Discussion with closed minds ….,

[Big Buff]

his is something all the antis should have a look at before jumping to conclusions and making uninformed arguments …… but sadly they won’t accept any facts or see any other side of the discussion but their own twisted agenda …..

 

[Dunwaters]

Their agenda is not in the least bit twisted. Its based on their belief that hunting is wrong.
Therefor regardless of facts and science it IS wrong and must be banned.

 

[palmer_mike]

Fantastic video thanks for sharing

 

[Apthorpe]

Their agenda is not in the least bit twisted. Its based on their belief that hunting is wrong.
Therefor regardless of facts and science it IS wrong and must be banned.

This is spot on, and exactly why any measures to meet antis concerns halfway are a big mistake. They're wrong, they're illiberal and their attitudes have no place in a civilised country, it's as simple as that.

 

[Pine Marten]

Yeah, but, well, our position is based on the assumption that hunting IS right. I mean mine is at any rate. I mean I have trouble imagining that you could present me with any amount of data and research that changed my mind fundamentally. Which means that's not what it's really about and that's a sterile ground for conversation. It's just somewhere to have a fight. So how do we elevate it to something more promising?

 

[Apthorpe]

Yeah, but, well, our position is based on the assumption that hunting IS right. I mean mine is at any rate. I mean I have trouble imagining that you could present me with any amount of data and research that changed my mind fundamentally. Which means that's not what it's really about and that's a sterile ground for conversation. It's just somewhere to have a fight. So how do we elevate it to something more promising?

We don't. There is no point. They have their activities, we have ours. Just don't ban things.
There is no point trying to reach a consensus with them on hunting or guns, it is impossible. We'd be far better insisting with extreme intransigence that a person's right to do and own what he pleases (save some cases where it harms another British human) is inviolable.

 

[Dunwaters]

Yeah, but, well, our position is based on the assumption that hunting IS right. I mean mine is at any rate. I mean I have trouble imagining that you could present me with any amount of data and research that changed my mind fundamentally. Which means that's not what it's really about and that's a sterile ground for conversation. It's just somewhere to have a fight. So how do we elevate it to something more promising?

Spot on.
Neither position is demonstrably either right or wrong, both are matters of personal belief and conviction, but at least we’re not trying to force anyone to partake in an activity which they find abhorrent.
On the other hand, the anti’s are most definitely trying to force conformation with their values and beliefs down our throats.
I don’t know where this intolerance for differing views came from, but where its going is pretty obvious and its not a going to make for a pleasant society.
Liberals my hole, they’re nothing more than religious zealots with an extreme philosophy that they’ll stop at nothing to advance.
We’re looking at zero tolerance for divergent views on an ever expanding number of topics. Governments are supporting the censoring and suppression of valid and scientifically sound opinions and practices to soothe an increasingly extreme set of minority views based on nothing more scientific than the personal emotions of a tiny very vocal subset of the community.
Unless we, that’s all of us, wake up to the sheer illogical stupidity of many of the positions that have been normalised over the last decade we are truly, truly goosed.

 

[Pine Marten]

We'd be far better insisting with extreme intransigence that a person's right to do and own what he pleases (save some cases where it harms another British human) is inviolable.

How about a Belgian or Vietnamese human?

 

[Apthorpe]

How about a Belgian or Vietnamese human?

Well, in Vietnam, the same should apply to Vietnamese people. But for the Belgians???? That's going too far.

Different countries have different interests and different laws to suit their citizens. There's nothing unreasonable or controversial about that. In many cases, there is a lot of commonality so what freedoms suit a British person are likely to also suit a French person, but it is not a reasonable demand on a state that it frame its laws to restrict its own citizens to the overall advantage of others. You certainly wouldn't find France doing that.
A government only has legitimacy if it is carrying out its functions to primarily benefit its citizens. Otherwise, there is no legitimate basis to demand tax, military service or being subject to the law.

 

[timbrayford]

This is spot on, and exactly why any measures to meet antis concerns halfway are a big mistake. They're wrong, they're illiberal and their attitudes have no place in a civilised country, it's as simple as that.

If you don't like hunting, shooting etc. you simply don't participate, but the underlying issue with the antis is far more sinister. They have passionate beliefs to the point that they believe that no one else is entitled to an opinion if it differs from theirs, and must therefore be disregarded with all that entails (e.g. untermenschen etc.). Look no further than Chris Packham and his ill considered outbursts against the shooting community for an excellent example of this.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Opinions about slavery? the plantation owners and Arab finders were not anti. It still was banned.
Drug use will never be banned as there are too many users out there.
Minorities like hunters or orange in the mouth extreme orgasmers are easy targets by comparison I am only a hunter btw).
Cwis should be force fed venison pies.

 

[bowji john]

Can I re-mention the film

Killing the shepherd

A first class explanation of conservation challenges

Expensive to rent but money goes to charity I believe

There is a shortened version available for presentations and training

.. Killing the Shepherd

 

[Klenchblaize]

Problem is those who campaign against hunting in any form will not shrink from seeking to place our passion alongside those morally abhorrent practices (crimes) that so exercise the General Public. Once you get to a point that shooting and gun ownership is viewed with the same moral outrage as is currently reserved for child abuse, all is indeed lost.

Think I’m being alarmist and way, way off the mark with such an observation?

K

 

[Apthorpe]

Problem is those who campaign against hunting in any form will not shrink from seeking to place our passion alongside those morally abhorrent practices (crimes) that so exercise the General Public. Once you get to a point that shooting and gun ownership is viewed with the same moral outrage as is currently reserved for child abuse, all is indeed lost.

Think I’m being alarmist and way, way off the mark with such an observation?

Yes. Way off the mark. The BBC was much more accommodating of child abuse than it is of shooting.

K

 

[Apthorpe]

Opinions about slavery? the plantation owners and Arab finders were not anti. It still was banned.
Drug use will never be banned as there are too many users out there.
Minorities like hunters or orange in the mouth extreme orgasmers are easy targets by comparison I am only a hunter btw).
Cwis should be force fed venison pies.

Cwis should just be ignored by all, after having it made clear that he has no relevant expertise, a clinical inability to analyse the issue properly and little respect for the law.