Roger Waters supports fox hunting?

bong · Post by **bong** » Mon Dec 23, 2002 6:24 am

catch22_love23 wrote: I would not allow the killing of animals (or humans). I don't care how much fun it is for some people to kill them. I also don't care that people like to eat them.

Question, with all the steroids that go into animals to make them grow faster and bigger, and genetically engineered food wouldn't you rather eat something that was not full of chemicals??
Last year in one of my ecology lectures at school the professor told us that the average life span of a chicken in a "factory farm" is 2 weeks from the time it hatches to the time it is killed for its meet. And it is fully grown when slaughtered. Yes thats 2 weeks. I don't know about you but I'd rather eat a wild turkey or any other type of wild fowl thats been alive for more than that amount of time than eat something that will probably end up giving me cancer or some other weird disease because of the chemicals and crap that they use to make them grow faster.

. But if I were in charge, since I'd have that power (ha ha ha) I would just go ahead and make killing illigal. Of course, the punishment for that crime would be death.

I've got nothing against the death penalty, but I find it weird that you would "ban all killing" yet you would have people put to death for killing other people and animals.
Does this mean that the executioners would then have to be killed ??
Thusly having the second set of executioners killed as well??? And so on, or would you rather force the second set of executioners to commit suicide inorder to prevent the further deaths?

catch22_love23 · Post by **catch22_love23** » Mon Dec 23, 2002 11:40 am

bong wrote: "I'd rather eat a wild turkey or any other type of wild fowl ...than eat something that will probably end up giving me cancer or some other weird disease because of the chemicals and crap that they use to make them grow faster."

Just because I would ban killing of animals does not mean that I'm in favor of those creepy, disgusting death culture factories of poison and cruelty...I wouldn't touch the meat of those sad, diseased animals with a ten-foot rabies shot. Excuse the exaggeration, but really, the stuff made me sick everytime I ate it so now I don't eat it. Perhaps I would eat free-range meat but it's not a big priority to get some...or to hunt some.

bong said: "Does this mean that the executioners would then have to be killed ?? Thusly having the second set of executioners killed as well??? And so on, or would you rather force the second set of executioners to commit suicide inorder to prevent the further deaths?"

No, I'd just keep it the way it is now. Outlaw murder except for state-sanctioned murder. Hypocracy seems to work quite well, doesn't it? That was my 1st idea, but here's the 2nd: I would not put people to death for putting animals or people to death, I would let them live in an area of land with the kind of humans and animals who like to be hunted and killed. That way, they'd have a symbiotic relationship and it would be a win-win for everyone.

Does anyone know how to make the quote thing work if you want to quote someone twice or two different people in the same reply?

Post by **mosespa** » Mon Dec 23, 2002 6:49 pm

Hit the "quote" button...then copy and paste the commands where you want them.

Post by **mosespa** » Mon Dec 23, 2002 6:52 pm

catch22_love23 wrote:But if I were in charge, since I'd have that power (ha ha ha) I would just go ahead and make killing illigal. Of course, the punishment for that crime would be death.

This goes back to something I have said before.

Just in case you might have missed it...killing already IS illegal. There are laws against murder...they don't seem to work very well, do they. I mean since murder still occurs numerous times every day.

Real Pink in the Inside · Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:36 pm

mosespa wrote:
catch22_love23 wrote:But if I were in charge, since I'd have that power (ha ha ha) I would just go ahead and make killing illigal. Of course, the punishment for that crime would be death.

This goes back to something I have said before.

Just in case you might have missed it...killing already IS illegal. There are laws against murder...they don't seem to work very well, do they. I mean since murder still occurs numerous times every day.

Great points. Also, what good is the death penalty? While it is true that it has prevented murderers from murdering again, imprisoning those same individuals for life will more often than not yield the same result. Capital punishment has also resulted in the deaths of innocent people IN THIS VERY COUNTRY. No justice system is perfect, and innocent people are imprisoned daily. The government should not be able to kill an innocent individual. Capital punishment should be abolished RIGHT NOW, before the government can kill another innocent human being.

bong · Post by **bong** » Mon Dec 23, 2002 11:34 pm

Real Pink in the Inside wrote:
mosespa wrote: This goes back to something I have said before.
Just in case you might have missed it...killing already IS illegal. There are laws against murder...they don't seem to work very well, do they. I mean since murder still occurs numerous times every day.
Great points. Also, what good is the death penalty? While it is true that it has prevented murderers from murdering again, imprisoning those same individuals for life will more often than not yield the same result. Capital punishment has also resulted in the deaths of innocent people IN THIS VERY COUNTRY. No justice system is perfect, and innocent people are imprisoned daily. The government should not be able to kill an innocent individual. Capital punishment should be abolished RIGHT NOW, before the government can kill another innocent human being.

Governments don't need capital pnishment to kill people. Look at Kent State in Ohio for example. They just need what they deem as a good reason to "use necessary force" to disperse people that are just trying to exercise their right to protest.

HIRAWS!!

flashback · Post by **flashback** » Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:48 pm

As I said earlier most fox hunters I've known don't kill foxs.As for killing other animals man will never stop and besides I love deer meat.Did you know there is a condition in the real native Americans where they can't eat beef so they have to eat deer,buffalo or something else?

rollinder · Post by **rollinder** » Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:33 pm

flashback wrote

As I said earlier most fox hunters I've known don't kill foxs.

This is the kind of fox hunting Roger's supporting

http://banhunting.rspca.org.uk/

Real Pink in the Inside · Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:43 pm

catch22_love23 wrote:This reply is very general - sorry for that. However, if I were the King or the Queen of the Universe, and got to make up all the laws of the land, I would not allow the killing of animals

So you would not allow ANY animal to kill another animal, and if they do so you will kill them? You will then end up killing more animals than you can imagine!

Someone I know posted this on another board. I think it is better than any post I've read in this thread so far:

"The fox itself is one of nature's most accomplished 'bloodsportsmen.' It hunts for fun and for food. It stalks and then kills voles, mice, nesting birds, ducklings, domesticated fowl, etc. Imagine being a tiny vole chased by a fox, its bared incisors glistening with saliva, ready to rip you apart. Is the vole's 'terror' any less than that experienced by the fox? If not, then does killing the fox actually create less suffering? Maybe 100 voles, or 50 mice, or several clutches of duck eggs are spared this 'terror' as you call it.

A red fox ripped to pieces a litter of week-old kittens at my uncle's farm in Wolverhampton. That the fox itself is one day pursued and killed by a more cunning and clever animal (Actually 3 animals working in concert: man, horse, and dog) is to me something of a reflection of the natural order of things. Notice the dogs don't have any qualms about it and they bear more than a passing kinship to the fox. The hunter eventually becomes the hunted. People simply live too far from the land now and have taken to "moralizing" the natural way of things, trying to lay an artifice of human emotions onto the ways of animals. To me, it's utter folly."

catch22_love23 · Post by **catch22_love23** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:41 am

Real Pink in the Inside wrote:
catch22_love23 wrote:This reply is very general - sorry for that. However, if I were the King or the Queen of the Universe, and got to make up all the laws of the land, I would not allow the killing of animals

So you would not allow ANY animal to kill another animal, and if they do so you will kill them? You will then end up killing more animals than you can imagine! "

I was talking about humans killing, not animals killing- sorry to not have made that clear, but then again I thought it was fairly obvious...

Post by **mosespa** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:42 am

Yes, I agree, R.PITI.

It is one of the great folly's of man that we keep ascribing human attributes to things that are not human.

We ascribe human emotions to animals, to god, even.

All this does is create human arguments where human understanding cannot even go. How can a human understand the "animal" condition?

It's like an apple trying to understand an orange.

Or is that just TOO ducked up of a concept?

Real Pink in the Inside · Thu Dec 26, 2002 1:22 am

catch22_love23 wrote:
Real Pink in the Inside wrote: So you would not allow ANY animal to kill another animal, and if they do so you will kill them? You will then end up killing more animals than you can imagine! "

I was talking about humans killing, not animals killing- sorry to not have made that clear, but then again I thought it was fairly obvious...

So what should be done if, for example, a tiger "goes mad" and decides to kill every human in sight?

flashback · Post by **flashback** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 2:59 am

rollinder wanted to know if this was the kind of fox hunting Roger supports, I don't know why don't you ask him. How many dogs and cats does the RSPCA kill a year in the UK?

Spinoza · Post by **Spinoza** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:39 pm

Very nice quote, RPITI !!!

catch22_love23 · Post by **catch22_love23** » Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:32 pm

My original post was done in a poker-face humor sort of way. Also, I was half kidding and half trying to show you something. If you want to continue to rip it apart, go right on ahead. However, I don't have the luxury of sitting around, thinking of perfect arguments for other Pink Floyd fans. Usually, I have to be on the fly - that is, running around to jobs and also to friends (in person) as well as to music rehearsals, helping the older members of the family, etc., etc., etc....

Is it a cultural thing or do you just not have a very good sense of humor? I'm sorry for you. Hope you can find some fun things to do with your life. You have successfully alienated another Pink Floyd fan when you really did not need to. Please don't be so mean-spirited to people who pop up here. I just pity you and your misery (that seems like you need to spread...). Hope you feel better soon.
P.S. This whole thing seems like a fox-hunt in a way, doesn't it? A pack of dogs jumping on a fox - Good Job, Real Pink, go get her, girl! Rip her apart! Yeah! Go for the jugular!! Yeah! Woo Hoo!

Please, girl, get a life.

Roger Waters supports fox hunting?

Should fox hunting be allowed?