Discussion in 'Serious' started by Pookie, 13 Jul 2015.
Fermi paradox Cheesecake
We do bad things while disregarding moral implications. That's the way we are. We built a fuel pipe that starts in Russia and spreads throughout Europe, but we won't build a pipe that provides fresh water to all of Africa. We breed animals in minescule cages, shuttling food and hormones into their stomachs until they're fat enough to cull, when we could eliminate world hunger altogether if we didn't use them at all.
Our habitat displaces everything that doesn't get utterly steamrolled in its path. A bit of nature is adaptable, resilient and stubbornly sticks around despite its environment being entirely dominated by our presence, so we kill it. Nothing must stand in our way or even annoy us.
A hundred years ago we didn't know any better. Now we do and we still won't change.
If it makes you feel better: a lot of the bad stuff we do is not because we are evil or immoral, but because we are dumb and stupid. We evolved to function in small tribes and a simple world, not the complex global world with large societies and tools that can blow up a large city.
We are cavemen meant to live in small, isolated communities and wield tools made of rock and wood, but instead living in communities the size of millions, packed on top of each other in a shrinking world and wielding A-bombs. What could possibly go wrong?
The first step to wisdom is realising that you are not wise.
Many of my uncles and cousins are farmers. If they have a fox problem, they sort it quietly at night with a lamp and a rifle. Fox - Bang - Ex-fox.
All this horses and hounds stuff is nonsense.
Yes, I sometimes feel that the level of our collective awareness of our place in the world as a species can be compared to a baby in a cot, holding a hand grenade.
but what are the problems? Fox's have been proven to effect only 1% of live stock, where around 30% of deaths, if my memory serves are effected from poor treatment, injures and/or Neurological lameness.
I do a fair bit of cross country walking and running and have seen countless sheep limping from broken legs, dead or dying from becoming trapped on barbed fencing. And lots dead left to rot with no wounds.
As for chickens, they are there natural pray and so should not be bashed for it, its nature. Build a good fence. Job done.
People will find any excuse they can to justify killing animals for fun.
Otis, they don't do it for fun. They do it because they need to protect their livelihood. They don't do it routinely "every month", or send out invites or bring the kids along for fun. If, and only if, they suspect a fox has been attacking their livestock, they deal with it quickly and quietly.
My point is, *if* foxes are causing a problem, they can be culled simply and humanely without a big song and dance.
How do they know they shot the fox thats been apparently making problems?
They often wipe out entire family's of fox's in a single night.
but again, id argue they are not cursing problems. Just an excuse to go shooting as there is no proof that they make any noticeable significant damage to a farmers income. maybe one lamb and a few chickens year at most. thats the price for "owning" so much land, you have to share it with other animals that have every right to be there. If farmers cannot accept that, then they should not be farmers or at least stop kidding them self's its pest control.
They are lifelong farmers, they knows the ways.
Looking at that petition:
".........usually in traditional dress." and ".....so that people like Cameron....."
I'm surprised the didn't manage to shoehorn "Bullingdon" and "Eton" into it too. Nothing new in that approach, though it excites the general population rather less than left-wing activists that are now hopefully convincing themselves that Jeremy Corbin will give Labour the edge the didn't have last time round.
As for the fox, well sure enough there is a hunt down here and if they're setting off from a local pub on a nice day we might take the kids out to see the hounds. Alas for those of you with torches and pitchforks, it it's quite as grand as the image. Certainly very socially mixed rather than exclusive. However they never managed to catch many foxes by all accounts, perhaps one or two in a season.
I can't see anything to get to worked up about. Hunting seems more like nature that snares or poison and certainly can't kill that many. For that matter foxes aren't particularly pleasant creatures, if you've ever been to clean up after the got into the hens. Though that's not as nasty as chewing a live newborn calf's leg half off, but that's all nature, It's not all as fluffy as people like to think.
Not entirely true.
Each hunt will go out around 3 times a week, some more, some less.
If there are on there own (only pro hunt about) they will hunt as if the ban was never there and regularly kill at least one or two fox's a week, easily more.
If there are Anti-hunt people around they will still hunt, but try to make it look like an accident as they know they are going to be on film, but even with this, they mostly get away with no convictions.
One way of doing this is to use a drag (rag on rope wet with fox piss) but instead of setting the trail safely out of the way of fox's they will put the trail through what is called cover, (a thickly bushed/tree'd space between fields.) where they know fox's are likely to be. And so flushing out a fox and chopping it)
Or they just ignore the anti-hunt, and just out pace them and use terrier men to bully them.
Fox hunting is a business for the hunt staff. they get paid my there subscribers and members.
they wont to see fox's killed every once and a while or they simply don't bother going and stop paying...
so as to make sure they have a healthy level of fox's in the area hunts have been known to capture cubs and keep them to hunt later on in the season.
And feed fox's to keep them close the the land that will be hunted
Just saw you edit.
That's a completely different argument. Sounds like crazy hippy-dippy city-talk.
I ain't no city type! Born and raised in the country side.
Although I am moving to a city in a month or so lol
Cool. Just to be clear, personally I'm against killing anything uncleanly or for sport. If you kill something, you should do it as quickly as possible and you either do it through necessity (i appreciate we might not agree on this) or you eat it.
I think on the whole we agree, on fox hunting at least.
Don't come around here spouting that Darwinian pseudo science nonsense. The only evolution is the evolution of consciousness, something this thread is proof of. A slow process yes but nevertheless a process that's been moving forward ever since mankind came into existence.
Nah I'm just joking with ya, we're apes after all, it's the scientific consensus, isn't it?
Sure is, just ask Dr Zaius
If the issue was one of humans taking pleasure from hunting an animal without planning to eat their quarry surely there would be a great cause to ban finishing for sport with all that catch and release carry on.
Is the fact that this one doesn't get debated in parliament because the fish don't suffer with a hook in their jaw or because the participants don't wear red coats?
Fish apparently lack the cognitive hardware to experience pain or suffering. Even so, I made sure every edible fish that I've caught on a hook was dispatched quickly, and all were eaten.
When long-lining, my favourite part was when walking back to shore just before dawn. I'd stop about 1/2 mile off shore and carefully release the under-size bass back to the sea via a small, permanent channel that cuts through the sand flats. It was ace seeing them swim off.
It hasnt been beaten thanks to anyone. its been delayed so that parliment can pass a new law saying only English MPs get a say on English matters. Once that is done it will be brought back in again.
Separate names with a comma.