The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pro-Hunt campaigners. For a start, it's a barbaric sport, causing unneccessary suffering to cut ickle foxes. And now it turns out the people that support can only express their opinions through violence. The reporter trying to interview people with blood running down their faces has to compete with mongoloids running up to the camera shouting "It suuuuucks!!!" in their finest mongol tones. Complete dickwads, in my opinion - just waiting for the Police to set the alsations on them, see how they like it.
Page:
Well, if anything I would be pro-fox hunting. I'm don't strongly support this, and it doesn't really bother me that its being banned, but the fact is fox hunters - toffs on horseback - never really catch that many foxes. Many hunts go on around my way and only a few foxes are killed, but never enough to damage the population.
The people I hate are those townie scum that take trips out to the countryside with their shotguns, spades and terriers, find a fox hole, send the terrier down it and kill the fox coming out, for the sheer joy of killing it. Most of the time these people are thugs. You may ask why I make a blanket statement like that, but I know it's the truth and dare someone to prove me wrong.
In time - if the townie scum can't stop it - then the fox population will increase and the govt will think up some stupid idea to kill them off, like the introduced disease myxamatosis(sp?) for the rabbits in the 80's. That would well and truly screw up the ecosystem.
In conclusion I don't really have anything agaisnt the aristocrat on a horse with his hound type hunting, but as for the townie with his shotgun I am strongly against. I've had countless of these bastarrds trespassing on our land, and not all the time they are hunting.
The people I hate are those townie scum that take trips out to the countryside with their shotguns, spades and terriers, find a fox hole, send the terrier down it and kill the fox coming out, for the sheer joy of killing it. Most of the time these people are thugs. You may ask why I make a blanket statement like that, but I know it's the truth and dare someone to prove me wrong.
In time - if the townie scum can't stop it - then the fox population will increase and the govt will think up some stupid idea to kill them off, like the introduced disease myxamatosis(sp?) for the rabbits in the 80's. That would well and truly screw up the ecosystem.
In conclusion I don't really have anything agaisnt the aristocrat on a horse with his hound type hunting, but as for the townie with his shotgun I am strongly against. I've had countless of these bastarrds trespassing on our land, and not all the time they are hunting.
Preyy soon it won't be shotguns, but M4s.
Silent Thunder wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Silent Thunder mashed the keypad:
> stuff
>
> So the reason to keep hunting is because there will be some unwanted
> dogs and "a flood of unwanted horses"? Which you claim
> will most likely be put down? Which would make your reason for
> being
> pro-hunting... animal cruelty?
>
> Mmm, irony is delicious when served with sarcasm.
>
> Prfft, read the rest of the post and don't stop half way.
>
> I said fox hunting is quite a barbaric way of dealing with foxes, but
> it is much better than some farmer with a crooked shot shooting one
> and leaving it in pain for a few days. Fox hunting does the same,
> yes, but it's quick. The animal doesn't suffer nearly as much.
Your entire argument seems to consist of the following message: "I'm pro-hunting, because hunters are better at shooting animals than farmers, therefore causing the foxes a quicker death."
Would this be correct? The only reason you're pro-hunting (because it's barbaric remember) is because you trust a bunch of hoity-toity tally-ho charlies on horseback to give the foxes a more humane death? Yeah, I'm sure the foxes will be really glad they got shot in the head and killed instantly rather than shot in the ass by Farmer Giles.
Not everything has to be killed with guns, y'know. There would be other measures to control vermin.
*shakes head*
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Silent Thunder mashed the keypad:
> stuff
>
> So the reason to keep hunting is because there will be some unwanted
> dogs and "a flood of unwanted horses"? Which you claim
> will most likely be put down? Which would make your reason for
> being
> pro-hunting... animal cruelty?
>
> Mmm, irony is delicious when served with sarcasm.
>
> Prfft, read the rest of the post and don't stop half way.
>
> I said fox hunting is quite a barbaric way of dealing with foxes, but
> it is much better than some farmer with a crooked shot shooting one
> and leaving it in pain for a few days. Fox hunting does the same,
> yes, but it's quick. The animal doesn't suffer nearly as much.
Your entire argument seems to consist of the following message: "I'm pro-hunting, because hunters are better at shooting animals than farmers, therefore causing the foxes a quicker death."
Would this be correct? The only reason you're pro-hunting (because it's barbaric remember) is because you trust a bunch of hoity-toity tally-ho charlies on horseback to give the foxes a more humane death? Yeah, I'm sure the foxes will be really glad they got shot in the head and killed instantly rather than shot in the ass by Farmer Giles.
Not everything has to be killed with guns, y'know. There would be other measures to control vermin.
*shakes head*
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Not everything has to be killed with guns, y'know. There would be
> other measures to control vermin.
>
> *shakes head*
By control you mean kill, right?
> Not everything has to be killed with guns, y'know. There would be
> other measures to control vermin.
>
> *shakes head*
By control you mean kill, right?
lcarus wrote:
> Preyy soon it won't be shotguns, but M4s.
I'd love an M4.
Those townies would experience hot lead.
> Preyy soon it won't be shotguns, but M4s.
I'd love an M4.
Those townies would experience hot lead.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Silent Thunder wrote:
>
> Prfft, read the rest of the post and don't stop half way.
>
> I said fox hunting is quite a barbaric way of dealing with foxes,
> but
> it is much better than some farmer with a crooked shot shooting one
> and leaving it in pain for a few days. Fox hunting does the same,
> yes, but it's quick. The animal doesn't suffer nearly as much.
>
> Your entire argument seems to consist of the following message:
> "I'm pro-hunting, because hunters are better at shooting animals
> than farmers, therefore causing the foxes a quicker death."
>
> Would this be correct? The only reason you're pro-hunting (because
> it's barbaric remember) is because you trust a bunch of hoity-toity
> tally-ho charlies on horseback to give the foxes a more humane death?
> Yeah, I'm sure the foxes will be really glad they got shot in the
> head and killed instantly rather than shot in the ass by Farmer
> Giles.
I'm not going to lie to you - The answer is yes.
Why? Because I would rather trust them than Tony Blair et crew. For example, Blair only now "cares" about the evironment when an election makes an appearance.
To me (this is only my opinion) Tony blair is acting like a real dictator in this situation. He already stated that whether the MPs don't vote it through he would push it past that and make it a law. Nice democracy there. Now I don't know if I have been misinformed about that, but it's what I heard from such sources as the BBC.
>
> Not everything has to be killed with guns, y'know. There would be
> other measures to control vermin.
>
> *shakes head*
Give me a few example then of these other measures. Poison perhaps? So they will recieve a pain possibly worse than a shot and worse than a hunt. Or perhaps they will release a man-made disease. Just like they did when the rabbit population exploded they decided to make a new desease. I'm sure the guys who made that are damn happy with themselves.
> Silent Thunder wrote:
>
> Prfft, read the rest of the post and don't stop half way.
>
> I said fox hunting is quite a barbaric way of dealing with foxes,
> but
> it is much better than some farmer with a crooked shot shooting one
> and leaving it in pain for a few days. Fox hunting does the same,
> yes, but it's quick. The animal doesn't suffer nearly as much.
>
> Your entire argument seems to consist of the following message:
> "I'm pro-hunting, because hunters are better at shooting animals
> than farmers, therefore causing the foxes a quicker death."
>
> Would this be correct? The only reason you're pro-hunting (because
> it's barbaric remember) is because you trust a bunch of hoity-toity
> tally-ho charlies on horseback to give the foxes a more humane death?
> Yeah, I'm sure the foxes will be really glad they got shot in the
> head and killed instantly rather than shot in the ass by Farmer
> Giles.
I'm not going to lie to you - The answer is yes.
Why? Because I would rather trust them than Tony Blair et crew. For example, Blair only now "cares" about the evironment when an election makes an appearance.
To me (this is only my opinion) Tony blair is acting like a real dictator in this situation. He already stated that whether the MPs don't vote it through he would push it past that and make it a law. Nice democracy there. Now I don't know if I have been misinformed about that, but it's what I heard from such sources as the BBC.
>
> Not everything has to be killed with guns, y'know. There would be
> other measures to control vermin.
>
> *shakes head*
Give me a few example then of these other measures. Poison perhaps? So they will recieve a pain possibly worse than a shot and worse than a hunt. Or perhaps they will release a man-made disease. Just like they did when the rabbit population exploded they decided to make a new desease. I'm sure the guys who made that are damn happy with themselves.
lcarus wrote:
> By control you mean kill, right?
Doesn't have to be. Can sterilise a percentage of the population, or even control vegetation, foxes diet, etc, that'll probably have it under control by the time the bill actually comes into effect in 2006.
> By control you mean kill, right?
Doesn't have to be. Can sterilise a percentage of the population, or even control vegetation, foxes diet, etc, that'll probably have it under control by the time the bill actually comes into effect in 2006.
monkey_man wrote:
> Can even control vegetation, foxes diet, etc,
Isn't that basically still killing them?
> Can even control vegetation, foxes diet, etc,
Isn't that basically still killing them?
Bottom line: Fox-hunting is an archaic pasttime, entirely irrelevant in this age, and the only reason it's been allowed to continue is a few half-hearted 'it's for their own good' reasonings (and, presumably, the fact that most fox hunters are extremely rich and in high society, which always helps when you're trying to stop something from getting outlawed).
Shhh, the foxes will hear.
Page: