Oh, its lack of efficiency isn't my reason for detesting fox-hunting
as I've made abundantly clear - I mention this purely to dispatch the 'population control' argument put forth by the pro-hunt lobby.

My argument is with the pain caused, and the intent of the participants. I'm not going to indulge your tortured comparison to my house possibly being built on a badger sett, as it's a ridiculous straw-man argument. Though things have died to sustain my life, I take no pleasure in it - and the act of the slaying was not my primary motivation.

I dislike the fact that the foxes have to suffer a needlessly painful and gruesome death. And, alongside this, I feel utter contempt for those who observe this spectacle, and find it an enjoyable experience. Whether or not it matters to the animal if its death was an unfortunate consequence or the intended effect - it matters to me. The intent behind the action matters, to me.

If you like riding horses and running with dogs, go drag hunting. It's not a difficult concept to master. Ripping animals apart for fun should have been consigned to history; the fact fox hunting didn't go with bear-baiting, dog-fighting, cock-fighting and so forth was entirely due to the social position of its adherents, not any inherent merit.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 28 May 2010, 15:40, 2 replies)

Well argued sir!
As I said, I think we're probably better off without it. When you take all the arguments together, they are pretty discomforting, but I'm not 100% convinced that they hang together well enough to pass a law against it.

Also you could argue that it differs from bear-baiting, dog-fighting, cock-fighting and so forth in that (1) it does kill vermin (albeit inefficiently) and so serve some purpose other than entertainment and (2) it involves hunting animals in their wild habitat rather than capturing and/or training an animal specifically to fight for the purposes of entertainment.

Edit: 'Whether or not it matters to the animal if its death was an unfortunate consequence or the intended effect - it matters to me. The intent behind the action matters, to me.'

I find this quite odd. As Ring of Fire said, presumably the aim is a reduction in cruelty. It does sound like what you dislike is not the suffering, but that there are other people out there who think differently.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 28 May 2010, 16:00, closed)

As I mentioned
I dislike both. I have no wish to see an animal die in pain, and question the morality of those who gain pleasure from such. The fact that I dislike the intent of the 'hunters' in no way detracts from my dislike of the unpleasantly-brutal killing of the fox. It's not a dichotomy, it's all part of a whole; if I hate to see an animal suffer, I'm obviously going to have certain conceptual difficulties with those for whom it is a matter of enjoyment.

As to your thoughts on the ban, below - although the legality (or lack thereof) was never really a part of my point - I don't think you need any stronger grounds for a change in law other than a change in what the majority of people deem to be acceptable behaviour within the society they jointly form. There is no transcendental 'right' or 'wrong' against which we can measure our actions; it's all subjective, and decided by common concensus. The strength of feeling on this debate gradually swung towards 'wrong' - and it was consequently banned.

I don't really miss it.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 28 May 2010, 17:09, closed)

Brilliantly argued

( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Tue 1 Jun 2010, 23:17, closed)