Viewing Thread:
"Edgy's view on the fox hunting situation."

Well it seems a bunch of toffs who do very little to contribute to society other than allow their dogs to crap on the pavement because they're too rich to have to pick it up and dispose of it have decided that they are the only people in Britain who count and that a democracy involves attacking the government they voted in. Ironic really.
So what's this all about then? Well it seems that the final reading of the bill to ban fox hunting has been read today. A unanimous vote (as far as I am aware) by the MPs of the House of Commons has passed it and all is left is for the snobs in the House of Lords to say yay or nay. Unfortunately, they have said 'nay' the past couple of times, and so the House of Commons have threatened to use one of those ancient laws, such as being allowed to kill a man in Yorkshire on a Sunday with a bow and arrow (I wouldn't test that law if I were you...if I have quoted it right) , which allows them to overturn the ruling by the House of Lords which in this case would result in a complete ban on fox hunting.

This news has caused a huge minority of people large enough to be beaten off by those paid to protect democracy in their flourescant uniforms brandishing truncheons. Right this minute (at time of writing), plenty of homes throughout the UK are left unprotected as a large mob of toffs have stormed London hoping to change the situation by means of violence and terrorism. This I'll get back to.

So what is fox hunting?

Fox hunting is what some of these toffs consider a 'sport', or a means of recreation. Others consider it a 'livelyhood', as a means of pest control. It involves a bunch of rediculously dressed snobs on the back of horses blowing a horn that is hardly going to unite the people of Gondor, which commands a huge pack of dogs to chase after a defenseless animal in order to rip it to shreds. This method was used a long long time ago and is still used today. These snobby toffs still believe that this is the most humane way to control the population of foxes in the countryside. They also claim that they shoot the animals so they don't actually suffer. Is that before or after they've chased them across various distances and allowed a pack of dogs to sink their teeth into them?

That isn't the entire story though. Fox Hunting, should it be allowed to continue, should only take place on the land owned by the person who hires the hunters. However, once a fox has been spotted, the toffs don't care who's land they violate, who gets in their way, as long as they get their trophy. A dead piece of fur. Over the years there have been articles on kids being frightened incredibly by toffs trampling their horses across gardens, articles on pets being killed by the dogs, and so on. It only takes a search on the various news websites to find stories like this.

So what do the toffs say about it?

One toff on the news expressed his views along the lines of this pathetic cry for sympathy, "If fox hunting is banned, I will lose my home. I will lose my livelihood. The hounds will have to go. I'm not trained for anything else, so I will have to train to work."

Oh my! Welcome to the life the rest of us lead. We have to work for a living. We don't get to play a barbaric sport for a living. We have to take part in training and earn a real wage, as opposed to riding horses and playing fetch with a fox instead of a stick. It's not that they're afraid they'll lose their jobs. It's that they're afraid to get jobs!

So how do these toffs plan to make things go their way? They turn a peaceful protest into a mob attack. Storm the houses of parliament and think a bit of shouting is going to change the minds of those listening to the majority view of the people. I wont deny that the majority view isn't always right, but I feel that in this situation, in this democracy, the same argument that the protesters were using, again ironic, that fox hunting should be banned if only to give these toffs a reality check.

On the news today, I saw a woman with a big cut around her eye shouting, "I wasn't even protesting! A policeman did this (points to eye)! And I'm a firm believer in the law! So tell me this: What was a non-protester doing in the middle of a huge crowd of protesters outside the Houses of Parliament? Somehow I doubt she was having a picnic. And the rest of them suprised that the police hit them with their truncheons. What did they expect the police to do? Hand them boxing gloves to batter the MPs they voted in?

Overall, this shows the utter rediculous nature of the inbred toffs. They're too afraid to work, and instead of having to find some other way to play, they're forced to find jobs that aren't quite a horse-ride in the park. The majority of people in the UK want an end to this barbaric sport and all agree there are plenty of other more humane ways of handling the overwhelming fox crisis. I mean, it's getting so bad that you can't even walk the streets now incase a fox runs away from you like a scared puppy! Disgusting!

It's not being rich that makes you a snob.

Methinks Mr working class Edgy is snubbing uppper class values! :-P

Edgy wrote:
> Stryke wrote:
> That's my problem, and why I got so
> angry when I read Edgy's pathetic attempt to veil his class hatred
> behind the pretence of animal rights.
>
> If I had class hatred, I wouldn't live in North Cardiff where the
> snobs live.

--

OK then...

"Well it seems a bunch of toffs who do very little to contribute to society other than allow their dogs to crap on the pavement because they're too rich to have to pick it up and dispose of it have decided that they are the only people in Britain who count"

"Overall, this shows the utter rediculous nature of the inbred toffs. They're too afraid to work"

Too afraid to work? Inbred? What are you, stuck in the time when the 'honest' people went down the mines while the Lord of the Manor had gin and tonic with the PM and talked about the African situation? Are you just at that angry teenage socialist phase when Che T-Shirts are all that?

Light wrote:
> Stryke wrote:

>
> I'd say class is already dragged into it by the fact that hunting is
> a sport enjoyed by the moneyed classes. I ask again; if urban foxes
> were hunted by the the hoi polloi with their dogs, d'you really think
> that it'd still be legal.

--

If it'd been done in suburbia for generations, then yes, I think it would. If the upper classes were pushing for a ban on urban fox-hunting, do you think the House of Commons would put on the same sort of front that the Lords did? Practically every politican, when it comes down to it, is going to be biased towards the class of their upbringing.

--


>
> Also, Can I push you for a response to this one;
>
>
> But does one even have to be informed on the complexities of an issue
> when the crux of the argument is that the vast, overwhelming majority
> of people are opposed to a practice and their opposition is based on
> the fact that a small minority of wealthy people maintain an
> anachronistic practice for no other reason than to derive pleasure
> from meaningless and needless killing?

--

Fsir point, but I still think that's what the informed know. Seriously, and I'm not bringing class into this, I hope, but most anti-hunt protesters are against it because they think the fox is cuddly. No-one bats an eyelid at coarsing or ratting, and don't you think if it was just about the animal cruelty angle these practises would be attacked as much? After all, coarsing and ratting aren't upper-class pursuits, are you? It just annoys me that all these saintly protesters, all thinking about the wildlife, aren't lobbying against hare coarsing as well. I'd love to see this protest being about conservation, and that's what I try and support. I just don't like it being seen as an angle to kick the upper-classes when they're down.

I'm coming off as elitist here, and I swear I'm not. I just really hate the bias between classes.

> [edit]
> By the way, is Azul really a petulant kid, or does he just do a good
> impression of one?

Stryke wrote:

>
> But what I hate about the whole is dragging class into it. People
> hate that it's being done by the upper-classes and the animal issue
> has almost fallen by the wayside. That's my problem, and why I got so
> angry when I read Edgy's pathetic attempt to veil his class hatred
> behind the pretence of animal rights.


I'd say class is already dragged into it by the fact that hunting is a sport enjoyed by the moneyed classes. I ask again; if urban foxes were hunted by the the hoi polloi with their dogs, d'you really think that it'd still be legal.

Also, Can I push you for a response to this one;


But does one even have to be informed on the complexities of an issue when the crux of the argument is that the vast, overwhelming majority of people are opposed to a practice and their opposition is based on the fact that a small minority of wealthy people maintain an anachronistic practice for no other reason than to derive pleasure from meaningless and needless killing?


[edit]
By the way, is Azul really a petulant kid, or does he just do a good impression of one?

It's a good thing I don't take you seriously, otherwise I'd consider this a contract and request my £10. 8P

The first part of Edgy's paragraph, understandable, you bet that he had to have tea with mumsy at 5, and he told you what he actaully did on Sunday at 5.
Maybe he just wanted you to know more "like did they have a car?"

Uh-huh.

Closed.

Edgy wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
>
> Because I wanted to. Quite simple really.
>
> I did actually answer your question.

That's not an answer though, it's a childish retort.

Azul wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Sunday I was chilling at a mates house full of baskers who were
> smoking something (I'm no expert, could just have been tobacco for
> all I know) whilst they were playing various tracks with their
> guitars and singing along.
>
> Pray tell - what was the point in that?

Edgy wrote:

> Because I wanted to. Quite simple really.


I did actually answer your question.

It wasn't until you altered your question that I could see you meant something completely different.

Edgy wrote:
> And is it really being retarded

Ironic, considering I had to repeat the same simple question numerous times.

I typed that as a contrast to your comment: "Tenner says you have tea with mumsy at 5 on a Sunday evening."

Quite frankly, I consider 5 as afternoon...

And is it really being retarded not to realise you meant "what was the point in typing that" instead of "what was the point in doing that" when you quoted that situation I typed and put, "what was the point in that"?