Re:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Not Responding said:

Just came across these figures regarding cause of death of foxes[1]:

25,000 taken by hunts
v.
100,000 killed by cars.

I doubt the car drivers enjoy it though...

I doubt the car drivers pursue the foxes for miles first either...

Zog The Undeniable said:

Quoted message said:

Just came across these figures regarding cause of death of foxes[1]:

25,000 taken by hunts
v.
100,000 killed by cars.

I doubt the car drivers enjoy it though...

That matters does it? Enjoying something has a bearing on whether it
is "right" or "wrong"?

--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Quoted message said:

Just came across these figures regarding cause of death of foxes[1]:

25,000 taken by hunts
v.
100,000 killed by cars.

I doubt the car drivers enjoy it though...

That matters does it? Enjoying something has a bearing on whether it
is "right" or "wrong"?

no it's do do with how much money it makes

The recent "development" raises the interesting prospect of sabs out after
Feb with the full backing of the law ;-)

Zog The Undeniable said:

Not Responding said:

Just came across these figures regarding cause of death of foxes[1]:

25,000 taken by hunts
v.
100,000 killed by cars.

I doubt the car drivers enjoy it though...

And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people enjoying
themselves.

Actually, your view is shared by the pro-hunt people.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Not Responding said:

Just came across these figures regarding cause of death of foxes[1]:

25,000 taken by hunts
v.
100,000 killed by cars.

I doubt the car drivers enjoy it though...

OK, not a fox, but Tom Lehrer said something about cars and dogs. (From
memory): "Rover was killed by a Pontiac, it was done with such grace and
artistry that the witnesses awarded the driver both ears and the tail".

Peter

--

www.amey.org.uk

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:47:48 +0000,

Peter Amey said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

[Not Responding] wrote:

OK, not a fox, but Tom Lehrer said something about cars and dogs. (From
memory): "Rover was killed by a Pontiac, it was done with such grace and
artistry that the witnesses awarded the driver both ears and the tail".

And IIRC this ends:

At last the mattador did what we wanted him to/he raised his sword and
his aim was true/in that moment of truth, I suddenly knew/That someone
had stolen my wallet.

"Mr. Lehrer's muse [is] not fettered by such inhibiting factors as taste"
- the New York Times.

Tim.

--
Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put in
it - Tom Lehrer

In article <[email hidden]>,

Call me Bob said:

That matters does it? Enjoying something has a bearing on whether it
is "right" or "wrong"?

Enjoy is the wrong word there. The issue is taking sadistic pleasure
in suffering and death. The nearest human comparison we have today
is probably extreme child [censored]. That's already illegal - in spite
of the ultimate outcome being altogether less final.

--
Nick Kew

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:27:38 +0000, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That matters does it? Enjoying something has a bearing on whether it
is "right" or "wrong"?

Enjoy is the wrong word there. The issue is taking sadistic pleasure
in suffering and death. The nearest human comparison we have today
is probably extreme child [censored]. That's already illegal - in spite
of the ultimate outcome being altogether less final.

This group is not the right place to debate the merits or otherwise of
fox hunting, but, if you can squeeze "extreme child [censored]" into that
argument, I suspect our views would be at odds.

--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:48:02 GMT, Call me Bob
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

That matters does it? Enjoying something has a bearing on whether it
is "right" or "wrong"?

In the case of killing, I would say, yes. Who would you say is more
dangerous, a man who kills by accident or one who does it for the love
of killing?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:42:45 +0000, " [Not Responding] "
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

And there was parliament labouring under the impression the ban was a
ban on animal suffering when all along it was a ban on people enjoying
themselves.

No, not enjoying themselves, enjoying killing things. There is a
difference. Drag hunting remains legal, after all.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy said:

In the case of killing, I would say, yes. Who would you say is more
dangerous, a man who kills by accident or one who does it for the love
of killing?

You mean like Harold Shipman vs car drivers?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:00:12 +0900, James Annan
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the case of killing, I would say, yes. Who would you say is more
dangerous, a man who kills by accident or one who does it for the love
of killing?

Quoted message said:

You mean like Harold Shipman vs car drivers?

Harold Shipman vs. any individual car driver, yes.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

MartinM said:

The recent "development" raises the interesting prospect of sabs out after
Feb with the full backing of the law ;-)

It raises the even more interesting prospect of it all being resolved in
the Courts, a process that ends with an appeal to the House of Lords ;-)

Tony

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:39:50 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It raises the even more interesting prospect of it all being resolved in
the Courts, a process that ends with an appeal to the House of Lords ;-)

All of them? I suspect not.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

in message <[email hidden]>, Call me Bob

(') said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Quoted message said:

Just came across these figures regarding cause of death of foxes[1]:

25,000 taken by hunts
v.
100,000 killed by cars.

I doubt the car drivers enjoy it though...

That matters does it? Enjoying something has a bearing on whether it
is "right" or "wrong"?

Yes, of course it does. Not a great bearing. But consider two cases:

A man deliberately kills another man in a spirit of pity and kindness
(e.g. because the victim is suffering horribly from a terminal illness
and wants to die);

a man deliberately kills another man in pursuit of his own sexual
gratification (e.g. the people who make 'snuff' movies).

Which of these action is more wrong, and why?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

Simon Brooke wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

a man deliberately kills another man in pursuit of his own sexual
gratification (e.g. the people who make 'snuff' movies).

Perhaps you know something about this subject that will be of great
interest to the urban folklore enthusiasts? See

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm

That sums up a lot of research into this subject. In brief, and please
read the entire article before arguing with me, it says that while there
are videos showing real people being killed, there is no snuff movie
industry servicing a market of death-fetishists. If you have evidence to
the contrary, alt.folklore.urban would very much like to hear from you.
If you do not have evidence, you will be greeted there in the fashion
reserved here for those who claim that cycling helmets are wonderful and
should be mandatory.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

It raises the even more interesting prospect of it all being resolved in
the Courts, a process that ends with an appeal to the House of Lords ;-)

If that gets permitted.

But what occurred to me is that they *might* be expecting to rely on
the institutional corruption in the judicial system at all levels.
They might already have a judge lined up, and plans for ensuring they
get the right judge. A ruling in their favour at any level would be
a huge propaganda coup.

--
Nick Kew

Nick Kew said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

It raises the even more interesting prospect of it all being resolved in
the Courts, a process that ends with an appeal to the House of Lords ;-)

If that gets permitted.

Yes but the interest would be if the House of Lords was, as the ultimate
judicial authority, asked to rule on whether the House of Lords in its
political capacity could be overuled by the House of Commons and the
Parliament Act.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Nick Kew said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

It raises the even more interesting prospect of it all being resolved
in the Courts, a process that ends with an appeal to the House of
Lords ;-)

If that gets permitted.

Yes but the interest would be if the House of Lords was, as the ultimate
judicial authority, asked to rule on whether the House of Lords in its
political capacity could be overuled by the House of Commons and the
Parliament Act.

And the law lords would surely have "conflict of interests" and have to
withdraw anyway...(as the actress said to the Bishop seems appropriate
too..)
All the best
Dan Gregory