The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yes that THING that just won't go away!
Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other half of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think about it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).
If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would you hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless. If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful death than the dogs.
If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to eat a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison. Didnt think so.
So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox levels down is found then hunting is a fine solution.
Thanks for reading.
Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other half of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think about it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).
If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would you hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless. If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful death than the dogs.
If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to eat a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison. Didnt think so.
So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox levels down is found then hunting is a fine solution.
Thanks for reading.
Page:
BEARDS. wrote:
> Highly explosive bullets. Just clip its leg and there'll be foxy bits
> flying everywhere. Simple.
But what if you missed and hit a tree nearby and all the bark and stuff flew off and hit poor foxxy-woxxy mangling his face and ripping into his eyeballs noooo poor foxxy woxxy ooh look at the cute kittens!!!
> Highly explosive bullets. Just clip its leg and there'll be foxy bits
> flying everywhere. Simple.
But what if you missed and hit a tree nearby and all the bark and stuff flew off and hit poor foxxy-woxxy mangling his face and ripping into his eyeballs noooo poor foxxy woxxy ooh look at the cute kittens!!!
I reckon we should re-introduce wolves back into England's green and pleasant land. That should shake things up a bit.
And while we at it, maybe we could pepper a few Siberian Tigers in the forests and highlands - it would sure make a walk in the country more interesting.
And while we at it, maybe we could pepper a few Siberian Tigers in the forests and highlands - it would sure make a walk in the country more interesting.
Highly explosive bullets. Just clip its leg and there'll be foxy bits flying everywhere. Simple.
Sniper Master wrote:
> I have seen a fox hunt and belive me i know that SOMEtimes the dogs
> "touture" the fox but alot of the time they just kill it.
> And anyway i am just stating facts not much opinion in there :)
so why did you say that when the dogs get hold of a fox it's just a quick chomp on the neck and their dead? Even if they do still kill it when they catch it, they've still chased it over miles of country side, thats torture in itself. THINK!
> I have seen a fox hunt and belive me i know that SOMEtimes the dogs
> "touture" the fox but alot of the time they just kill it.
> And anyway i am just stating facts not much opinion in there :)
so why did you say that when the dogs get hold of a fox it's just a quick chomp on the neck and their dead? Even if they do still kill it when they catch it, they've still chased it over miles of country side, thats torture in itself. THINK!
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat
> for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we
> just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often
> horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that
> can save lives?
>
> Sonic
You don't actually need to live in a house with an electricity or gas supply. You don't need to run a car. You don't need to have money. I could go on. Electricity, gas, cars, money and meat are five ways in which our lives are enriched, helping make us a civilised society. Unfortunately, this can have negative impacts on other species, but we do a reasonable job of trying to keep this to a minimum. This is part of what makes us human.
I don't need to state why I think it's cruel and barbaric. I mean, what could possibly make me think that it's cruel and barbaric?!?!?!?!
> Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat
> for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we
> just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often
> horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that
> can save lives?
>
> Sonic
You don't actually need to live in a house with an electricity or gas supply. You don't need to run a car. You don't need to have money. I could go on. Electricity, gas, cars, money and meat are five ways in which our lives are enriched, helping make us a civilised society. Unfortunately, this can have negative impacts on other species, but we do a reasonable job of trying to keep this to a minimum. This is part of what makes us human.
I don't need to state why I think it's cruel and barbaric. I mean, what could possibly make me think that it's cruel and barbaric?!?!?!?!
Belldandy wrote:
> Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and
> never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people
> show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend
> to care.
>
> At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to
> care !
Quite frankly, I don't care too much about the foxes either. I'm realistic - nature is bloody cruel, and equally worse things as fox hunting go on every day all around the world. However, what I DON'T like is humans actively contributing to this - there is a behavioural code which makes us civilised, and in no way can fox hunting be called civilised. On top of that it is needlessly ineffective and cruel - shooting is a much cheaper, more humane and effective way of keeping Fox populations down.
> Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and
> never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people
> show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend
> to care.
>
> At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to
> care !
Quite frankly, I don't care too much about the foxes either. I'm realistic - nature is bloody cruel, and equally worse things as fox hunting go on every day all around the world. However, what I DON'T like is humans actively contributing to this - there is a behavioural code which makes us civilised, and in no way can fox hunting be called civilised. On top of that it is needlessly ineffective and cruel - shooting is a much cheaper, more humane and effective way of keeping Fox populations down.
I think what the argument comes down to is;
1) People who want every opportunity they can to protest about something, irrelevant of the subject - as long as it opposes business, coporations, or their other favourite word, "elites", then it must be a good cause.
2) Those who did actually care about foxes before the whole debate blew up, and not the animal rights groups who, faced with diminshing publicity and media attention, decided that supporting the anti hunt supporters was a solution to their problems - regardless of the fact fox hunting has gone on for ages, controls the fox population so that you rarely see them in cities, and that the UK has far more worthy problems than this. Sod the fact we've got out of control gun crime, drugs problems, rising crime overall, and everything else - save the foxes....
3) Everyone else who just jumps on the metaphorical bandwagon and only know what the anti hunt lobby has told them or shown them - inevitably biased info and images designed solely to prove their cause.
Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend to care.
At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to care !
~~Belldandy~~
1) People who want every opportunity they can to protest about something, irrelevant of the subject - as long as it opposes business, coporations, or their other favourite word, "elites", then it must be a good cause.
2) Those who did actually care about foxes before the whole debate blew up, and not the animal rights groups who, faced with diminshing publicity and media attention, decided that supporting the anti hunt supporters was a solution to their problems - regardless of the fact fox hunting has gone on for ages, controls the fox population so that you rarely see them in cities, and that the UK has far more worthy problems than this. Sod the fact we've got out of control gun crime, drugs problems, rising crime overall, and everything else - save the foxes....
3) Everyone else who just jumps on the metaphorical bandwagon and only know what the anti hunt lobby has told them or shown them - inevitably biased info and images designed solely to prove their cause.
Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend to care.
At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to care !
~~Belldandy~~
The reason I'm against fox hunting is quite simple: to me, it's a symbol of how humans can disconnect from compassion and take pleasure in cruelty and suffering.
If fox numbers need to be culled (which is questionable), it should be done in the most humane way possible and not turned into a bloodsport in which the participants take pleasure in seeing an animal killed.
If fox numbers need to be culled (which is questionable), it should be done in the most humane way possible and not turned into a bloodsport in which the participants take pleasure in seeing an animal killed.
Miserableman wrote:
> It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern
> Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are
> there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
Errrr... would you like to explain why you think it's so cruel and barbaric then? You still haven't supported any of your views with facts and debate.
Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that can save lives?
Sonic
> It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern
> Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are
> there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
Errrr... would you like to explain why you think it's so cruel and barbaric then? You still haven't supported any of your views with facts and debate.
Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that can save lives?
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Now, back to my point. Most of the people who you will discuss hunting
> with have no idea what they are on about. They will often follow
> mainstream opinions based on factually incorrect evidence supplied by
> the media. What we really need is an in-depth independent study into
> the need for hunting.
>
> Sonic
It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
> Now, back to my point. Most of the people who you will discuss hunting
> with have no idea what they are on about. They will often follow
> mainstream opinions based on factually incorrect evidence supplied by
> the media. What we really need is an in-depth independent study into
> the need for hunting.
>
> Sonic
It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
Page: