Queen bans fox hunting!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
1. Abortion is "OK" while the foetus is not in independant living thing and could not survive without a mother around it: while it is effectively an extension of the mother. AFAIK, nobody seriously advocates or promotes abortion. All credible defenses of abortion admit that it is almost always preferable to let the foetus develop, but that it isn't the place of government to force this to happen while the foetus is still part of the mother.

Wild animals aren't the possession of anyone, so the argument "It's mine, let me torture it" fails. The government does have juristiction, for better or worse, over the defining of Rights For Foxes. While foxes are independant living things, then torturing them for no reason other than human amusement is wrong.

What about pets? Should owners be able to kill them, or just release them and not feed them?

Personally, I (and reds, and Mr Fun, et al) find the idea of torturing anything which can display pain that emotively utterly repugnant. Ok, so maybe seeing a live, wailing fox have its guts pulled out by bloodhounds doesn't cause you to bat an eyelid - but even if it is not biologically/philosophically wrong to torture foxes since the "aren't aware of pain" or whatever bollocks you want to wrap it in, it's one of those things which is probably bad for the human involved as well. It's like putting an 18-certificate on a film, or preventing incestuous marriages. Imagine it as an infinity-certificate on hunting.

I find torture for the sake of torture completely repugnant. I find gay sex repugnant too seriously, though, while I may not necessarily think hunting is a good thing to do, I do not think it is a restriction of liberties.

2. Name me a single animal which tortures and maims its prey and deliberately uses inefficient methods of execution, for no other reason than entertainment (and/or tradition), and maybe this point would have some relevance.

Lynx?

[MrFun]

When killer whales hunt sea lions, they sometimes wound them, and then flip them into the air over and over before finally munching on them.

Plus, when killer whales hunt larger whales in packs, the killer whales will rip off chunks of the whale as a means of eating it alive.

Another example is the mother cheetah who teaches her cubs to hunt by releasing a wounded young gazelled for her cubs to pursue (this exmaple is not for enjoyment, but it is still a form of torture).

Not that I agree with Kuci's main thrust of his argument in regards to animals feeling pain, but there are predators who exhibit this behavior towards their prey as Kuci already pointed out, with the lynx.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
BRAVO BRAVO YOU'VE ALL PICKED UP ON ME NOT ELABORATING THE OBVIOUS, HOW ABOUT A BIG MEDAL.
Obviously, my comment was made with regards to the pain as a clearly biochemical concept. The fact that this biochemical effect has a stressful influence on some biochemical system, is of little consequence to me. Obviously, it will have a lot of consequence for me if is made to a human, which is a biochemical system, that generally, barring any other parameters, I am interested in its' successful survival and advancement, because it will make me feel better ( recieve positive biochemical feedback), and just because I've been programmed to do so.

I remember having an argument that touched something similiar to this about altruism some time ago. I can't remember if you where one of the people claiming everything was done for selfish purposes or not, but I'm guessing you where?

[alva]

When killer whales hunt sea lions, they sometimes wound them, and then flip them into the air over and over before finally munching on them.

and sometimes they "release" their prey. They actually escort it back to the beach.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by alva

and sometimes they "release" their prey. They actually escort it back to the beach.

Why the **** would they do that?


Unless you can provide a link to a scientific source, I call BS.

[alva]

No idea why they do that to be honest.
There's some great footage of it in a Attenborough documentary. No BS I'm afraid.

[alva]

It's probably this one, though I'm not sure.

"Wolves of the Sea"

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Ludd claimed that foxes are like people because you can train them to respond in different ways to stimuli. I said robots could too, therefore any argument applying to foxes because of that applies to robots. He said robots could not be trained, which is completely false. Therefore, my point stands.

Robots can't be trained, they are programmed. To be trained implies that you are taught to do something against your nature, or alien to you. A robot is built and created with a specific task in mind, and has only a single purpose to it's existance. It can be programmed through interaction after it has been built, but only because it has been programmed to "learn". You could not teach a robot that has been built to learn how to navigate through different kinds of mazes how to build a maze itself.

Niether does a robot have any choice. A dog, when it is trained, is presented with multiple choices. To draw on my previous example:

It is given the choice obey it's master. It doesn't have to, but it can - and if it's trained through violence it will probably do so out of fear of being beaten (a choice made on a future potential event, not a reaction to stimuli) which again clearly demonstrates a state of awareness and understanding of the concept of pain.

It can also choose to follow the scent given to it. "Mechincally" speaking one would think that the dog would be more inclined to follow other scents that it passes while tracking - like food or other dogs, but it can choose to ignore these scents and instead follow the scent given to it, which has no real meaning outside of what importance it has to it's master, which again shows an awareness and understanding of another being's sentience. (and their wants, desires, ect...) Likewise, it could also choose to chase the scent alone or lead it's master along the trail, which again shows a similiar understanding.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Species that are used to being in the middle of the food-chain and are suddenly thrust to the top don't tend to behave like top-level predators instantly.

No, though foxes apparently never had any natural enemy, at least in England, I think.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
When killer whales hunt sea lions, they sometimes wound them, and then flip them into the air over and over before finally munching on them.

Is that deliberate, or is that because the whale didn't have enough of a grip?

Originally posted by MrFun
Plus, when killer whales hunt larger whales in packs, the killer whales will rip off chunks of the whale as a means of eating it alive.

That appears to me that they don't have a better way.

Originally posted by MrFun
Another example is the mother cheetah who teaches her cubs to hunt by releasing a wounded young gazelled for her cubs to pursue (this exmaple is not for enjoyment, but it is still a form of torture).

Again, there's no better way.

[alva]

Is that deliberate, or is that because the whale didn't have enough of a grip?

It looks like playing or training.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Is that deliberate, or is that because the whale didn't have enough of a grip?



That appears to me that they don't have a better way.



Again, there's no better way.

Right -- the wounded sea lion slips from the killer whale's TAIL because the killer whale could not grip its prety tightly enough with its tail.

[GePap]

Ludd

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Robots can't be trained, they are programmed. To be trained implies that you are taught to do something against your nature, or alien to you.

WTF?!

v. trained, train·ing, trains
v. tr.

1. To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance.
2. To make proficient with specialized instruction and practice. See Synonyms at teach.
3. To prepare physically, as with a regimen: train athletes for track-and-field competition.
4. To cause (a plant or one's hair) to take a desired course or shape, as by manipulating.
5. To focus on or aim at (a goal, mark, or target); direct. See Synonyms at aim.
6. To let drag behind; trail.


v. intr.

1. To give or undergo a course of training: trained daily for the marathon.
2. To travel by railroad train.

Nowhere is "against one's nature" mentioned.

A robot is built and created with a specific task in mind, and has only a single purpose to it's existance. It can be programmed through interaction after it has been built, but only because it has been programmed to "learn". You could not teach a robot that has been built to learn how to navigate through different kinds of mazes how to build a maze itself.

Niether does a robot have any choice. A dog, when it is trained, is presented with multiple choices. To draw on my previous example:

It is given the choice obey it's master. It doesn't have to, but it can - and if it's trained through violence it will probably do so out of fear of being beaten (a choice made on a future potential event, not a reaction to stimuli) which again clearly demonstrates a state of awareness and understanding of the concept of pain.

It can also choose to follow the scent given to it. "Mechincally" speaking one would think that the dog would be more inclined to follow other scents that it passes while tracking - like food or other dogs, but it can choose to ignore these scents and instead follow the scent given to it, which has no real meaning outside of what importance it has to it's master, which again shows an awareness and understanding of another being's sentience. (and their wants, desires, ect...) Likewise, it could also choose to chase the scent alone or lead it's master along the trail, which again shows a similiar understanding.

You're claiming there is some mystical thing that allows the dog not to obey physical laws but instead act in an entirely arbitrary manner? You're stupider than I thought.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by MrFun
When killer whales hunt sea lions, they sometimes wound them, and then flip them into the air over and over before finally munching on them.

Do you have a cite for this? Its not that I don't believe you, only I can't find anything about it (and sea lions are freaking massive)

Plus, when killer whales hunt larger whales in packs, the killer whales will rip off chunks of the whale as a means of eating it alive.

As UR said, ripping chunks off a whale is the only thing they can do. The vertebrae of a large whale is so deep in its blubber that it would take some fairly determined mining to get to it, whereupon the carcasse would sink out of eating range anyway. I saw an interesting documentary about this. Orcas very seldom get anywhere near all the flesh off their prey before it dies and sinks, and there are species of shark and lamprey and whatnot that live on the ocean floor surviving solely on the sunken carcasses of shark-kills.

Another example is the mother cheetah who teaches her cubs to hunt by releasing a wounded young gazelled for her cubs to pursue (this exmaple is not for enjoyment, but it is still a form of torture).

Yes, lots of cats exhibit this behaviour, but it does serve a purpose: that being the education of the young in methods of survival. When it becomes necessary for man to pass on fox-hunting techniques to survive, then it becomes valid.



Kuci, pets, yeah maybe. Generally there's enough of an attachment to a pet that people wouldn't want to torture it. The sick mf who put his hamster in a helium balloon has probably got a little cubicle in hell reserved for him, mind you. Since Cruelty to Animals (where animal is defined as any domesticated creature) has been an offense since 1849, and since there isn't a three hundred year old tradition of buying pets and then watching them be ripped apart, its less of an issue.