Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
When have I suggested a Beatrix Potter view?rjsterry said:
Foxes (like domestic cats and probably a few others) don't only hunt/kill to feed. Ask anyone who's seen the aftermath when a fox has got into a henhouse.morstar said:
Hunting as a means to live is not the same as hunting as a form of ‘expression’.rjsterry said:pinno said:
It would be your fault for keeping a rabbit in an enclosure that was susceptible to foxes. If you were hungry and in my garden and I left some sausages out...rjsterry said:
No I don't think it is. Not sure how charitable I would be if one had got in with my rabbits, though. I think I'd prioritise the welfare of the rabbits.awavey said:
ah sorry misunderstood, and yes you are right urban foxes arent remotely fussed about being around people and will happily approach you, and also as your photo shows happy to wander around in the daytime too, and whilst they arent cute fury friendly animals by any stretch of the imagination, neither are rats, bashing their heads in with a baseball bat isnt on imorjsterry said:
I was referring to the ideai that urban foxes don't approach people, which is nonsense.
Maugham should have picked a more sturdy mesh for his chicken run and certainly should have stayed off twitter, but the idea that foxes are cute little furries that wouldn't hurt a fly is misguided. If it was a rat he'd killed there wouldn't be a word of protest.
Rights are a human invention. You very quickly run into difficulties applying them to animals: why should a fox not be hunted if it itself has a right to hunt as a normal expression of its behaviour.
If you accept that humans have an absolute right to do anything they want to anything that isn’t human then dog baiting etc. should be allowed.
Fortunately, the world is not that binary. Some pretty disgusting things are done to animals legally and some things are illegal. The boundaries are very inconsistent but there are boundaries in a civilised society.
Most people agree living creatures deserve some form of protection from abuse so no, the fox shouldn’t expect to be hunted unless it is by something hunting it to eat it. And no fox hunting isn’t a dog feeding exercise.
On the other hand, humans are quite capable of killing animals, whether for food, population control or other reason, without abusing them or inflicting unnecessary suffering. I'm not remotely pro-hunting, but I do think people need to get away from the Beatrix Potter view of the natural world.
My first post on the matter was that death and killing animals is part an parcel of being around animals.
Here’s the thing. Given chance, the fox will go back and get all the dead chickens to eventually eat. It’s not a random display of brutality.
Cats kill to eat. That they fine tune their hunting skills in the process may be difficult for us to understand but again, they don’t randomly kill for no reason.
Hunting to eat isn’t for me but I have no issue with it as it is natural. Justifying hunting an animal for no reason other than that animal itself hunts is absurd.
How are you framing it? Punishment, teaching them a lesson, revenge? Why wouldn’t same apply to humans who have the power of reasoning?0 -
Edited a post and lost it.
In short.
No BP from me. First post I made on subject was that death is part and parcel of being around animals.
Fox will go back and get the chickens given opportunity. It doesn’t get the opportunity.
Cats practice their hunting by playing but then eat, don’t hunt for fun.
Hunting for food fine. Hunting for no reason, not fine.
If an animal being a hunter is justification for hunting it, same applies to humans who have power of reasoning.
You seem to want to Judge and punish an animal killing when following its instincts but excuse a human killing for self gratification.0 -
Thank you. I thought same about your post!pinno said:
Morstar made very valid points (more eloquently than I did) and in doing, did not express any 'Beatrix Potter' view.rjsterry said:... but I do think people need to get away from the Beatrix Potter view of the natural world.
My last post is definitely rubbish due to technical incompetence with its predecessor.
0 -
I've not made myself clear then.morstar said:Edited a post and lost it.
In short.
No BP from me. First post I made on subject was that death is part and parcel of being around animals.
Fox will go back and get the chickens given opportunity. It doesn’t get the opportunity.
Cats practice their hunting by playing but then eat, don’t hunt for fun.
Hunting for food fine. Hunting for no reason, not fine.
If an animal being a hunter is justification for hunting it, same applies to humans who have power of reasoning.
You seem to want to Judge and punish an animal killing when following its instincts but excuse a human killing for self gratification.
Killing a fox that is threatening livestock is primarily protecting the livestock. It's nothing to do with punishment, which is a meaningless concept to apply to wild animals. If you prioritise the fox's welfare, then that is saying that we should give a lesser status to domesticated animals than we do to wild animals. I can't think of a good justification for that position.
Secondly, I'm not saying that the fox's instincts to kill justify or excuse hunting it for ''sport'. But it does illustrate that the 'only for food' distinction is one that we have created*. At least some other predators kill for reasons other than food. As another example, Orcas have been filmed killing a humpback whale calf then losing interest and swimming off.
*I don't think this makes it any less valid; I just think that comparing ourselves to other animals' behaviour is a shaky basis for our ethics.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Your points seem very selective and inconsistent both in their own assertions and in context of the discussion.rjsterry said:
I've not made myself clear then.morstar said:Edited a post and lost it.
In short.
No BP from me. First post I made on subject was that death is part and parcel of being around animals.
Fox will go back and get the chickens given opportunity. It doesn’t get the opportunity.
Cats practice their hunting by playing but then eat, don’t hunt for fun.
Hunting for food fine. Hunting for no reason, not fine.
If an animal being a hunter is justification for hunting it, same applies to humans who have power of reasoning.
You seem to want to Judge and punish an animal killing when following its instincts but excuse a human killing for self gratification.
Killing a fox that is threatening livestock is primarily protecting the livestock. It's nothing to do with punishment, which is a meaningless concept to apply to wild animals. If you prioritise the fox's welfare, then that is saying that we should give a lesser status to domesticated animals than we do to wild animals. I can't think of a good justification for that position.
Secondly, I'm not saying that the fox's instincts to kill justify or excuse hunting it for ''sport'. But it does illustrate that the 'only for food' distinction is one that we have created*. At least some other predators kill for reasons other than food. As another example, Orcas have been filmed killing a humpback whale calf then losing interest and swimming off.
*I don't think this makes it any less valid; I just think that comparing ourselves to other animals' behaviour is a shaky basis for our ethics.
You denied animals rights and referred to Beatrix Potter views before espousing justifying hunting any animal that itself hunts. That is where I challenged what read as justifying punishment. I agree that is absurd but it seemed to be the argument you were making.
To take your point about protection. Of course an owner of livestock will protect that livestock with potentially lethal means from direct predator threat. Did I say they shouldn’t?
That is not the same as hunting. A fox hunt on a Sunday does not protect chickens killed on a Tuesday.
It is a blood sport for fun with negligible protective merits.
Hunting for food vs sport. Some tenuous and unclear examples of animals hunting not for food given. We have no knowledge of why the humpback whale was the left. Why it was killed. There may have actually been a perceived threat or distraction, or territorial claim. Or as you argue, it could be sport. Regardless, you yourself have made the clear distinction between humans and all other living things so...
With our vastly superior reasoning capabilities, in what way do any of these limited examples justify or excuse our worst behaviour towards animals?
Surely we are capable of recognising death and killing as a fundamental part of nature but not something that should be trivialised and legitimised where it is needless just because it is other creatures.
To take Pinnos point, part of the problem is that we see ourselves as somehow outside or superior to our balanced ecosystem rather than part of it.0 -
This. Watch how humans act in extreme conditions. Look at how we treat our environment. Not so superior.morstar said:
To take Pinnos point, part of the problem is that we see ourselves as somehow outside or superior to our balanced ecosystem rather than part of it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
+ 1,000,000,000,000,000pblakeney said:
This. Watch how humans act in extreme conditions. Look at how we treat our environment. Not so superior.morstar said:
To take Pinnos point, part of the problem is that we see ourselves as somehow outside or superior to our balanced ecosystem rather than part of it.
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.rjsterry said:
I've not made myself clear then.morstar said:Edited a post and lost it.
In short.
No BP from me. First post I made on subject was that death is part and parcel of being around animals.
Fox will go back and get the chickens given opportunity. It doesn’t get the opportunity.
Cats practice their hunting by playing but then eat, don’t hunt for fun.
Hunting for food fine. Hunting for no reason, not fine.
If an animal being a hunter is justification for hunting it, same applies to humans who have power of reasoning.
You seem to want to Judge and punish an animal killing when following its instincts but excuse a human killing for self gratification.
Killing a fox that is threatening livestock is primarily protecting the livestock. It's nothing to do with punishment, which is a meaningless concept to apply to wild animals. If you prioritise the fox's welfare, then that is saying that we should give a lesser status to domesticated animals than we do to wild animals. I can't think of a good justification for that position.
Secondly, I'm not saying that the fox's instincts to kill justify or excuse hunting it for ''sport'. But it does illustrate that the 'only for food' distinction is one that we have created*. At least some other predators kill for reasons other than food. As another example, Orcas have been filmed killing a humpback whale calf then losing interest and swimming off.
*I don't think this makes it any less valid; I just think that comparing ourselves to other animals' behaviour is a shaky basis for our ethics.
Bail out RJS (please).seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Hunting Foxes with horses and dogs is well, just a vicarious and barbaric game. I would also state that it is an extremely ineffective way of killing a fox, seen as over 70% are killed on the road anyway.
Animals killing other animals for no apparent reason: Well, this can only occur in a few situations and humans killing animals: Whales, Dolphins, Tigers, Rhino, Badgers, the Dodo, Fur seals, Elephants, Leopards, Snow Leopards (you get my point) is totally disproportionate to those animals killing for no apparent reason.
Animals killing other animals for whatever reason, has not been a factor in species collapse. Worse than the killing of animals is the destruction of habitat. Only humans have this capacity.
We are adept at destroying the fabric to which we live on to survive.
RJS - you make out that Foxes are some highly dangerous predator yet I have given example of how benign the Fox really is given pesticides, habitat destruction, soil deprivation through intensive farming etc. All of the above is human impact.
We put pressure on native species through habitat procurement, dangle prey in front of it's face and then complain when it does what is can to survive.
Strange if you think this is a Beatrix Potter view.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Our cats often kill things and don’t eat them. However I have never seen them rub blood on each other’s faces after killing something, then go down the pub and boast about their killing.
0 -
Is that before or after sticking their knob into a pig's mouth?0
-
They usually leave that to the foxes, they tend have less disinhibitions when they’ve had a drink.0
-
Nothing like a bit of leftie bile on a Saturday night
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bloody hell, the Beatrix Potter comment wasn't aimed at you or morstar. The original incident was about a guy killing a fox that was close to killing his chickens. A lot of the reaction to that seemed to come from a very naive view of the natural world, which viewed humans as the sole source of all brutality. If the chickens got it in the neck, it was their evil owner's fault for putting them in harm's way. If the owner killed the fox to protect the livestock he was murderous savage in favour of fox hunting.pinno said:Hunting Foxes with horses and dogs is well, just a vicarious and barbaric game. I would also state that it is an extremely ineffective way of killing a fox, seen as over 70% are killed on the road anyway.
Animals killing other animals for no apparent reason: Well, this can only occur in a few situations and humans killing animals: Whales, Dolphins, Tigers, Rhino, Badgers, the Dodo, Fur seals, Elephants, Leopards, Snow Leopards (you get my point) is totally disproportionate to those animals killing for no apparent reason.
Animals killing other animals for whatever reason, has not been a factor in species collapse. Worse than the killing of animals is the destruction of habitat. Only humans have this capacity.
We are adept at destroying the fabric to which we live on to survive.
RJS - you make out that Foxes are some highly dangerous predator yet I have given example of how benign the Fox really is given pesticides, habitat destruction, soil deprivation through intensive farming etc. All of the above is human impact.
We put pressure on native species through habitat procurement, dangle prey in front of it's face and then complain when it does what is can to survive.
Strange if you think this is a Beatrix Potter view.
I've obviously made my points very badly, so one last try: 1. (the rest of) nature is every bit as brutal as mankind - if anything more so, as we have evolved (in most cases) some degree of empathy for other species as well as our own. 2. We don't need to compare our behaviour with other animals to arrive at the conclusion that killing animals for sport - whether it is fox hunting, hare coursing (sp?), or some grinning idiot sat on top of a dead lion - is pretty disgusting and ignores part of what makes us human. 3. I think there are some legitimate reasons to kill other animals, whether that's for food, protection, euthanasia or population management and in those cases this should be done as humanely as is practicable.
The environmental damage and the impact on other species, that mankind has caused is not really related to Maugham bashing a fox over the head, but I can see how a denial of that impact goes hand in hand with a careless attitude to other animals. While we are still pretty careless, the really grotesque stuff where we deliberately set out to eradicate a species like the North American bison seems thankfully to be behind us.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
No still not quite sure what your trying to say Rjs, can you re-word it?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
My attempt...pinno said:No still not quite sure what your trying to say Rjs, can you re-word it?
Humans can be arseholes, animals can be arseholes.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Kind of. The key point is that if we weren't human we wouldn't give a damn.pblakeney said:
My attempt...pinno said:No still not quite sure what your trying to say Rjs, can you re-word it?
Humans can be arseholes, animals can be arseholes.
Whether staphylococcus or blue whale, we're all just trying to survive and pass on our genes. We'll all take any advantage we can get - including modifying our environment - regardless of whether that is at the expense of other species. Animals and plants don't live in harmony; those being eaten are just evolving means of protecting themselves as fast as their predators are evolving better ways to eat them. That results in a rough sort of equilibrium.
Unfortunately one species of an otherwise unsuccessful branch of the ape family is an extremely effective predator with an exaggerated ability to modify our environment (although those abilities helped us survive near extinction in prehistory). Like all other predators a period of overpredation will be followed by a population crash as we run out of food. Thankfully, and it seems uniquely within the animal kingdom, the intelligence that allows us to be such effective predators has also allowed us to understand the long term impacts of our behaviour and override our more basic instincts to just take whatever is available. It's just a shame we didn't work it out sooner, although it's all in the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Would I defend my livestock from attack - yes.
Would I batter a trapped fox to death with a baseball bat that my missus keeps in her dressing gown pocket - er..No.0 -
Has the person who commissioned The Masked Singer kept their job?
My missus watches some utter shite, but even she agreed that this was bilge.0 -
"Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you"ballysmate said:Would I defend my livestock from attack - yes.
Would I batter a trapped fox to death with a baseball bat that my missus keeps in her dressing gown pocket - er..No.
How big is her dressing gown pocket?!0 -
Sounds more like a wizard's sleeve to fit in something of that size.step83 said:
"Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you"ballysmate said:Would I defend my livestock from attack - yes.
Would I batter a trapped fox to death with a baseball bat that my missus keeps in her dressing gown pocket - er..No.
How big is her dressing gown pocket?!"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Lol beat me to it Stevo, although I prefer the "empty headlock" euphemism these days. Or is it a metaphor?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds more like a wizard's sleeve to fit in something of that size.step83 said:
"Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you"ballysmate said:Would I defend my livestock from attack - yes.
Would I batter a trapped fox to death with a baseball bat that my missus keeps in her dressing gown pocket - er..No.
How big is her dressing gown pocket?!0 -
Not heard that one beforeshortfall said:
Lol beat me to it Stevo, although I prefer the "empty headlock" euphemism these days. Or is it a metaphor?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds more like a wizard's sleeve to fit in something of that size.step83 said:
"Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you"ballysmate said:Would I defend my livestock from attack - yes.
Would I batter a trapped fox to death with a baseball bat that my missus keeps in her dressing gown pocket - er..No.
How big is her dressing gown pocket?!
The other one I remember from a while back in the North East was 'like throwing sausages down the Tyne Tunnel'."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Lolz. Like saving your arm in a warm room. We better stop it before Titiana gets on our case too!Stevo_666 said:
Not heard that one beforeshortfall said:
Lol beat me to it Stevo, although I prefer the "empty headlock" euphemism these days. Or is it a metaphor?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds more like a wizard's sleeve to fit in something of that size.step83 said:
"Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you"ballysmate said:Would I defend my livestock from attack - yes.
Would I batter a trapped fox to death with a baseball bat that my missus keeps in her dressing gown pocket - er..No.
How big is her dressing gown pocket?!
The other one I remember from a while back in the North East was 'like throwing sausages down the Tyne Tunnel'.0 -
Found out earlier, you can legally drive while wearing headphones.
This was after seeing someone wearing a big set of cans while nearly mowing down some people at a crossing.0 -
step83 said:
Found out earlier, you can legally drive while wearing headphones.
This was after seeing someone wearing a big set of cans while nearly mowing down some people at a crossing.
Of course you can. If not, it would mean the deaf could not drive. When I passed my test I had to read a number plate not hear any sound.
I assume there would still be an offence if it could be proved that there was a distraction. But how to prove that if there is no way to show volume level?0 -
The main question is, why wear them in the first place?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nagging wife next to you?pblakeney said:The main question is, why wear them in the first place?
1 -
Well, we can guess what she would be nagging about. 😉ballysmate said:
Nagging wife next to you?pblakeney said:The main question is, why wear them in the first place?
But seriously, the one guy that I saw doing this was alone.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
