I have been a fan of Pink Floyd and Roger Waters for a long time and possess all their albums, I have always loved his music, and this is why I find it very hard to understand how a man who writes such words of beautiful poetry and compassion indulges in the so called ‘sport’ of fox hunting which involves the most basal aspects of human nature in action, namely that of killing purely for pleasure and personal gratification. I would not have a problem with Roger if he was doing this to put food on the table, but he isn’t. Roger Waters and others from the foxhunting community assert the belief that it is natural and there is a natural instinct to hunt, well human beings also possess the instinct to kill, to rape and to maim, but do we also act on these?
Roger Waters also points out that Hitler banned foxhunting in Germany in 1939, which is true, however in this along with his nostalgia for pre war England I feel there is a veiled and subtle association here which ties in a dislike of animal cruelty with a sympathy for fascism and a denial of human rights. However just because I like animals, does this mean therefore that I disproportionately dislike my fellow man more, or my own children? This valid point was made in the House of Lords some years ago. It is also of note that many people of note have spoken out against foxhunting in the past, the playwrights Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw to name a few and to think of other notable humanitarians who have expressed their outrage at animal cruelty in all their forms, such as Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Carl Jung, the Nobel prize-winner Isaac Singer (who lost a lot of his family in Auschwitz), Albert Schweitzer and many, many more, these people certainly cannot be grouped under the labels ‘fascist’ or ‘anti liberty’. I cannot see how he equates a ban on foxhunting with an infringement of human rights (if this were so, why is it that human rights groups such as ‘Liberty’ are not backing the countryside alliance?). Roger Water’s view on rights here is reminiscent of the slave owners in the US and the British Empire who also complained about the infringement of their natural ‘right’ to own slaves by the abolitionists. In some countries a father has a right under certain conditions to kill members of his own family, but that does not make it right. Just because foxhunting is not illegal at present does not make it right, and that’s why people are attempting to ban it now (as they did slavery). Because it is not right, it is morally wrong, and banning it deprives the human being of nothing except the so called right to be brutal for pleasure.
There will always be people around to justify their own brutal actions by whatever argument they can, simply because they enjoy it. Hunting for pleasure is uncivilised and never essential to a fulfilling human existence.
As said I find it difficult to reconcile the poignant and meaningful words of Roger Waters in some of his famous songs with the fact that this man indulges in such a disgusting and cruel ‘sport’. He speaks of foxhunting as being a great tradition in Britain, well Britain has many other ‘great’ traditions, such as the aforementioned traffic in slaves, and centuries of imperialism and the subjugation of native peoples, not to mention bear baiting and putting malnourished little boys up chimneys in Victorian times, but these were anachronisms which have now (fortunately) been consigned to the history books, as hopefully will foxhunting.
Mr. Waters speaks of the English values of fair play and decency, however the fox (some are pregnant) is chased for miles by many braying dogs and many people on braying horses so the odds are stacked very much against it, similarly if the fox goes underground then it is retrieved with the use of modern techonlogical equipment, (nothing very archaic or instinctual about that). There is no 'fair play' in foxhunting or cubbing.
Hunting is an ancient and noble tradition which has helped man survive for thousands of years, but hunting to eat and survive and hunting for pleasure and cruel sport are two extremely different things.
This is something I feel strongly about, ever since foxhunters invaded my brother and sister in law's property and tore their cat apart in front of their screaming children.
I am sure that Roger Waters will not bow to the opinion of the majority of his fans and will carry on in support of (and indulging in) foxhunting, similarly I am sure the argument of a lesser mortal like myself would not be able to sway him, but perhaps the only way I can voice my protest is to (regretfully) not buy his albums anymore, and I don't feel I'm the only one who'll be doing this.
Roger Waters supports fox hunting?
-
Real Pink in the Inside
- Judge!
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
- Location: The Dark Side of Neptune
They're bloody foxes.
Some feel they are in touch with their nature and past through the act of hunting. Some people like to hunt for pleasure. I don't like hunting, but I respect other's rights to hunt if they choose to. Humans have been hunting since the beginning, and I am sure some did indeed hunt "for sport." Why should those who do not like hunting be able to say to those who do like hunting, "you're not allowed to hunt anymore"? Are any humans being harmed by the act of fox hunting? No.
Fox hunting is not the most pressing issue on the face of the planet. I'm surprised a lot of people in England are making such a big deal out of it. Are there not more serious issues to attend to?
Some feel they are in touch with their nature and past through the act of hunting. Some people like to hunt for pleasure. I don't like hunting, but I respect other's rights to hunt if they choose to. Humans have been hunting since the beginning, and I am sure some did indeed hunt "for sport." Why should those who do not like hunting be able to say to those who do like hunting, "you're not allowed to hunt anymore"? Are any humans being harmed by the act of fox hunting? No.
Fox hunting is not the most pressing issue on the face of the planet. I'm surprised a lot of people in England are making such a big deal out of it. Are there not more serious issues to attend to?
-
dgsyd1
- Knife
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 1:52 am
- Location: Michigan, US
I don't agree with Roger's stand on Fox hunting, but I applaud him for standing up for what he believes in. It certainly beats the political correctness that seems to be rampant in the music buisness at the moment, when artists seem to become affliated with whatever charity is in fashion at that particular moment.
-
KingFox
- Embryo
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:06 pm
Hello I note your mention of ‘bloody foxes’ so I feel before I reply that I am not going to get much sympathy toward any argument against bloodsports, however in any discussion of foxhunting we are however dealing with something that is more than just to do with keeping pests down. In order to control predators we do not need to see the spectacle of hoards of braying people with braying dogs pursuing one small creature. Have you ever seen a fox being ripped apart by hounds? The sight and the screams are terrible.
Hunting is as old as time, in ancient societies the hunter had to honour the land, he was not permitted to go into the forest without offering prayers nor was he allowed to be disrespectful to the land or its creatures. What we are observing in the hunting community is gratuitous killing for pleasure. It is mentioned that the fox does this, but the fox is an animal, we are supposed to be civilised people. as I have touched upon before, it has actually been said by some pro hunting lobbyists that animals enjoy being hunted; here if we take these arguments to the logical conclusion where exploitation of animals is concerned we are reminded when we are told that animals have no feelings, that this is exactly what they said of the Negro slaves in the Deep South of the US before abolition. At that time countless arguments were raised so that these abuses could be continued.
It is not what we do to animals and the land, it is the spectacle such people make of themselves. It is not what we do, but why we do it.
We are also told that the instinct to hunt is natural and thus we should act on our instincts, however, we as humans have many instincts, as said we have the instinct to kill, to rape and to maim, do we also act on these? It is no more permissible to abuse and exploit other life forms than it is each other… Man in his arrogance has assumed that due to his intellect he is superior, but this is a dominist attitude not shared by the older and wiser peoples who see modern man as being totally out of balance with nature, without any understanding of the true nature and meaning of the hunt in tribal society, and indeed modern Western man is regarded by these peoples as being the ‘little brother’, who has no more sense than the child who pulls the wings of flies. Therefore, while as I have pointed out earlier, balance has to be maintained, it should be done as humanely as possible, and with due respect for the animal/s right to life. I thought Mr. Waters out of all people, a great musician and poet, especially when considering the depth and meaning in his work, would acknowledge this.
And finally, do we not brutalise ourselves by the disgusting spectacle of pursuing a small frightened creature to its death for pleasure? As for the fox hunting minority being a minority as Mr. Waters says, yes, it is, but it is a most privileged minority, and before you say to me that my statements precede from an envy of privilege, that is not so. Those who honour a position of privilege in modern society should be entrusted and respected not to abuse that privilege, otherwise they are not worthy to possess it. These are the ancient laws of sovereignty of this land, going back to a time when the ruling classes were expected to apply the laws of balance and harmony, a monarch or head of state had to be worthy of that right, admittedly these traditions belong to an extremely distant time in the Western world, but they have still been acknowledged in tribal societies to this day.
As I mentioned before hunting was an ancient and noble tribal tradition in societies which had to hunt to eat and to live for thousands of years in the past, but hunting for necessity and hunting for cruel sport are two extremely different things. You are right that foxhunting does not harm people (although my brother and sister in law would disagree with you, after their very unpleasant experience with foxhunters), so therefore should it follow that concerned individuals should not express outrage at these overt acts of cruelty, which are being undertaken in this country with the backing of a privileged few? This point too, taken to its logical conclusion, I should therefore not be concerned about bear baiting, the extinction of wild animals, illegal dog fighting or any such abuses that go on today, merely because it does not harm people. It could also be argued that pollution and deforestation etc does not directly harm people, at least people in the West, and therefore one has no moral right to protest against this either.
Finally foxhunting as you rightly say is not the most pressing issue on this planet or in the UK, but how do you know that I am not involved in protesting against these other ‘serious issues’ too?
Hunting is as old as time, in ancient societies the hunter had to honour the land, he was not permitted to go into the forest without offering prayers nor was he allowed to be disrespectful to the land or its creatures. What we are observing in the hunting community is gratuitous killing for pleasure. It is mentioned that the fox does this, but the fox is an animal, we are supposed to be civilised people. as I have touched upon before, it has actually been said by some pro hunting lobbyists that animals enjoy being hunted; here if we take these arguments to the logical conclusion where exploitation of animals is concerned we are reminded when we are told that animals have no feelings, that this is exactly what they said of the Negro slaves in the Deep South of the US before abolition. At that time countless arguments were raised so that these abuses could be continued.
It is not what we do to animals and the land, it is the spectacle such people make of themselves. It is not what we do, but why we do it.
We are also told that the instinct to hunt is natural and thus we should act on our instincts, however, we as humans have many instincts, as said we have the instinct to kill, to rape and to maim, do we also act on these? It is no more permissible to abuse and exploit other life forms than it is each other… Man in his arrogance has assumed that due to his intellect he is superior, but this is a dominist attitude not shared by the older and wiser peoples who see modern man as being totally out of balance with nature, without any understanding of the true nature and meaning of the hunt in tribal society, and indeed modern Western man is regarded by these peoples as being the ‘little brother’, who has no more sense than the child who pulls the wings of flies. Therefore, while as I have pointed out earlier, balance has to be maintained, it should be done as humanely as possible, and with due respect for the animal/s right to life. I thought Mr. Waters out of all people, a great musician and poet, especially when considering the depth and meaning in his work, would acknowledge this.
And finally, do we not brutalise ourselves by the disgusting spectacle of pursuing a small frightened creature to its death for pleasure? As for the fox hunting minority being a minority as Mr. Waters says, yes, it is, but it is a most privileged minority, and before you say to me that my statements precede from an envy of privilege, that is not so. Those who honour a position of privilege in modern society should be entrusted and respected not to abuse that privilege, otherwise they are not worthy to possess it. These are the ancient laws of sovereignty of this land, going back to a time when the ruling classes were expected to apply the laws of balance and harmony, a monarch or head of state had to be worthy of that right, admittedly these traditions belong to an extremely distant time in the Western world, but they have still been acknowledged in tribal societies to this day.
As I mentioned before hunting was an ancient and noble tribal tradition in societies which had to hunt to eat and to live for thousands of years in the past, but hunting for necessity and hunting for cruel sport are two extremely different things. You are right that foxhunting does not harm people (although my brother and sister in law would disagree with you, after their very unpleasant experience with foxhunters), so therefore should it follow that concerned individuals should not express outrage at these overt acts of cruelty, which are being undertaken in this country with the backing of a privileged few? This point too, taken to its logical conclusion, I should therefore not be concerned about bear baiting, the extinction of wild animals, illegal dog fighting or any such abuses that go on today, merely because it does not harm people. It could also be argued that pollution and deforestation etc does not directly harm people, at least people in the West, and therefore one has no moral right to protest against this either.
Finally foxhunting as you rightly say is not the most pressing issue on this planet or in the UK, but how do you know that I am not involved in protesting against these other ‘serious issues’ too?
-
bong
- Hammer
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:44 am
- Gender: Male
-
KingFox
- Embryo
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:06 pm
-
bong
- Hammer
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:44 am
- Gender: Male
If you don't like it don't do it. Don't try and push your beliefs on other people.KingFox wrote:Look at my posts above Bong as you'll see what is wrong with foxhunting, and I'm not going to write all that again!
Foxhunting is cruel and involves the lowest and most basal aspects of human nature in action (sadism), and should be made illegal.
Do you like it when people come up to you and try to get you to join their religious cult??
Not bloody likely
Do you like it when people tell you that the things you like to do are bad??
I don't think you do.
Why don't you stop trying to make everybody else like yourself and let people be the way they want.
-
KingFox
- Embryo
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:06 pm
Bong said "Do you like it when people tell you that the things you like to do are bad??
I don't think you do."
Your words here are akin to what I would expect to hear from a child having a tantrum, not an adult.
I don't like seeing people getting a buzz out of animals being ripped apart for the hell of it, plain and simple, and it should be made illegal to do this.
I am a professional person and in all my years of debating this with foxhunters no one has ever spoken to me like you have before. It is obvious that you cannot argue your case, but there's no need to resort to insults. It just shows you up, as well as the foxhunting lobby.
I won't be coming here again.
I don't think you do."
Your words here are akin to what I would expect to hear from a child having a tantrum, not an adult.
I don't like seeing people getting a buzz out of animals being ripped apart for the hell of it, plain and simple, and it should be made illegal to do this.
I am a professional person and in all my years of debating this with foxhunters no one has ever spoken to me like you have before. It is obvious that you cannot argue your case, but there's no need to resort to insults. It just shows you up, as well as the foxhunting lobby.
I won't be coming here again.
-
bong
- Hammer
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:44 am
- Gender: Male
You can think whatever you want about me, you don't know who I am so any assumptions you make about me are pure speculation.KingFox wrote:Bong said "Do you like it when people tell you that the things you like to do are bad??
I don't think you do."
Your words here are akin to what I would expect to hear from a child having a tantrum, not an adult.
I will ask you again, do you like it when people tell you that something you enjoy is bad??
I certainly do not. I guess I can't say the same for you.
Yeah I'm sure you've had many wonderful, open minded debates with foxhunters about this topic. If it were possible which its not bloody likely, I'd like to have a chance to converse with these people to see what you were like. I'm sure you never interupted them, never yelled, didn't do or say anything to make them feel like they were "bad". And after you completely changed their views on Fox Hunting and turned them against it, and they began to cry like little children thinking of the lives of all the foxes they've ended you offered your shoulder for them to cry on and said "there there you're a GOOD person now, you're not going to go to hell anymore".KingFox wrote:I don't like seeing people getting a buzz out of animals being ripped apart for the hell of it, plain and simple, and it should be made illegal to do this.
I am a professional person and in all my years of debating this with foxhunters no one has ever spoken to me like you have before.
I may have gotten a little hot under the collar, but aside from that, I think that I brought up some valid points that, while not to do with fox hunting could be compared to what is going on here. People like you don't like fox hunting, good for you. Religious people, dare I call them "Jesus freaks" don't like all the sin and debauchery going on in the world.KingFox wrote:It is obvious that you cannot argue your case, but there's no need to resort to insults. It just shows you up, as well as the foxhunting lobby.
I won't be coming here again.
There are people who enjoy fox hunting and you tell them they should not.
There are people who enjoy their so called sin and debauchery and the religious freaks tell them they should not.
A valid comparison?? I think so.
Insults huh?? I don't believe that you've never insulted anyone in any kind of argument. Yes, I did insult you, can you honestly say that you've never done the same?? I doubt it.
-
KingFox
- Embryo
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:06 pm
Bong's violent outbursts
Bong said "Yeah I'm sure you've had many wonderful, open minded debates with foxhunters about this topic. If it were possible which its not bloody likely, I'd like to have a chance to converse with these people to see what you were like. I'm sure you never interupted them, never yelled, didn't do or say anything to make them feel like they were "bad". And after you completely changed their views on Fox Hunting and turned them against it, and they began to cry like little children thinking of the lives of all the foxes they've ended you offered your shoulder for them to cry on and said "there there you're a GOOD person now, you're not going to go to hell anymore".
You need help Bong, you're not all there.
You need help Bong, you're not all there.
-
bong
- Hammer
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:44 am
- Gender: Male
Re: Bong's violent outbursts
How dare you make these accusations against me. You don't know me.KingFox wrote:Bong said "Yeah I'm sure you've had many wonderful, open minded debates with foxhunters about this topic. If it were possible which its not bloody likely, I'd like to have a chance to converse with these people to see what you were like. I'm sure you never interupted them, never yelled, didn't do or say anything to make them feel like they were "bad". And after you completely changed their views on Fox Hunting and t
urned them against it, and they began to cry like little children thinking of the lives of all the foxes they've ended you offered your shoulder for them to cry on and said "there there you're a GOOD person now, you're not going to go to hell anymore".
You need help Bong, you're not all there.
What the hell is wrong with what I said?? What, in that statement makes you think that "I'm not all there"? Could you not find something else in my post to bother with that you had to make that pathetic attempt at a flame??
Talk about a liar which you just proved yourself to be.kingfox wrote:I won't be coming here again.
-
KingFox
- Embryo
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:06 pm
Bong with respect you cannot argue your case, all you do is embark in a tirade of swearing and abuse. You say I don't know much about you, well you know nothing about me, yet the first posting you made was full of swear words and insults towards me (now deleted fortunately) and I hadn't even heard of you at that time. This is not healthy behaviour.
Furthermore I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK who want cruel sports banned and the majority of MPs in the UK Parliament who voted for a ban are not religious maniacs as you seem to believe they are. In respect of your claim please give me some statistics! I'd be very interested.
Finally I've hardly said anything to you, yet as you yourself mention (being 'hot under the collar' ) you have launched into tirades of abuse and rage from your first posting here. Control yourself man for goodness sake.
Furthermore I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK who want cruel sports banned and the majority of MPs in the UK Parliament who voted for a ban are not religious maniacs as you seem to believe they are. In respect of your claim please give me some statistics! I'd be very interested.
Finally I've hardly said anything to you, yet as you yourself mention (being 'hot under the collar' ) you have launched into tirades of abuse and rage from your first posting here. Control yourself man for goodness sake.
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
I support hunting for one reason and one reason only...to feed. If you eat what you hunt, I have no problem with it. If you're just hunting for trophy or skin...then I feel that you should be hunted, as well.kjnpf wrote:Hunting is natural and humans have done it since the beginning of our time. Why stop now because we are apes in suits or jeans?? Is it not a natural part of the human male as is sexual reproduction? Should we have our right to be a natural human being taken away by... a government?
Surly it is a matter of personal choice? If your morals say hunting is not to be done, what gives people the right to stop others whose morals say it is okay?
Rabbits and foxes are pests. They can cause issues for farmers.
Keith, you touch upon something here that I'm going to take on a bit of a tangent, though it will still apply.
Too many people turn to the law for things that the law should not be used for...issues of "morality" for instance.
It's very simple...once you attempt to legislate morality, it ceases to be moral. No one has the right to attempt to force anyone to believe as they believe. No one has the right to stuff their beliefs down your throat and insist that you comply with them.
NO ONE!! (Except the administrator of this board, of course.
)Another error in thinking that is made in regards to law is this:
Law is not a preventative measure, it simply allows for punishment once and offense has ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED!!
A law against theft is not designed to stop theivery, only to provide for punishment once a theif has been apprehended.
Preventative measures are the responsibility of the individual. This is what people are trying to avoid. It seems that the vast majority of sheep do not want to take responsibility for their own lives and their own minds. They'd much rather be told what to do and how to think.
Unfortunately, no one seems to remember that that was exactly how the average German citizen felt in the 1930's and early 1940's which is what allowed for the rise of Hitler. (No offense to present day German's out there...you guys have different circumstances these days and your country is certainly no longer a facist regime.)
I used to see a therapist and he pinpointed my desire to run "outside of the herd." While he had no problem with this, he did point out that "there is safety in the herd."
Sure there is...until your shepherd leads you to the slaughterhouse. And this is where all leaders lead.
The man of true integrity neither leads nor follows. He cuts his own path and leaves it for others to decide if they want to follow it or not.
What does it say about humanity that most people seem to prefer living in a police state rather than take responsibility for their own lives?
-
Spinoza
- Hammer
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm
As long as King Fox can not come up with some really good fundated arguments ( which his given arguments are NOT ), i can join Bong's statement.bong wrote:[
If you don't like it don't do it. Don't try and push your beliefs on other people.
Do you like it when people come up to you and try to get you to join their religious cult??
Not bloody likely
Do you like it when people tell you that the things you like to do are bad??
I don't think you do.
Why don't you stop trying to make everybody else like yourself and let people be the way they want.
-
Spinoza
- Hammer
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm
Mosespa wrote: " It's very simple...once you attempt to legislate morality, it ceases to be moral. No one has the right to attempt to force anyone to believe as they believe. No one has the right to stuff their beliefs down your throat and insist that you comply with them. "
I have heard that argument many times before, and i think it is valid in some cases. But you know that morality tells us was is a value and what is not. Values like: love, rightiousness, liberty, equality. Problem now is that are own law is based on such moral values, mostly in the west remains of roman/greek and christian values/religion. Values could change because of new interpretations of the bible or because of soc/economic studies ( eg. Slavery was put aside because A. Smith descovered that slaves produce less than "free" men. )
It's really not that simple to know what is a moral case and what is not.
I have heard that argument many times before, and i think it is valid in some cases. But you know that morality tells us was is a value and what is not. Values like: love, rightiousness, liberty, equality. Problem now is that are own law is based on such moral values, mostly in the west remains of roman/greek and christian values/religion. Values could change because of new interpretations of the bible or because of soc/economic studies ( eg. Slavery was put aside because A. Smith descovered that slaves produce less than "free" men. )
It's really not that simple to know what is a moral case and what is not.