greatly), but more as a refusal to debate on such a low level.
The answer to the OP question is simple... YES
because they are completely different things.

Sorry i meant. NO... for the same reason

FurbtasticM · 12-05-10, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by williamblah

I should expand on that original question, to encompass what I actually mean by it: Are you contradicting the moral values you have if you eat meat (out of preference, not neccessity to live) if you support the ban on fox hunting?

Not at all, morals are formed by reference to what is acceptable in the society around you and the World at large.

If animals are bred, reared and slaughtered in a humane way, then people will find that acceptable.

If vermin are killed in a controlled manner and for the right reasons then it wont cause undue concern.

Killing something for fun/pleasure/sport and inducing suffering in the process is entirely different.

There is no contradiction, they are mutually exclusive.

..but...taking your argument to the nth degree, the pulses and beans that you would eat to replace the meat protein MAY have been grown, picked and transported by people who are paid a pittance and will suffer as a result, and the clothes and shoes that you gladly wear MAY have been made by children paid 1p an hour.

So, unless you are a naked, leaf eating hermit who lives in the wild, then it is inarguable that you MAY be a hypocrite?

floz2009 · 12-05-10, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

Not at all, morals are formed by reference to what is acceptable in the society around you and the World at large.

If animals are bred, reared and slaughtered in a humane way, then people will find that acceptable.

If vermin are killed in a controlled manner and for the right reasons then it wont cause undue concern.

Killing something for fun/pleasure/sport and inducing suffering in the process is entirely different.

There is no contradiction, they are mutually exclusive.

..but...taking your argument to the nth degree, the pulses and beans that you would eat to replace the meat protein MAY have been grown, picked and transported by people who are paid a pittance and will suffer as a result, and the clothes and shoes that you gladly wear MAY have been made by children paid 1p an hour.

So, unless you are a naked, leaf eating hermit who lives in the wild, then it is inarguable that you MAY be a hypocrite?

haha, brilliant!

mcgrou · 13-05-10, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurbtasticM

So, unless you are a naked, leaf eating hermit who lives in the wild, then it is inarguable that you MAY be a hypocrite?

Although if you're following his logic, he's not a hypocrite, as he isn't against fox hunting iirc.

FurbtasticM · 13-05-10, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgrou

Although if you're following his logic, he's not a hypocrite, as he isn't against fox hunting iirc.

Hence the use of "may" -

**the_icks** · 13-05-10, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by az87aris

Let a dogs chase you down and rip your skin to shreds and see how much you suffer.

Animals killed at slaughterhouses are killed humanely after being stunned, rendering them unconscious.

This thread/debate/arguement is totally ridiculous.

So you would think. I would argue that point... I am a flag waving meat eater, but even I have concerns about the origins of the meat I eat!

Halal/kosher are killed in totally different ways to your normal over the counter meat.

12-05-10, 03:49 PM	#22
FurbtasticM ..is a Muppet! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Swindon Posts: 10,100	It is inarguable that the original poster MAY be suffering from mental health issues. (Well, that's what his imaginary friend told me) Edit - The original question, "Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?", doesn't need debating, there must be thousands of meat eaters who agree with the ban. __________________ iPhone deals \| Giveaway \| Free iPhone \| Free iPad Last edited by FurbtasticM; 12-05-10 at 03:52 PM..

12-05-10, 04:18 PM	#25
az87aris Mini Mac Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Yorkshire Posts: 4,784	You refer to eating meat as being a preference and it's not, as mac-d said we are omnivores by nature, our bodies are designed to digest and break down nutrition gained from meat. I've always been under the impression that not eating meat/being a vegetarian was a preference as it goes against nature. __________________ Free iPhone 4S \| Free iPad 2 \| Free iPod \| Free Amazon Vouchers

12-05-10, 06:59 PM	#34
Amiethest is meant to be revising Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Nottinghamshire Posts: 6,323	"Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?" Nope! __________________ Free iPad \| Free Xbox 360 \|Free 3DS Want to know how to get greens (referrals) for FreebieJeebies? I'll tell you how..... Work hard, like the rest of us! Feel free to ask questions!

12-05-10, 03:09 PM	#21
chigley Mini Mac Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bolton/London (home/uni.) Posts: 8,415	I, too, agree with Harvez (never thought I'd say that! ) Your argument is ludicrously flawed and is, frankly, ridiculous.

12-05-10, 04:14 PM	#23
Mac-d iPod 20gb Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: essex Posts: 428	@ williamblah It is impossible to debate with you as you cannot accept the illogicality of your analogies. Your arguments seem to consist not of your own opinion but rather one of countering anyone else's. I'm not going to defend my well considered, logical words against illogical blanket analogies and half baked counter arguments. (slavery and eating meat have nothing to do with each other.) If this is your level, then you are not worth debating with... im sorry....... you could go around in circles all day long using those sorts of analogies and prove nothing. I'm sure if your as smart as your trying to make out, then you can find your own counter arguments for your own replies very easily, so I wont waste my time there. Please input some of your thoughts if not views on the matter. Until then it is not a proper debate, is it now? Don't take this post as a refusal to have a intelligent discussion (i enjoy them greatly), but more as a refusal to debate on such a low level. The answer to the OP question is simple... YES because they are completely different things.