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

[williamblah]

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.

My line of argument is this:

Both fox hunting and eating meat MAY cause a level of suffering to the animals involved. The question is, should we sacrifice some level of enjoyment in order to reduce any potential suffering?

If your answer to this question is yes, you should be both against fox hunting, AND vegetarian.

And let me just inform you that I am not a vegetarian. Although I believe that I could very easily become not vegetarian, I choose not to because I am potentially willing to cause animals suffering, in order to increase my levels of enjoyment.

Additionally, to strengthen my argument, we aren't even talking about banning meat-eating, simply not eating meat yourself!

[xploit]

Kill a fox, eat it. Simples...

[Larkino]

but at a slaughterhouse they don't chase the cows around with hundreds of little knives and stab it do death do they?!!?

[markkram 1]

It's bad and I would never do it but... People should be able to do what they want and learn for themselves what is right and wrong even if they don't learn... Freedom > Fox killing because lack of freedom = human death.

i.e. Our govt. goes and attacks innocent countries and there's nothing we can do to stop them.

[az87aris]

Originally Posted by markkram 1

but... People should be able to do what they want and learn for themselves what is right and wrong even if they don't learn...

Why should people be able to go out and hunt foxes for fun?

Of course you don't have to be a vegetarian to agree with the fox hunting ban. I love my meat and don't get me wrong I know where it comes from and all that, but like Milo said - there is a massive difference between an animal being killed for food at a slaughterhouse and a fox being killed for fun.

The ban should definately stay in place imo, let the toffs out there find a new activity to fill up their days.

[williamblah]

But you don't seem to understand. The only reason it is being killed at the slaughterhouse is because you want the 'fun' of eating it.

You could almost think of eating nice food as being a 'sport', or a hobbie.

It is undeniable that fox hunting MAY cause suffering.
It is undeniable that killing animals for meat MAY cause suffering.

If you are against causing suffering to increase your own pleasures, then you should be against both.

It doesn't make moral sense to be against one more than the other. Yet our "morals" are so skewed that we feel we have the right to tell other people that THEY are not allowed to pursue a pleasure they have (fox hunting) because we deem it to be wrong. However we feel it perfectly fine to say, however, that we are quite happy not only to allow everybody to pursue the pleasure of eating meat, but to choose to participate in it, and therefore promote it as well.

The only way you can argue against my point is by making a case for why eating meat (when not a necessity) is different to fox hunting.

How many "units" of personal pleasure are worth how many "units" of suffering caused to an animal. We'll say: 1 pleasure unit = 1 suffering unit.

If one person really enjoys fox hunting, we'll say that they receive 10 pleasure units from it. This means that the suffering they cause to the fox will be worth 10 units of less, otherwise they would cease to fox hunt. Let us say it is 5.

Then you have another person who thouroughly enjoys a good steak. They receive 5 pleasure points from it, and it causes the cow 3 units of suffering. (Less than the fox, to accomodate the argument for slaughtered animals suffering less than hunted foxes).

It makes sense for them both to pursue the above activities.

Even if the meat eater would receive zero or even negative pleasure points from participating in a fox hunt, provided they, in some part of their life, trade there own pleasure for the suffering of an animal, they cannot judge or set rules to prevent others doing the same.

Please additionally note that when I refer to meat eating, I appreciate that there are countries and situations where it would be impossible to live a healthy life, because you do not have practical alternatives to meat available. There is not an equivalent for fox hunting, but a hypothetical one would be a situation where boredom made you less healthy, and you all you had to take up your time was fox hunting.

I would really really love for somebody that understands what I am trying to say to come up with some kind of counter-argument. Debate is vital in society, and a lack of it fuels a circular belief system, where nothing is ever questioned resulting in the slow down and reversal of evolution, development and discovery.

[Mac-d]

Originally Posted by williamblah

But you don't seem to understand. The only reason it is being killed at the slaughterhouse is because you want the 'fun' of eating it.

You could almost think of eating nice food as being a 'sport', or a hobbie.

It is undeniable that fox hunting MAY cause suffering.
It is undeniable that killing animals for meat MAY cause suffering.

If you are against causing suffering to increase your own pleasures, then you should be against both.

It doesn't make moral sense to be against one more than the other. Yet our "morals" are so skewed that we feel we have the right to tell other people that THEY are not allowed to pursue a pleasure they have (fox hunting) because we deem it to be wrong. However we feel it perfectly fine to say, however, that we are quite happy not only to allow everybody to pursue the pleasure of eating meat, but to choose to participate in it, and therefore promote it as well.

The only way you can argue against my point is by making a case for why eating meat (when not a necessity) is different to fox hunting.

How many "units" of personal pleasure are worth how many "units" of suffering caused to an animal. We'll say: 1 pleasure unit = 1 suffering unit.

If one person really enjoys fox hunting, we'll say that they receive 10 pleasure units from it. This means that the suffering they cause to the fox will be worth 10 units of less, otherwise they would cease to fox hunt. Let us say it is 5.

Then you have another person who thouroughly enjoys a good steak. They receive 5 pleasure points from it, and it causes the cow 3 units of suffering. (Less than the fox, to accomodate the argument for slaughtered animals suffering less than hunted foxes).

It makes sense for them both to pursue the above activities.

Even if the meat eater would receive zero or even negative pleasure points from participating in a fox hunt, provided they, in some part of their life, trade there own pleasure for the suffering of an animal, they cannot judge or set rules to prevent others doing the same.

Please additionally note that when I refer to meat eating, I appreciate that there are countries and situations where it would be impossible to live a healthy life, because you do not have practical alternatives to meat available. There is not an equivalent for fox hunting, but a hypothetical one would be a situation where boredom made you less healthy, and you all you had to take up your time was fox hunting.

I would really really love for somebody that understands what I am trying to say to come up with some kind of counter-argument. Debate is vital in society, and a lack of it fuels a circular belief system, where nothing is ever questioned resulting in the slow down and reversal of evolution, development and discovery.

Humans eat meat. If you go back far enough, it is how we survived and developed as a species. The protein found in cooked meat is thought to be one of the reasons we have evolved with great intelligence.

Fox hunting is killing animals for fun, it is totally different.

[Harvez]

Your whole argument is based on utter bolloks.
WE eat for fun? dont talk out of your arse, if you are going to start a debate at least base it on facts and not some BS flopping around in your own head.

Fox hunting is barbaric and cruel no two ways about it, THAT is why is was banned.
animals which are killed for food, not fun,animals for our consuption are killed in the most humane way possible and as said above you haven't got men with dogs chasing cows round a field until they cant run no more through fear and exhaustion.

as for placing "pleasure points" on food and how it was killed? you are off your head.
if you want anyone to understand were you are coming from go sign up to green peace and the tree huggers, you should fit right in there.

oh and don't take any of the comments above personally as they are just stupid facts flopping around in my head.

[ndev2k]

I have to agree with Harvez.

Animals killed in slaughterhouses for food are bred for that reason. So if we didn't eat meat a lot of those animals would never be born in the first place.

We don't eat meat for fun we eat meat for nutrition. Nutrition is the building block of life and although you can now buy supplements to aid nutrition these man made tablets, substitutes do not offer the full benefits of eating meat.

[chigley]

Absolutely not. Will write a more lengthy argument when I get in tonight.

[TheDoctor]

You dont have to be a Vegetarian to agree with the ban, thats just silly to think that....
You dont have to be a couch potato to like TV
You dont have to be a racing driver to enjoy driving fast

You get the picture?

[williamblah]

Originally Posted by Mac-d

Humans eat meat. If you go back far enough, it is how we survived and developed as a species. The protein found in cooked meat is thought to be one of the reasons we have evolved with great intelligence.

Fox hunting is killing animals for fun, it is totally different.

Your arguments are that we used to eat meat so we still should.

We used to do lots of things that we shouldn't now, for example enslaving those we believed were of an inferior race. Your argument is flawed. If you want to follow this line of argument, you need to explain WHY carrying on doing what we used to do is necessary NOW.

There are plenty of very very available alternatives to meat which contain protein. Beans and pulses often contain a lot of protein. Therefore the argument that meat is necessary to provide protein is flawed.

Originally Posted by Harvez

Your whole argument is based on utter bolloks.
WE eat for fun? dont talk out of your arse, if you are going to start a debate at least base it on facts and not some BS flopping around in your own head.

I didn't say we eat for fun, I said we eat MEAT for fun. We don't eat for fun, but we live as healthily (if not more so) by pursuing a vegetarian diet. There is no BS flopping around my head, you simply haven't read my argument correctly. MEAT eating is not a necessity. It is a preference. We do it because we would get more enjoyment out of a meal with meat. Meat adds variety and choice, and this directly increases pleasure and enjoyment.

Additionally, we can get 8 times as much cereal crop as we can meat from the same land area. If everyone on the world was a vegetarian, there would technically be enough food to feed the whole world, with some spare. So it is NOT necessary to eat meat, it in fact HARMS the human race.

Fox hunting is barbaric and cruel no two ways about it, THAT is why is was banned.
animals which are killed for food, not fun,animals for our consuption are killed in the most humane way possible and as said above you haven't got men with dogs chasing cows round a field until they cant run no more through fear and exhaustion.

No, however both MAY cause suffering to the animal. If you want to strive to allow animals to avoid suffering, it is natural to be against BOTH, not just one (as most people I talk to are).

as for placing "pleasure points" on food and how it was killed? you are off your head.
if you want anyone to understand were you are coming from go sign up to green peace and the tree huggers, you should fit right in there.

Adding units and values to arguments is commonly regarded as the best way to debate. You do it in your head all the time, it allows us to think rationally. With every choice you make, your unconscious is thinking "Is the value of me taking this decision, higher than the negative effects it will cause."

oh and don't take any of the comments above personally as they are just stupid facts flopping around in my head.

Not at all!

Originally Posted by ndev2k

I have to agree with Harvez.

Animals killed in slaughterhouses for food are bred for that reason. So if we didn't eat meat a lot of those animals would never be born in the first place.

So if we bred foxes for fox hunting, then that would be ok. You have to be consistent. That is the point I am making: How people have opinions that aren't consistent to their moral values.

We don't eat meat for fun we eat meat for nutrition. Nutrition is the building block of life and although you can now buy supplements to aid nutrition these man made tablets, substitutes do not offer the full benefits of eating meat.

[b]There are many people who say otherwise. Many people live healthily as a vegetarian. You do not need to take tablets, simply eat things like pulses and soya for your protein.

Originally Posted by chigley

Absolutely not. Will write a more lengthy argument when I get in tonight.

I look forward to it!

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

You dont have to be a Vegetarian to agree with the ban, thats just silly to think that....
You dont have to be a couch potato to like TV
You dont have to be a racing driver to enjoy driving fast

You get the picture?

Nope, I don't get the picture. Your entire argument consists of "It is silly to think what you think.", followed by a couple of loosely related situations. I am not even going to bother countering this, as it has zero substance and is completely flawed.

I emplore you all to try your hardest to look upon this argument as if you had never heard of meat or fox hunting. We don't need to eat meat. We don't need to fox hunt. We do them both because we want to, to increase our own pleasure!

[williamblah]

Oh, and to lighten things up:

How many vegetarians does it take to change a light bulb?

None, vegetarians can't change anything.

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by williamblah

Oh, and to lighten things up:

How many vegetarians does it take to change a light bulb?

None, vegetarians can't change anything.

If that was supposed to be offensive, then boo, bad job...
I'm not offended

[Mac-d]

Originally Posted by williamblah

Your arguments are that we used to eat meat so we still should.

We used to do lots of things that we shouldn't now, for example enslaving those we believed were of an inferior race. Your argument is flawed. If you want to follow this line of argument, you need to explain WHY carrying on doing what we used to do is necessary NOW.

There are plenty of very very available alternatives to meat which contain protein. Beans and pulses often contain a lot of protein. Therefore the argument that meat is necessary to provide protein is flawed.

Well, it seems as though logic is not prevalent in your thought process.

If you are seriously comparing the enslavement of blacks to eating meat, then I'm sure you will no doubt counter any logical argument with an irrelevant blanket analogy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt;

Humans are Omnivores by their very nature, our bodies are designed to digest and break down nutrition gained from meat.
Proteins have many sub-categories called amino acids. Off the top of my head there are around 15 major amino acids that are important for humans to function to potential.
The most efficient way to gain the bulk of these are still through the consumption of meat.
See if a tiger is willing to eat beans and pulses Im sure they can live off 'em (it is not their nature)
There are also many other vitamins and minerals we gain from meat consumption.
Eating meat is something that comes naturally to humans, it is only through conscious decision (which only humans are capable of) that people become vegetarians and go against what is natural for a human to do.

Fox hunting is a form of sport in which an animal suffers unnecessarily for one sole cause, to give entertainment to the participants.
You can liken it to dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting and the other countless blood sports of past centuries.

My argument is not based around my personal views on fox hunting or vegetarians but is mealy to counter the silly OP question : "Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?"
To which the answer is no, clearly not.

I will say this though...........Hitler was a vegetarian.....

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

If that was supposed to be offensive, then boo, bad job...
I'm not offended

I think it was a joke, don't be so sensitive

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by Larkino

but at a slaughterhouse they don't chase the cows around with hundreds of little knives and stab it do death do they?!!?

Cows aren't pests neither disgusting creatures.

It's funny that it's the people from the country who agree with fox hunting, and the people from the city who in reality don't know much about the whole debate or see what happens in the country when foxes aren't given a annual cull for example.

[floz2009]

your argument is taking it to a basic level and making assumptions that the pleasure and pain is equal in it's measure. For example, cows who are bred for food will probably lead a good life with being fed well and then be slaughtered in a humane way whereby they are made instantly unconscious and then killed so they feel nothing. Pain is probably not even 1 on your scale. Whereas the pleasure from eating it would be maybe 5 or 6. To me that is acceptable and over the cows life it is positive because they would be happy in the fields, it's just the quick slaughter at the end which is DESIGNED to be humane.

Chasing a fox around some woods to kill it for fun is not a like for like ratio. All the people are doing is riding horses after the dogs, the dogs do all the ripping apart of the fox. it wouldn't be 5 for 5 as you say. If you were on both sides of the story would you enjoy chasing a fox to the same proportion as being chased by dogs to the end result of having your skin ripped off your own body?

in all honesty your whole argument is based upon assumption, you can argue that animals feel pain and can suffer

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

It is inarguable that fox hunting MAY cause foxes suffering.

These two assumptions define your argument and imo are wrong. fox hunting DOES cause suffering, im sure if you heard the fox yelping as its skin is ripped apart you'd know this. Animals CAN suffer, why do you think abused dog's have tenancies to lash out at potential danger?

Slaughtering animals depends on the type of process you use, you cant just generalise for the whole process.

[floz2009]

Originally Posted by bmh16

Cows aren't pests neither disgusting creatures.

It's funny that it's the people from the country who agree with fox hunting, and the people from the city who in reality don't know much about the whole debate or see what happens in the country when foxes aren't given a annual cull for example.

so by the same logic, people should be hunted? we are ruining this planet with pollution, killing species ourselves for food (equivalent to foxes killing farmers chickens), killing the environment. But let me guess, your view is that we have more of a right to be here than animals do. If so, back that point up.

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by floz2009

so by the same logic, people should be hunted? we are ruining this planet with pollution, killing species ourselves for food (equivalent to foxes killing farmers chickens), killing the environment. But let me guess, your view is that we have more of a right to be here than animals do. If so, back that point up.

survival of the fittest

[williamblah]

Originally Posted by Mac-d

Well, it seems as though logic is not prevalent in your thought process.

If you are seriously comparing the enslavement of blacks to eating meat, then I'm sure you will no doubt counter any logical argument with an irrelevant blanket analogy.

I am using the example of the enslavements of blacks to flaw an opponents argument. I.e. "We used to do it, so we still should." This statement is completely countered by bringing up an example to show its fallacy. It's a very very simple debate structure!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt;

Humans are Omnivores by their very nature, our bodies are designed to digest and break down nutrition gained from meat.

Proteins have many sub-categories called amino acids. Off the top of my head there are around 15 major amino acids that are important for humans to function to potential.
The most efficient way to gain the bulk of these are still through the consumption of meat.
See if a tiger is willing to eat beans and pulses Im sure they can live off 'em (it is not their nature)

Greed and conflict is also in our nature. Do you believe that these should to be not only encouraged, but actually considered NECESSARY? We have hair on our heads to stop us getting cold, but many people shave it off and wear a hat instead! Just because something is in our nature simply means that sometime long in the past, it made sense to propagate that trait via evolution, in order for humans to better survive!

There are also many other vitamins and minerals we gain from meat consumption.
Eating meat is something that comes naturally to humans, it is only through conscious decision (which only humans are capable of) that people become vegetarians and go against what is natural for a human to do.

So you are saying that because something involves conscious decision, and goes against human nature, it CANNOT be necessary? I think the conscious decision in resisting the urge to procreate with the nearest female is A) against human nature, B) a conscious decision, and C) considered a darn sight more necessary than eating meat!

Fox hunting is a form of sport in which an animal suffers unnecessarily for one sole cause, to give entertainment to the participants.
You can liken it to dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting and the other countless blood sports of past centuries.

It is clearly in our nature then, to create entertainment and sport out of conflict of "lesser" creatures. This, however, you choose not to label a neccessity!

My argument is not based around my personal views on fox hunting or vegetarians but is mealy to counter the silly OP question : "Do you have to be vegetarian to agree with the ban on fox hunting?"
To which the answer is no, clearly not.

I hope you are referring to the silly original post, and not the silly original post-er! :P However, I cannot see in what way I am being silly. I have yet to receive an argument that has suggested me otherwise. And it is NEVER EVER silly to question your beliefs and ideologies!

I will say this though...........Hitler was a vegetarian.....

I think it was a joke, don't be so sensitive.

Yes, this was a joke. If it is any consollation, 4 out of my 5 close mates are vegetarians. And I do not actually believe what it says in the joke anyway!

Originally Posted by floz2009

your argument is taking it to a basic level and making assumptions that the pleasure and pain is equal in it's measure. For example, cows who are bred for food will probably lead a good life with being fed well and then be slaughtered in a humane way whereby they are made instantly unconscious and then killed so they feel nothing. Pain is probably not even 1 on your scale. Whereas the pleasure from eating it would be maybe 5 or 6. To me that is acceptable and over the cows life it is positive because they would be happy in the fields, it's just the quick slaughter at the end which is DESIGNED to be humane.

Ok, I agree with what you are saying so far. And you accept that if you value your own pleasure (yours is 5/6), over the suffering (which you say is 1), then it is acceptable to take that course of action, and eat the meat.

Chasing a fox around some woods to kill it for fun is not a like for like ratio. All the people are doing is riding horses after the dogs, the dogs do all the ripping apart of the fox. it wouldn't be 5 for 5 as you say. If you were on both sides of the story would you enjoy chasing a fox to the same proportion as being chased by dogs to the end result of having your skin ripped off your own body?

Let us say, for arguments sake, that the foxes suffering is 100 times greater than the suffering of the cow, so the foxes recieve 100 in suffering. If there is a person that enjoys a steak the same amount as you (so a 5-6), but they enjoy a fox hunt twenty-times more than a steak, then they receive 100-120 pleasure points from it. You are not only saying that you choose not to pursue fox hunting because your pleasure is lower than suffering caused, you are saying BAN IT even for those whose level of pleasure is higher. This is EXACTLY the same as a vegetarian saying, my pleasure:suffering of eating meat is 1:5, therefore not only will I not do it, but no one else can do it to!

in all honesty your whole argument is based upon assumption, you can argue that animals feel pain and can suffer

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

It is inarguable that fox hunting MAY cause foxes suffering.

These two assumptions define your argument and imo are wrong. fox hunting DOES cause suffering, im sure if you heard the fox yelping as its skin is ripped apart you'd know this. Animals CAN suffer, why do you think abused dog's have tenancies to lash out at potential danger?

Please tell me what is wrong about my assumptions. They use of the word "MAY" means that they are not wrong.

Slaughtering animals depends on the type of process you use, you cant just generalise for the whole process.

I am not generalising anything. I am simply saying that any process used MAY caused suffering. In the same way that next year the sun MAY still exist (v. probable), and tomorrow MAY be the end of the world (v. improbable). All the use of MAY means is that it hasn't been PROVEN (without doubt) that tomorrow IS or IS NOT the end of the world.

Originally Posted by floz2009

so by the same logic, people should be hunted? we are ruining this planet with pollution, killing species ourselves for food (equivalent to foxes killing farmers chickens), killing the environment. But let me guess, your view is that we have more of a right to be here than animals do. If so, back that point up.

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!