Countryside Alliance holds personal data on opponents
Gareth Crawshaw
"The Countryside Alliance holds personal information on its opponents,
including data obtained from sources such as private detectives, political
groups and the police. A 27-page entry on the data protection register
reveals that the pro-hunt group also discloses information on its opponents
to the police, the prison service, the Home Office and Customs and Excise
among others."
(http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_700969.html?menu=news.politics)
The CA has one thing on its mind, which we all know and that is hunting
(with dogs - damn that curse: from now on I'm going to abbreviate it to
Hunting (WD)).
I take it we can therefore include the CA in all our conspiracy/big brother
theories, after all, the CA does represent the monnied city empowered
minority...
Gareth.
Gareth Crawshaw
"Huge" <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
news:aq46om$bvq$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aq46df$6ahm6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >The CA (formerly known as Field Sports Association) apparantly...
> >
> >"The Countryside Alliance holds personal information on its opponents,
>
Would you object to carrying an identity card as a matter of law. What are
the implications: I can just see the racial implications of inner city youth
being targeted for ID card harrassment... It is a question of privacy. As
soon as we start saying "okay, you can store private information about me,
but they cannot because I know that REAlly, you are not interested and won't
use it because you say so but you want to keep hold of it because that's the
friendly kind of guardian that you are..." Come on! There are pros and cons
to the storage of personal information: a political movement such as the CA
has absolutely no place storing personal information - what use can it
possibly have for it other than potential leverage.
I will re-include this address:
(http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_700969.html?menu=news.politics)
> >The CA has one thing on its mind, which we all know and that is hunting
>
> Only in the minds of it's opponents.
And the minds of those people who signed up and joined the Field Sports
Association
> [3 lines snipped]
You snipped the bit about the fact that it used to be known as the Field
Sports Association but changed its name to attract a broader audience while
at the same time, that audience did not really know the history or the
founding principle of the association
> >I take it we can therefore include the CA in all our conspiracy/big
brother
> >theories, after all, the CA does represent the monnied city empowered
> >minority...
>
> Only in the minds of those without minds.
Okay. Overly dramatic as a paragraph, but it still does get around the fact
that the CA does not represent the vast majority of either the rural
population or those who have a vested and/or economic interest.in the rural
UK.
Gareth
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White
news:aq46om$bvq$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aq46df$6ahm6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, "Gareth Crawshaw"
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> >"The Countryside Alliance holds personal information on its opponents,
>
>
> [8 lines snipped]
>
> >The CA has one thing on its mind, which we all know and that is hunting
>
>
>
> >I take it we can therefore include the CA in all our conspiracy/big brother
> >theories, after all, the CA does represent the monnied city empowered
> >minority...
>
Well, you forget, MI6 had that mind reading machine back in the 70's, imagine
if it got into the hands of the CA!
Paul
<Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes
hounds. Why not continue this in uk.politics.animals ?
--
Paul B
Gareth Crawshaw
"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
news:p4I+phzt...@clara.co.uk...
It originally started in uk.politics.rural, but I think that there are still
problems with the group being propagated around the various news servers...
Besides, this isn't really a question of animals, rather the fact that the
CA, a political body, has duped a number of people into believing that it is
concerned primarily with the economic wellbeing of rural society: it
isn't... the origin of the CA is the "Field Sports Association"
Gareth
Robin Carmody
>
> >The CA has one thing on its mind, which we all know and that is hunting
>
No, in the minds of those of us who aren't fooled by their spin.
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Robin Carmody
>
> 450,000 people walked. 450,000. How many other organisations have done
that?
a) 407,000 was by far the most widely-quoted figure for the recent March.
b) Many people on the march (and on their previous 1998 demo) went because
it was the least worst platform they had, not because they really followed
the CA's agenda. I have strong anecdotal evidence of this.
Robin Carmody
news:aq4dgv$6duop$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de...
>
> It originally started in uk.politics.rural, but I think that there are
still
> problems with the group being propagated around the various news
servers...
I can't get anything through to uk.politics.rural at the moment, and indeed
my server does not recognise it as a newsgroup yet - searching for ngs with
"rural" in their title brings on uk.people.rural (which I'm familiar with),
misc.rural (US-centric, I'm guessing) and fr.soc.rural (presumably French).
Any other Freeserve users having this problem?
> Besides, this isn't really a question of animals, rather the fact that the
> CA, a political body, has duped a number of people into believing that it
is
> concerned primarily with the economic wellbeing of rural society: it
> isn't... the origin of the CA is the "Field Sports Association"
Quite. A piece of misleading spin well beyond anything in New Labour, IMO.
Robin Carmody
>
> You snipped the bit about the fact that it used to be known as the Field
> Sports Association
*pedantry*
It has its roots in the British Field Sports Society (BFSS). There were two
other much smaller groups merged into it, whose names escape me.
*pedantry*
but changed its name to attract a broader audience while
> at the same time, that audience did not really know the history or the
> founding principle of the association
The tactic of all single-issue fringe groups when they realise that their
main concern is not shared by most of the public. The BNP's "repositioning"
of itself under Nick Griffin is disturbingly similar in some ways, as were
the UKIP's attempts to present itself as a general centre-right party rather
than a fanatical anti-EU pressure group, which actually paid off electorally
in June 1999, although of course that proved to be a one-off success (Hague
went hard-right and stole their territory, and all they could do at the last
general election was split the vote in my own ultra-marginal Tory seat,
allowing Labour to win).
> Okay. Overly dramatic as a paragraph, but it still does get around the
fact
> that the CA does not represent the vast majority of either the rural
> population or those who have a vested and/or economic interest.in the
rural
> UK.
Agreed. And most of the population would share that agreement.
welsh witch
"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
news:p4I+phzt...@clara.co.uk...
> In article <aq46df$6ahm6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, Gareth
Crawshaw
> <Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes
<SNIP>
> >Gareth.
> >
> This isn't the place for discussion of the pros or cons of hunting
with
> hounds. Why not continue this in uk.politics.animals ?
> --
> Paul B
***************************
What pray does the "miscellaneous" mean then? :-) Anything goes so
long as it has a political connection ? The CA is becoming a very
powerful political force a bit of tweaking here and there I wonder if
it couldn't take over from the Conervative Party?
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piggy.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/costtoyou.htm
AnyOneButDrP
<webmi...@nospam.com> writes
>
>
>"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
>news:p4I+phzt...@clara.co.uk...
>> In article <aq46df$6ahm6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, Gareth
>Crawshaw
>> <Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes
><SNIP>
>> >Gareth.
>> >
>> This isn't the place for discussion of the pros or cons of hunting
>with
>> hounds. Why not continue this in uk.politics.animals ?
>> --
>> Paul B
>***************************
>What pray does the "miscellaneous" mean then? :-) Anything goes so
>long as it has a political connection ? The CA is becoming a very
>powerful political force a bit of tweaking here and there I wonder if
>it couldn't take over from the Conervative Party?
>
Australia has an example - the Country Party. I did very well in
elections for many decades and was often in coalition government with
the 'Liberal' Party (actually a Conservative party). I'm not sure if
it's still going, though. It may have merged with the 'Liberals' but I'm
not sure.
NotDrP
welsh witch
"AnyOneButDrP" <be...@killspamanywhere.andIMeanAnywhere> wrote in
message news:+vm0yXAp...@western-pr.demon.co.uk...
***********************************************************
I am beginning to look at Australia with new respect...they seem to
have some very good ideas on a number of issues
--
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piggy.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/costtoyou.htm
Robin Carmody
news:6zydnS4Ol9u...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote in message
> news:p4I+phzt...@clara.co.uk...
> > In article <aq46df$6ahm6$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de>, Gareth
> Crawshaw
> > <Gareth_...@nospam.com> writes
> <SNIP>
> > >Gareth.
> > >
> > This isn't the place for discussion of the pros or cons of hunting
> with
> > hounds. Why not continue this in uk.politics.animals ?
> > --
> > Paul B
> ***************************
> What pray does the "miscellaneous" mean then? :-) Anything goes so
> long as it has a political connection ? The CA is becoming a very
> powerful political force a bit of tweaking here and there I wonder if
> it couldn't take over from the Conervative Party?
An absurd suggestion. The Tories remain a reasonable force in politics (if
a very weak one at the moment by their historical standards) precisely
because they can compete on all fronts - they still have fingers in most of
the significant pies. The CA is a single-issue pressure group which just
happens to be slanted towards the right - a *very* different thing. It
should also be remembered that the Tories are essentially a suburban party
with rural pretensions.
Robin Carmody
>
> I am beginning to look at Australia with new respect...they seem to
> have some very good ideas on a number of issues
Like John Howard's asylum policy, or Pauline Hanson's entire career? I'm
guessing that's what you're thinking of, gin-soaked Shropshire harridan.
AnyOneButDrP
one of which is that all women are called by the common nickname
'Sheila'
as in (general greeting) 'G'day Sheila, howzit goin'
or in a pub 'G'day Sheila, what can I git yuz'
and 'hey Sheila, your shout' (i.e. it's your round of drinks to buy).
or 'jeez, look at that Sheila' (this comment covers a multitude of
things)
and, 'cor, i bet that sheila goes'.
and 'look at the norcs on that Sheila' ('Norcs' is a based on a New
South Wales company called the 'North Coast Dairy Company'. Hence dairy
= milk, hence the name = norcs, or boobs)
Yes, Oz has much to offer : )
And for gays, Sydney is the gap capital of the world.
Ideal for Arabs... : )
NotDrP
AnyOneButDrP
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>welsh witch <webmi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:DqOdna3mxPM...@giganews.com...
>>
>> I am beginning to look at Australia with new respect...they seem to
>> have some very good ideas on a number of issues
>
>Like John Howard's asylum policy,
I disagree with his politics but he became something quite different
over the Bali bombings. he migrated overnight from boring accountant
and jaded tory leader to something else.
>or Pauline Hanson's entire career?
which is now down the pan. she may be done for fraud.
search on www.smh.com.au
if anybody ever had doubts that bombing civilians is wrong, they should
have read this site post-Bali - some of the worst material i've ever had
the misfortune to read.
NotDrP
Michael Saunby
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aq6e2b$kap$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > What pray does the "miscellaneous" mean then? :-) Anything goes so
> > long as it has a political connection ? The CA is becoming a very
> > powerful political force a bit of tweaking here and there I wonder if
> > it couldn't take over from the Conervative Party?
>
> An absurd suggestion. The Tories remain a reasonable force in politics
(if
> a very weak one at the moment by their historical standards) precisely
> because they can compete on all fronts ...
Not important. If you check recent election results you will find that
single issue candidates can get elected in some situations. Look what
happened to Neil Hamilton and you'll see that any MP who is seen to be
corrupt, or perhaps just failed local people could be replaced by a single
issue candidate. Who at least would be perceived as having a chance
delivering one useful result for local people (and perhaps an up-yours to
the career politicians), rather than nothing. Single issue politics is a
very powerful force in the UK now and in many places an "anti-bypass", or
"pro-fishing", "pro-farming", etc. candidate might win.
Even without single issue politics, at local level MPs need to be free to
show they are the right sort of person for an area; my local (Lib Dem) MP
goes to some pains to stress his farming and hunting support in a
constituency which probably by rights should be Tory. Some MPs may
already be starting to rethink the true level of support for many issues
that opinion polls seemed to present as clear cut. For example do most
people in the UK really want no more immigration?
Michael Saunby
Robin Carmody
news:+vm0yXAp...@western-pr.demon.co.uk...
>
> elections for many decades
Can I assume that this is a typo?
and was often in coalition government with
> the 'Liberal' Party (actually a Conservative party). I'm not sure if
> it's still going, though. It may have merged with the 'Liberals' but I'm
> not sure.
Australia is, of course, a country with the sort of massive geographical
divide (and hence, I assume, employment / cultural divide) between its urban
and rural parts which is required for such a movement to make sense.
Britain is very different, which explains why such a party couldn't happen
here.
Although a so-called "Countryside Party" affiliated to the CA was registered
in May 2000 ... did it actually fight any seats at the 2001 election, as it
had initially suggested? David Boothroyd? Anyone else?
Robin Carmody
> In article <aq6fqo$g93$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>
> which is now down the pan.
That was my point. North Shropshire Witch would go the same way if she
became a politician, without even the brief moment in the sun Hanson had.
Robin Carmody
news:aq6h6d$284$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Not important. If you check recent election results you will find that
> single issue candidates can get elected in some situations. Look what
> happened to Neil Hamilton and you'll see that any MP who is seen to be
> corrupt, or perhaps just failed local people could be replaced by a single
> issue candidate. Who at least would be perceived as having a chance
> delivering one useful result for local people (and perhaps an up-yours to
> the career politicians), rather than nothing. Single issue politics is a
> very powerful force in the UK now and in many places an "anti-bypass", or
> "pro-fishing", "pro-farming", etc. candidate might win.
But can foxhunting *really* win over enough floating voters to swing an
election in favour of a single-issue candidate? I suppose a CA candidate
could win a local council seat if he fooled enough people with the usual
spin that they are concerned with other rural issues apart from hunting (the
BIG LIE).
> Even without single issue politics, at local level MPs need to be free to
> show they are the right sort of person for an area; my local (Lib Dem) MP
Which one is that, Michael? Nick Harvey in North Devon, possibly? Once a
rare example of the Conservatives losing a seat in what was otherwise a
major Tory landslide (1959, when Jeremy Thorpe won it for the Liberals).
> goes to some pains to stress his farming and hunting support in a
> constituency which probably by rights should be Tory.
As should many other Labour and Lib Dem seats, mine included. I was talking
with a friend earlier today about how the English / Welsh borders will be a
*big* test of rural political trends next time out (Monmouth, Hereford,
Brecon & Radnor ... all held by centre-left parties with three-figure
majorities over the Tories).
Some MPs may
> already be starting to rethink the true level of support for many issues
> that opinion polls seemed to present as clear cut. For example do most
> people in the UK really want no more immigration?
I don't think you'll ever get MPs using the extreme anti-immigration
rhetoric of some on this ng, whatever may happen.
Peter J King
> Australia has an example - the Country Party. I did very well in
> elections for many decades and was often in coalition government with
> the 'Liberal' Party (actually a Conservative party). I'm not sure if
> it's still going, though. It may have merged with the 'Liberals' but I'm
> not sure.
I can't resist a hoary old (supposedly true) story. During one debate in
the Australian parliament, an old Country Party blowhard stood up and
began one of his usual long-winded blethers with the words: "I'm a Country
member"; a tired voice from the backbenches was heard to say: "Yeah, we
remember".
PJK
Peter J King
> It should also be remembered that the Tories are essentially a suburban
> party with rural pretensions.
And this makes them different from the Countryside Alliance.... how
exactly?
PJK
Robin Carmody
news:Pine.OSF.4.44.021105...@ermine.ox.ac.uk...
Quite.
The difference is: everyone knows that the Conservative Party is a suburban
institution. Many people have been fooled by the CA's spin. It is not a
matter of what they are (as you say, essentially the same thing) but what
floating voters think they are. Any floating voter can easily find out that
the Tories have done better recently in Essex than in Devon, but none of
these voters would imagine that the CA has more supporters in Chelmsford
than in Barnstaple.
Michael Saunby
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:aq6h6d$284$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Not important. If you check recent election results you will find that
> > single issue candidates can get elected in some situations. Look what
> > happened to Neil Hamilton and you'll see that any MP who is seen to be
> > corrupt, or perhaps just failed local people could be replaced by a
single
> > issue candidate. Who at least would be perceived as having a chance
> > delivering one useful result for local people (and perhaps an up-yours
to
> > the career politicians), rather than nothing. Single issue politics
is a
> > very powerful force in the UK now and in many places an "anti-bypass",
or
> > "pro-fishing", "pro-farming", etc. candidate might win.
>
> But can foxhunting *really* win over enough floating voters to swing an
> election in favour of a single-issue candidate? I suppose a CA candidate
> could win a local council seat if he fooled enough people with the usual
> spin that they are concerned with other rural issues apart from hunting
(the
> BIG LIE).
You've allowed your dislike of hunting to confuse your thinking of what the
CA represents. It's about the "Right to hunt". I'm an athiest, but I do
occassionally go to church services - notably harvest festival because it's
a rural celebration - more importantly I argue very strongly for the right
to worship, and oppose the communist doctrine that would ban religion.
Communism is not atheism, atheism is not Communism. The right to hunt that
the CA argue for is not the same as the right to hunt that I believe the
French have, i.e. in the UK landowners have the right to prohibit hunting
on their land, so what the CA are arguing for is that people should have
the right to hunt if they wish and property owners have the right to decide
how their property is used. I can see why Communists would object to
these rights, but I'm beggared as to why anyone else might. The AR
argument is spurious since it is claiming a development in compassion for
animals that isn't seen in other members of our own species - e.g. in
mainland Europe, it also claims a progression in the development of laws,
yet bear baiting was an obsolete form of entertainment that was rarely, if
ever, practiced by the time it was made a crime, and dog and cock fighting
were banned to address crowd behaviour, rather like banning terraces at
football grounds.
If there is a "BIG LIE", it's that opposition to a ban on hunting is an
argument for a wrong rather than an argument for a continued right.
>
> > Even without single issue politics, at local level MPs need to be free
to
> > show they are the right sort of person for an area; my local (Lib Dem)
MP
>
> Which one is that, Michael? Nick Harvey in North Devon, possibly? Once
a
> rare example of the Conservatives losing a seat in what was otherwise a
> major Tory landslide (1959, when Jeremy Thorpe won it for the Liberals).
>
John Burnet. See
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,9338,-1376,00.html
Interesting stats I'm sure you'll agree. (70.5% turnout)
> > goes to some pains to stress his farming and hunting support in a
> > constituency which probably by rights should be Tory.
>
> As should many other Labour and Lib Dem seats, mine included. I was
talking
> with a friend earlier today about how the English / Welsh borders will be
a
> *big* test of rural political trends next time out (Monmouth, Hereford,
> Brecon & Radnor ... all held by centre-left parties with three-figure
> majorities over the Tories).
>
> Some MPs may
> > already be starting to rethink the true level of support for many
issues
> > that opinion polls seemed to present as clear cut. For example do most
> > people in the UK really want no more immigration?
>
> I don't think you'll ever get MPs using the extreme anti-immigration
> rhetoric of some on this ng, whatever may happen.
Sure you won't, but they are sensitive to it, and most likely rationalise
it by considering ordinary people to be too stupid to understand the issue
properly. Once the've adopted that way of thinking, they will apply it to
other things, e.g. hunting.
(I'll email you some stuff about DASH later today - sorry for not doing
this before)
Michael Saunby
Peter J King
> You've allowed your dislike of hunting to confuse your thinking of what the
> CA represents. It's about the "Right to hunt". I'm an athiest, but I do
> occassionally go to church services - notably harvest festival because it's
> a rural celebration - more importantly I argue very strongly for the right
> to worship, and oppose the communist doctrine that would ban religion.
I take it that you don't believe that religious services are morally
wrong; those who are oppose hunting (me among them) believe that hunting
is morally wrong (it's not a mater of mere dislike, as though we're
xpressing an aesthetic judgement or a mere matter of taste). Hence our
rejection of your analogy.
In so far as Communists hold that religion is morally wrong, then they're
right (in the sense that they're morally consistent, have integrity) to
try to ban it. You agree that if something is immoral in the right way
(as, for example, is rape but not lying) then the state should prohibit
it; in the case of Communists you disagree, not with their attiude to the
relationship between morality and the law, but with their belief that
religion is immoral. Similarly, I assume that you don't disagree that, if
hunting is immoral, then people shouldn't be allowed to do it, so you must
believe that it's actually moral.
I know that the pro-hunting lobby try to avoid the moral argument, instead
prating on about freedom and jobs and economics (as if we'd legalise rape
and murder on the grounds of freedom, or the potential jobs in the
hired-killer market); nevertheless, that's the relevant argument here.
When pro-hunters *do* acknowledge the moral issues, they duck them by
appealing to a flabby relativism (townees don't understand the
countryside). Leaving aside the fact that a large proportion of hunters
are in fact "townees", morality doesn't work like that; moreover, few if
any of those who trot out this argument actually hold relativist views in
any other area of morality.
As for the appeal to rights: rights are created by laws, they're not
floating out there independently of our will. If you really think that
there's some sort of natural, extra-legal right to hunt, you owe us an
account of that right -- and an explanation as to why we should reject the
claim of the murderer, the rapist, the thief, or the torturer that they
have the right to do what they want. Actually, few of those would claim
that they have the right to behave immorally, because they haven't managed
to convince themselves that opposition to their actions isn't really
moral, but is anti-countryside bias, class hatred, or just dog-in-a-manger
spitefulness.
PJK
Michael Saunby
"Peter J King" <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.44.021105...@ermine.ox.ac.uk...
>
> > You've allowed your dislike of hunting to confuse your thinking of what
the
> > CA represents. It's about the "Right to hunt". I'm an athiest, but I
do
> > occassionally go to church services - notably harvest festival because
it's
> > a rural celebration - more importantly I argue very strongly for the
right
> > to worship, and oppose the communist doctrine that would ban religion.
>
> I take it that you don't believe that religious services are morally
> wrong;
I don't believe that worship, of itself, is wrong. I do believe that there
are many traditional practices associated with various religions that are
morally repugnant, and great care needs to be taken to ensure that those
who engage in religious practices are not coerced.
> those who are oppose hunting (me among them) believe that hunting
> is morally wrong (it's not a mater of mere dislike, as though we're
> xpressing an aesthetic judgement or a mere matter of taste). Hence our
> rejection of your analogy.
>
> In so far as Communists hold that religion is morally wrong, then they're
> right (in the sense that they're morally consistent, have integrity) to
> try to ban it. You agree that if something is immoral in the right way
> (as, for example, is rape but not lying) then the state should prohibit
> it;
I'd go further than that and argue that any person who witnesses such a
crime has a moral and social duty to attempt to prevent it and ensure
everything is done that can be done to help the victim and punish the
rapist.
> in the case of Communists you disagree, not with their attiude to the
> relationship between morality and the law, but with their belief that
> religion is immoral. Similarly, I assume that you don't disagree that,
if
> hunting is immoral, then people shouldn't be allowed to do it, so you
must
> believe that it's actually moral.
It certainly doesn't seem recognised as being immoral in anything close a
universal way; certainly very unlike the example you give of rape, or even
a less emotive crime such as theft. Perhaps it's regarded as a wrong in
much the same way as driving a car too fast - harm can result from it if
done by other people in a careless fashion.
>
> I know that the pro-hunting lobby try to avoid the moral argument,
instead
> prating on about freedom and jobs and economics (as if we'd legalise rape
> and murder on the grounds of freedom, or the potential jobs in the
> hired-killer market); nevertheless, that's the relevant argument here.
Why? When did parliament become our moral guardians? Surely existing laws
regarding morality are simply variants on existing Christian beliefs, since
this is a Christian country. The only sect that preaches anti-hunting is
Puritanism, which certainly has a long tradition of influencing Scotish
law, but in England after the monarchy - surely this is some kind of
timewarp????
>
> When pro-hunters *do* acknowledge the moral issues, they duck them by
> appealing to a flabby relativism (townees don't understand the
> countryside). Leaving aside the fact that a large proportion of hunters
> are in fact "townees", morality doesn't work like that; moreover, few if
> any of those who trot out this argument actually hold relativist views in
> any other area of morality.
So your appeal is to morality? Then where might it end; I can't see that
an end to hunting foxes would suit all those with such a moral position
that fox hunting should be banned. There must be other aspects of the
behaviour of other people that must also offend. I've already explained
that there are behaviours relating to religious practice that offend me, so
I don't participate.
>
> As for the appeal to rights: rights are created by laws, they're not
> floating out there independently of our will. If you really think that
> there's some sort of natural, extra-legal right to hunt, you owe us an
> account of that right -- and an explanation as to why we should reject
the
> claim of the murderer, the rapist, the thief, or the torturer that they
> have the right to do what they want.
How come I feel a strong sense of duty to endure that people who steal,
etc. are prevented from doing so and are punished if they do and I don't
feel the same about those who hunt? Indeed the number of people who
actively attempt to prevent hunting from taking place in this country or
any other is very small - so I conclude that the genuine sense of moral
outrage as what you see to be a crime is miniscule. I suspect that most
people who object to hunting do so because they consider it cruel, not
immoral. I've tried to consider your view; but I reckon you're wrong to
consider that most people regard this as a moral issue.
> Actually, few of those would claim
> that they have the right to behave immorally, because they haven't
managed
> to convince themselves that opposition to their actions isn't really
> moral, but is anti-countryside bias, class hatred, or just
dog-in-a-manger
> spitefulness.
>
I genuinely believe that most of those who support hunting are so shocked
that something that is a normal part of their lives is likely to be made a
crime that they can't really see what the arguments for or against might be
since it doesn't make sense. If you ask people if they recognise that cars
are harmful to the environment, most would agree that they are. If it was
proposed that all cars be banned from January 1st next year it would result
in total disbelief and the arguments presented for and against the ban
would mostly be nonsense.
Michael Saunby
Robin Carmody
>
> John Burnet.
Yes, I looked at a map of Devon after my original post, and realised that
Okehampton was further west and not as far north as I thought it was.
See
>
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,9338,-1376,00.html
>
> Interesting stats I'm sure you'll agree. (70.5% turnout)
Quite. Reminds me a lot of my home constituency of Dorset South, in that
the transfer of the UKIP / RP vote to the Conservatives would have enabled
the Tories to hold the seat in both 1997 and 2001. Obviously a strong
anti-European vote (IIRC, the Lib Dems played down their pro-Europeanism in
the election literature they circulated in West Country marginals for that
very reason), but quite a good environmentalist vote as well last year.
Of course that was Emma Nicholson's old seat - I always thought she was one
of the very few Tories with a sensible, rational view of agriculture and
rural life in general, so naturally she crossed the floor to the Lib Dems
(that was the very first thing that the right-whingers on here argued with
me about, incidentally). And in March 1958 the Liberals defeated the Tories
in a by-election to the old Torrington seat, which IIRC has been absorbed
into Devon West & Torridge - this was not only the first by-election covered
by the BBC, but the beginning of an unbroken run of parliamentary
representation in the West Country by the Liberals and Lib Dems. 1955,
close to their nadir, was the last election when they had no MPs in the West
of England (a situation which seems literally unbelievable now).
I'm sure it will be regarded as a key marginal at the next election, and
will be seen as a mirror of the prowess (or otherwise) of both Tories and
Lib Dems in rural areas. I heard it said on BBC radio coverage of the last
election that it had the highest percentage of the electorate working in
agriculture of any consitutency anywhere in the UK - can you prove or
disprove this?
> (I'll email you some stuff about DASH later today - sorry for not doing
> this before)
Thanks for that, Michael. I do essentially feel an affinity with you, even
if we disagree on some things.
Peter J King
> [Hunting] certainly doesn't seem recognised as being immoral in anything
> close a universal way; certainly very unlike the example you give of
> rape, or even a less emotive crime such as theft. Perhaps it's regarded
> as a wrong in much the same way as driving a car too fast - harm can
> result from it if done by other people in a careless fashion.
There are two notions here: one is of a sort of democratic notion of
morality (was slavery morally right until enough people agreed that it was
wrong? How about rape within marriage?); the other is the claim that
hunting is regarded as wrong in so far as it might cause harm if carried
out in a certain way. Neither is what I (or most of those who oppose
hunting) have in mind; indeed, I'd argue against both views.
pjk> I know that the pro-hunting lobby try to avoid the moral argument,
> > instead prating on about freedom and jobs and economics (as if we'd
> > legalise rape and murder on the grounds of freedom, or the potential
> > jobs in the hired-killer market); nevertheless, that's the relevant
> > argument here.
> Why? When did parliament become our moral guardians?
They didn't. We elected the current government on a manifesto that
included action against hunting; on every poll, the majority of citizens
of the country oppose hunting. you can't distract us with a "Big
Brother" red herring.
> Surely existing laws regarding morality are simply variants on existing
> Christian beliefs, since this is a Christian country.
Only in a very broad, historical sense (fortunately). Morality has
nothing to do with religion (not only are there deep problems involved in
any attempt to attribute moral values to religion, but there's a good
argument to show that religious belief and morality are incompatible).
Note that there's no law against idolatry, adultery, lying (except in
specific and well-defined situations), or coveting your neighbour's ass or
wife, nor enforcing Sabbath observance (except a curious anachronism
regarding trading) or honouring one's parents.
> The only sect that preaches anti-hunting is Puritanism, which certainly
> has a long tradition of influencing Scotish law, but in England after
> the monarchy - surely this is some kind of timewarp????
How much redder can your herrings get?
pjk> When pro-hunters *do* acknowledge the moral issues, they duck them by
> > appealing to a flabby relativism (townees don't understand the
> > countryside). Leaving aside the fact that a large proportion of hunters
> > are in fact "townees", morality doesn't work like that; moreover, few if
> > any of those who trot out this argument actually hold relativist views in
> > any other area of morality.
> So your appeal is to morality?
Er, yes -- as I said at the beginning of my posting, and as all my
arguments stressed.
> Then where might it end; I can't see that an end to hunting foxes would
> suit all those with such a moral position that fox hunting should be
> banned. There must be other aspects of the behaviour of other people
> that must also offend. I've already explained that there are behaviours
> relating to religious practice that offend me, so I don't participate.
Why are you confusing morality with giving offence? Not another red
herring?
pjk> As for the appeal to rights: rights are created by laws, they're not
> > floating out there independently of our will. If you really think
> > that there's some sort of natural, extra-legal right to hunt, you owe
> > us an account of that right -- and an explanation as to why we should
> > reject the claim of the murderer, the rapist, the thief, or the
> > torturer that they have the right to do what they want.
> How come I feel a strong sense of duty to endure that people who steal,
> etc. are prevented from doing so and are punished if they do and I don't
> feel the same about those who hunt?
Desensitisation? Poor reasoning overcoming your innate moral sense?
frankly, I'm not concerned here with the psychology of immorality. I'm
happy to debate the moral or political issues, so long as we can stick to
the point.
> Indeed the number of people who actively attempt to prevent hunting from
> taking place in this country or any other is very small - so I conclude
> that the genuine sense of moral outrage as what you see to be a crime is
> miniscule.
I don't see it as a crime; I say that it ought to be made a crime.
Moreover, the claim that moral outrage is always accompanied by action
(especially when that action involves breaking the law or risking
personal harm) is -- well, "naive" is the kindest word.
> I suspect that most people who object to hunting do so because they
> consider it cruel, not immoral. I've tried to consider your view; but I
> reckon you're wrong to consider that most people regard this as a moral
> issue.
So you confuse morality with law, with popular opinion, with religious
teaching, but distinguish between cruelty and moral wrong? I'm beginning
to wonder if we share the same language (or species).
pjk> Actually, few of those would claim
> > that they have the right to behave immorally, because they haven't
> > managed to convince themselves that opposition to their actions isn't
> > really moral, but is anti-countryside bias, class hatred, or just
> > dog-in-a-manger spitefulness.
> I genuinely believe that most of those who support hunting are so shocked
> that something that is a normal part of their lives is likely to be made a
> crime that they can't really see what the arguments for or against might be
> since it doesn't make sense.
Like slave-owners, rapists of wives, circumcisors of girls, etc. What's
the moral relevance of your point?
> If you ask people if they recognise that cars are harmful to the
> environment, most would agree that they are. If it was proposed that
> all cars be banned from January 1st next year it would result in total
> disbelief and the arguments presented for and against the ban would
> mostly be nonsense.
Another red herring. Defence of the environment is a practical, sensible
concern, but it's not at all clear that it's a moral issue (except in the
most attenuated sense).
Peter J. King
Mel Rowing
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:aq80e3$sik$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Thanks for that, Michael. I do essentially feel an affinity with you, even
> if we disagree on some things.
Hey up!
arache
"Gareth Crawshaw" <Gareth_...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aq47s8$6iv8a$1...@ID-162777.news.dfncis.de...
>
> to the storage of personal information: a political movement such as the
CA
> has absolutely no place storing personal information - what use can it
> possibly have for it other than potential leverage.
After some of the anti-CA posts I've seen (which has included a list of
names and addresses of CA members and the suggestion that the day of their
march in London might be a good time to attack their homes) I'd could think
of at least one reason why they might keep this data.
cheers
Michael Saunby
>
> > I suspect that most people who object to hunting do so because they
> > consider it cruel, not immoral. I've tried to consider your view; but
I
> > reckon you're wrong to consider that most people regard this as a moral
> > issue.
>
> So you confuse morality with law, with popular opinion, with religious
> teaching, but distinguish between cruelty and moral wrong? I'm beginning
> to wonder if we share the same language (or species).
>
I've cut the rest because it simply leads us here, despite your suggestion
that I'm trying to lead the discussion astray.
Surely you would accept that the imprisonment of criminals to be cruel, but
not immoral. Under Islamic, and other forms of law capital punishment is
I'm sure considered cruel, but not immoral. If we move to the treatment of
animals there are clearly going to be many practices that will be
recognised pretty much by everyone as cruel - slug pellets, mice traps, but
these are not likely to be regarded as immoral.
I can't honestly believe that you have completely dismissed all my
statements that tried to consider how we might have arrived at a position
where an apparently large number of people in this country might consider
hunting should be made a crime and then show you can't see the difference
between cruelty and immorality.
Fox hunting isn't immoral - and the proposed law to ban it makes no such
claim. It's based on cruelty, and utility.
> pjk> Actually, few of those would claim
> > > that they have the right to behave immorally, because they haven't
> > > managed to convince themselves that opposition to their actions isn't
> > > really moral, but is anti-countryside bias, class hatred, or just
> > > dog-in-a-manger spitefulness.
>
> > I genuinely believe that most of those who support hunting are so
shocked
> > that something that is a normal part of their lives is likely to be
made a
> > crime that they can't really see what the arguments for or against
might be
> > since it doesn't make sense.
>
> Like slave-owners, rapists of wives, circumcisors of girls, etc. What's
> the moral relevance of your point?
Why do those who oppose the hunting of foxes make constant references to
mistreatment of other human beings? I find it intensely distasteful and
grossly dishonest. I've said before, and will say again, that my principle
argument against animal rights thinking is that it fails to acknowledge
that our primary concern must always be the decent treatment of members of
our own species. This implication that those who would, in your eyes,
mistreat animals are therefore those people most likely to mistreat other
humans is offensive, has no basis in truth and just shows how low the AR
supporter will stoop in trying to rationalise what is essentially an
irrational belief system.
Why not choose more relevant examples such as those who are so immoral as
put poison down for rats, or go fishing at the weekend..... Or doesn't that
create the type of imagery you were after?
>
> > If you ask people if they recognise that cars are harmful to the
> > environment, most would agree that they are. If it was proposed that
> > all cars be banned from January 1st next year it would result in total
> > disbelief and the arguments presented for and against the ban would
> > mostly be nonsense.
>
> Another red herring. Defence of the environment is a practical, sensible
> concern, but it's not at all clear that it's a moral issue (except in the
> most attenuated sense).
Then you're damned selective about what you consider moral or not. Are you
one of those that consider a fox to be a "moral patient", but not a tree,
or a national park?
Michael Saunby
Peter J King
>
> "Peter J King" <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.4.44.02110...@ermine.ox.ac.uk...
> >
> > > I suspect that most people who object to hunting do so because they
> > > consider it cruel, not immoral. I've tried to consider your view; but
> I
> > > reckon you're wrong to consider that most people regard this as a moral
> > > issue.
> >
> > So you confuse morality with law, with popular opinion, with religious
> > teaching, but distinguish between cruelty and moral wrong? I'm beginning
> > to wonder if we share the same language (or species).
> >
>
> I've cut the rest because it simply leads us here, despite your suggestion
> that I'm trying to lead the discussion astray.
>
> Surely you would accept that the imprisonment of criminals to be cruel, but
> not immoral.
Depending on the conditions and other circumstances, I'd regard it as
neither. Why would you regard it as cruel? What, in fact, do you mean by
"cruel"?
> Under Islamic, and other forms of law capital punishment is
> I'm sure considered cruel, but not immoral.
It's immoral but not necessarily cruel.
> If we move to the treatment of animals there are clearly going to be
> many practices that will be recognised pretty much by everyone as cruel
> - slug pellets, mice traps, but these are not likely to be regarded as
> immoral.
By those who consider them cruel, yes. To consider them cruel but not
immoral is either to be morally confused or to misuse one or other of the
words "cruel" and "immoral".
> I can't honestly believe that you have completely dismissed all my
> statements that tried to consider how we might have arrived at a position
> where an apparently large number of people in this country might consider
> hunting should be made a crime and then show you can't see the difference
> between cruelty and immorality.
I don't know what you mean by this. So far as I can make out, you've
offered only the claim that lots of people don't think that hunting is
immoral; the historical and social reasons they think that are irrelevant
to the moral issue. (On the other hand, you've ignored all the arguments
I've offered against you.)
> > pjk> Actually, few of those would claim
> > > > that they have the right to behave immorally, because they haven't
> > > > managed to convince themselves that opposition to their actions isn't
> > > > really moral, but is anti-countryside bias, class hatred, or just
> > > > dog-in-a-manger spitefulness.
> >
> > > I genuinely believe that most of those who support hunting are so
> shocked
> > > that something that is a normal part of their lives is likely to be
> made a
> > > crime that they can't really see what the arguments for or against
> might be
> > > since it doesn't make sense.
> >
> > Like slave-owners, rapists of wives, circumcisors of girls, etc. What's
> > the moral relevance of your point?
> Why do those who oppose the hunting of foxes make constant references to
> mistreatment of other human beings? I find it intensely distasteful and
> grossly dishonest.
Becuase they don't accept the arbitrary division of sentient beings into
one species (to whom we owe moral consideration) and all the others (to
which we don't). To describe that as dishonesty is yet another misuse of
words.
Besides, my point didn't rest upon the acceptance of such a point -- it
was that the mere fact that agents are unaware that what they're doing is
wrong is irrelevamnt to its moral status.
> I've said before, and will say again, that my principle
> argument against animal rights thinking is that it fails to acknowledge
> that our primary concern must always be the decent treatment of members of
> our own species. This implication that those who would, in your eyes,
> mistreat animals are therefore those people most likely to mistreat other
> humans is offensive, has no basis in truth and just shows how low the AR
> supporter will stoop in trying to rationalise what is essentially an
> irrational belief system.
So you accuse me of implying something that any native speaker of the
language would see that I didn't, you set up a false opposition between
treating human beings and other animals morally, and then accuse me of
intellectual dishonesty? Something's nagging at the back of my mind...
somthing about motes and beams, or is it stones and glasshouses?
> Why not choose more relevant examples such as those who are so immoral as
> put poison down for rats, or go fishing at the weekend..... Or doesn't that
> create the type of imagery you were after?
It wouldn't have been relevant to the point that I was making; on the
other hand,I consider those things to be immoral to. I bet your little
heart is racing at the the thought of all the sarcastic non sequiturs and
fuzzy accusations you can throw at me now.
It's clear from your postings that you haven't thought deeply (or at al)
about the nature of morality, and of its scope and application. I have
(it's part of my job); that doesn't make me right or infallible, but it
should protect me against the barrel-scraping claims that I haven't
thought through what I'm saying or that my views are irrational.
there are rational (though, I believe, unsound) arguments against my moral
view of animals; you haven't offered any of them. You've ranted, you've
started hares (appropriately enough), you've set up straw men, you'ev
impugned my motives and reasoning. You haven't offered any sort of
rational argument.
When (if) you do, I'll respond to it. otherwise, this is a waste of time.
Oh, incidentally, you said:
> Then you're damned selective about what you consider moral or not. Are you
> one of those that consider a fox to be a "moral patient", but not a tree,
> or a national park?
Thinking about morality leads to conclusions about what does and doesn't
have moral status; that's not a matter of selection, but the conclusions
of chains of reasoning. Given that your point seems to be that I extend
that status further than I should (beyond human beings), I don't
understand your objection to this (unless you think that trees and parks
are sentient). But then, see above.
PJK
Michael Saunby
Of course imprisonment is cruel.
>
> > Under Islamic, and other forms of law capital punishment is
> > I'm sure considered cruel, but not immoral.
>
> It's immoral but not necessarily cruel.
So Islamic law is immoral? How come?
>
> > If we move to the treatment of animals there are clearly going to be
> > many practices that will be recognised pretty much by everyone as cruel
> > - slug pellets, mice traps, but these are not likely to be regarded as
> > immoral.
>
> By those who consider them cruel, yes. To consider them cruel but not
> immoral is either to be morally confused or to misuse one or other of the
> words "cruel" and "immoral".
Untrue. There are most definitely things that are immoral that are not
cruel, and that are cruel but not immoral. e.g. denying a child a sweet
could be considered cruel.
>
> > I can't honestly believe that you have completely dismissed all my
> > statements that tried to consider how we might have arrived at a
position
> > where an apparently large number of people in this country might
consider
> > hunting should be made a crime and then show you can't see the
difference
> > between cruelty and immorality.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this. So far as I can make out, you've
> offered only the claim that lots of people don't think that hunting is
> immoral; the historical and social reasons they think that are irrelevant
> to the moral issue. (On the other hand, you've ignored all the arguments
> I've offered against you.)
They ALL hinge on your, false, morality claim. You have no other argument
other than the sentience one, which again forms no part of the proposed
ban. I could quite legally go outside now and skin alive a sentient being,
and that will never change.
Then you deny the existence of species. No other species gives anything
like the same consideration to other species as to its own. You've
invented a way of looking at the world as Aristotle might and have
completely ignored the development of evidence based science and thinking.
>
> Besides, my point didn't rest upon the acceptance of such a point -- it
> was that the mere fact that agents are unaware that what they're doing is
> wrong is irrelevamnt to its moral status.
Big deal.
>
> > I've said before, and will say again, that my principle
> > argument against animal rights thinking is that it fails to acknowledge
> > that our primary concern must always be the decent treatment of members
of
> > our own species. This implication that those who would, in your eyes,
> > mistreat animals are therefore those people most likely to mistreat
other
> > humans is offensive, has no basis in truth and just shows how low the
AR
> > supporter will stoop in trying to rationalise what is essentially an
> > irrational belief system.
>
> So you accuse me of implying something that any native speaker of the
> language would see that I didn't, you set up a false opposition between
> treating human beings and other animals morally, and then accuse me of
> intellectual dishonesty? Something's nagging at the back of my mind...
> somthing about motes and beams, or is it stones and glasshouses?
>
OK, my mistake. You introduced some offensive material for an entirely
spurious reason. Presumably the discussion of the abuse of man by man is a
normal part of all your conversations, whatever the topic.
>
> > Why not choose more relevant examples such as those who are so immoral
as
> > put poison down for rats, or go fishing at the weekend..... Or doesn't
that
> > create the type of imagery you were after?
>
> It wouldn't have been relevant to the point that I was making; on the
> other hand,I consider those things to be immoral to. I bet your little
> heart is racing at the the thought of all the sarcastic non sequiturs and
> fuzzy accusations you can throw at me now.
Then you are at odds with what others regard as immoral - my original point
I believe.
>
> It's clear from your postings that you haven't thought deeply (or at al)
> about the nature of morality, and of its scope and application. I have
> (it's part of my job); that doesn't make me right or infallible, but it
> should protect me against the barrel-scraping claims that I haven't
> thought through what I'm saying or that my views are irrational.
>
> there are rational (though, I believe, unsound) arguments against my
moral
> view of animals; you haven't offered any of them. You've ranted, you've
> started hares (appropriately enough), you've set up straw men, you'ev
> impugned my motives and reasoning. You haven't offered any sort of
> rational argument.
>
Rational and unsound? Wow, what might they be?
> When (if) you do, I'll respond to it. otherwise, this is a waste of
time.
>
> Oh, incidentally, you said:
>
> > Then you're damned selective about what you consider moral or not. Are
you
> > one of those that consider a fox to be a "moral patient", but not a
tree,
> > or a national park?
>
> Thinking about morality leads to conclusions about what does and doesn't
> have moral status; that's not a matter of selection, but the conclusions
> of chains of reasoning. Given that your point seems to be that I extend
> that status further than I should (beyond human beings), I don't
> understand your objection to this (unless you think that trees and parks
> are sentient). But then, see above.
>
Why is sentience important? It isn't, it's just a characteristic of things
made from meat, i.e. having nervous tissue. An accident of biology. Trees
live far longer, support the lives of large numbers of other living things.
Habitats have real value, individual animals, even people, are very short
lived.
Michael Saunby
Paul
<msa...@despammed.com> writes
>Why do those who oppose the hunting of foxes make constant references to
>mistreatment of other human beings? I find it intensely distasteful and
>grossly dishonest.
They don't. Some do, most don't.
>I've said before, and will say again, that my principle
>argument against animal rights thinking is that it fails to acknowledge
>that our primary concern must always be the decent treatment of members of
>our own species.
No argument there.
>This implication that those who would, in your eyes,
>mistreat animals are therefore those people most likely to mistreat other
>humans is offensive, has no basis in truth and just shows how low the AR
>supporter will stoop in trying to rationalise what is essentially an
>irrational belief system.
>
>Why not choose more relevant examples such as those who are so immoral as
>put poison down for rats, or go fishing at the weekend..... Or doesn't that
>create the type of imagery you were after?
It hasn't anything to do with imagery. Putting down poison for rats
isn't done for personal pleasure, unlike hunting with dogs which only
exists to satisfy the rather obscene bloodlust of a few dinosaurs. If
you want to control the fox population do it in the most painless and
efficient way. Neither can be applied to foxhunting.
Personally I don't have a problem with fishing, and one can eat the
results of a successful day on the river or at sea. The same can't be
claimed for chasing a fox for miles and hours, then ripping it apart.
--
Paul B
Paul
<msa...@despammed.com> writes
>So Islamic law is immoral? How come?
Do you know anything about Islamic law? Like, for instance, the penalty
for leaving the religion being death? Like the right for a husband to
administer a "light beating" on any of his four wives if she disobeys
him? Like the stoning to death of a woman found to have committed
adultery?
No?
Thought not!
--
Paul B
Michael Saunby
Thanks, the above strikes me as a far more honest account of why most of
those who wish to see fox hunting banned believe. It didn't require any
claims to morality, sentience, or such like.
Although it won't be in such straightforward language I believe any law
would attempt to capture these sentiments, i.e. it's cruel and those who do
it are no longer seen as either typical or respectable UK citizens (I
assume most people with strong feelings on the matter don't work for people
who hunt).
This makes an extended territorial ban quite reasonable (i.e. beyond the
control of landowners), and avoids the problems that an AR based ban would
present - i.e. what to do about other cruel practices, about other sports
that employ animals, about those who travel abroad for fox hunting, big
game, etc. and other more popular blood sports that are not seen as
obsolete by the majority of the population.
I still favour a local decision on the matter though, e.g. allowing each
parish to decide on the need for and legality of hunting with hounds. This
could then quite easily be applied throughout the EU; whereas we've already
seen that national debate and legislation takes a long time, is very
expensive, and does greatly offend many people in rural areas who feel that
the majority urban population are bullying them. If it had been made
possible for parishes, or boroughs, to ban hunting at a local level, it
would have already happened in most places, and where it didn't it would be
largely because people didn't have a problem with it.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
You seem dealing with the penalties they apply to immoral behaviour; or are
you saying that adultery is nor immoral (it certainly isn't cruel, so it
fails Peter's test).
We've yet to hear Peter suggest what the penalty for fox hunting should be
once banned. Clearly it would have to be some form of cruelty, since that
is the usual way of dealing with immoral behaviour. It seems however that
neither imprisonment, nor death are regarded by Peter as cruel per se, so
perhaps a new punishment of being chased across a field will be needed, or
maybe a fine.
>
> No?
>
> Thought not!
What I was saying was that it IS their morality. The morality that Peter
was applying was Christian morality. Then there's Jewish, etc.
It's not reasonable to claim that religious beliefs are immoral, if that's
what you are basing you own judgements on, which he clearly was.
Michael Saunby
altheim
"Paul" <pa...@streetka.biz> wrote:
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
> >So Islamic law is immoral? How come?
>
> Do you know anything about Islamic law? Like, for instance, the penalty
> for leaving the religion being death? Like the right for a husband to
> administer a "light beating" on any of his four wives if she disobeys
> him? Like the stoning to death of a woman found to have committed
> adultery?
>
> No?
>
> Thought not!
If Muslims thought such punishments were immoral they would
not do it.
I should like to say that 'immorality' is merely a man-made
contrivance that is nowhere written in stone yet for Muslims,
if it is in the Koran it might as well be written in stone.
We, at least, are free to invent, and change if we wish, our
own standards. Morality is all in the mind. It's an indulgence
for the righteous.
And whether morality (on any give issue) is even important
is something that has to be weighed against other issues
such as economic stability, environmental concerns, health,
happiness etc. It doesn't come for free.
--
altheim
ratzilla
> The CA (formerly known as Field Sports Association) apparantly...
>
> "The Countryside Alliance holds personal information on its opponents,
> including data obtained from sources such as private detectives, political
> groups and the police. A 27-page entry on the data protection register
> reveals that the pro-hunt group also discloses information on its opponents
> to the police, the prison service, the Home Office and Customs and Excise
> among others."
Now, there's a thought. Direct action - how well would the CA cope if masses
of anti-hunting people exercised their right under the DPA, flooding them
with subject access requests...?
Robin Carmody
news:Xns92C2B190E...@130.133.1.4...
Anti-hunters are already trying their hardest.