Author Topic: A thrill to kill  (Read 4082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A thrill to kill
« on: September 20, 2009, 06:04:46 AM »
OOS-I'd like to get it straight, the argument in Thrill to Kill is that outlawing hunting is wrong because other ways to torment animals for amusement might be found??
The blood thirsty huntsman were a lost cause from the starts, this doesn’t mean they should be allowed to curry their sadistic desires as they wish   

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: A thrill to kill
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2009, 02:23:10 PM »
First of all we don’t argue that outlawing hunting is wrong, the outlawing itself is not a bad thing it is the fact that animal rights activists deal with outlawing which is bad. We argue that outlawing is useless in the sense of stopping the foxes’ suffering. It would reduce the number of hunted animals in the specific place where it was banned but whether this kind of outlaw will reduce the world’s total amount is doubtful, as most of the British fox hunters (The outlaw regards to fox hunting with hounds in Britain only. Discussing a total prohibition of any type of hunting is not even considered in any place in the world as far as we know) can afford the flight to another country where it is legal to do what ever they desire to other animals, and continue with more or less the same repugnant behavior. So even the specific benefit is seriously doubted.
But we don’t expect animal rights activists to forsake fox hunting resistance (or any other type of torture resistance) because there is a chance that the change will be geographical only.
We expect animal rights activists not to lay their hopes on the legal system and on outlawing as a suffering reducing method at all.

We believe that the risk that the outlaw will only transfer the torture to someplace else is huge because not only that the abusers weren’t convinced that what they are doing is wrong, now they will do it out of defiantly besides their loathsome pleasure.

I heard activists seriously argue that the industry transfer to another country after being outlawed will arouse resistance in the new location just as much, so the outlawing is never in vain. If that answer was given because the activists didn’t want to depress other activists, the supportive parts of the public and themselves, then it is understandable but if they really believe there will be a serious resistance in north Korea, Mali, Sudan and Pakistan for example then it’s a dangerous self delusion which severely blocks serious and genuine solutions. Here is a relevant part from the manifest about the subject:
Even when most of the public is against an exploitive industry, like in the case of seal fur or rodeos, cockfighting, dog fighting, ivory, and etc, it doesn’t matter. It is not enough. The world is changing because of economic and political reasons. Not because of moral reasons. Bullfights still exist, in spite of the campaigns that the animal rights organizations run against them for decades, and in spite that most humans are against them. And if this is not enough for little and publicly unaccepted industries such as bullfighting, cockfighting and dog fighting, when will the chicken meat industry, which is more than 50 billion suffering animals per year industry, ever stop?

It doesn’t matter if an industry was legally closed because at the same time the others thrive. And industries don’t really get closed anyway. In the best case they are outlawed in a specific country, so they just relocate.
Industries that are no longer legal in some countries have simply transferred to different countries. The animal rights movement can’t beat globalization. We can’t beat capitalism. When battery cages won’t be legal in the European Union, eggs would be imported into Europe nations from Asia. Corporations already started making the adjustments, they will seize the moment as they always do, move their business to a different location and sell eggs from battery cages to Europe for a cheaper price. Then morality will have a fight with an unbeatable opponent - lower prices. The movement is fighting a very powerful motivation of the exploiters to become more efficient in order to increase profits.
For every “win” by the animal rights movement, new practices of exploitation rise and old ones intensify.

The struggle is social and political, moral and philosophical, not constitutional.
If bullfights are finally outlawed then more people will go to rodeos, circuses, marine parks and zoos.  
Outlawing hunting for example is not a real social change. Hunters still want to hunt.
Outlawing hunting didn’t convince hunters that it is wrong to hunt and it didn’t subdue their "thrill to kill".
Humans will always find new ways to express their violent character on the expense of the weaker ones.  
A real change would be one that will take the domination and the violence urges out of humans and unfortunately it’s impossible.

The animal rights movement gains little changes in little industries, but fails to understand the mechanism.
The exploitation systems are getting bigger and bigger. There is no limit to the ingenuity when it comes to exploitation.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 03:18:43 AM by O.O.S »

Re: A thrill to kill
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2009, 01:46:47 PM »
Ok, it’s clearer now, but still, wouldn’t you say that the fact that laws against some hunting methods were legislated is in itself an indication that society has changed?
Not too long ago that monitoring hunting, determining its scope and incidence, restricting the number of hunted individuals of the same species, and of course to outlaw specific methods as hunting with dogs were unthinkable and today it exists.

True the violent urges still exist and were not neutralized and I agree they may be expressed in other places and other ways but still society stood up against some of these violent urges and opposed them and that is a progress
What was once out of the question is now a reality
Once upon a time gladiator fight was amusement for the crowd and today it would sound crazy and unacceptable in any modern society

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: A thrill to kill
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2009, 08:41:32 AM »
I don’t think that what stands in the center of hunting administration is the animals. The idea is creating a balanced loot distribution for the present and for the future, leaving enough “details” of each species for next year’s hunting season. 

I agree that gladiators fights between humans will probably not be seriously discussed in any place in the world if someone will suggest their comeback, but it doesn’t mean that the drive, the desire, the curiosity and the attraction to watch two people beat each other has vanished. The difference is that these fights are now regulated and administrated, the fights are not to the death but to the severely injured or until one of the opponents can’t stand on his legs anymore, and laws that don’t permit just anything but very close to that were made over the years.
Violent fights between humans are very popular today just as much and boxing for example has become an Olympic sport and family entertainment. Millions of people watch it regularly. Sports magazines and television shows pick boxing fights as the greatest sports events in history. Little children admire these people who dedicate their lives to punch other people’s faces until they drop and don’t get up, lose consciousness, or can’t see anything because of the eye swelling and so can’t box anymore.
And that’s just boxing which is probably the most established and organized kind of violent fights between humans. There are many more violent examples that are much less organized than boxing, where children are enjoying violence. Even though it is all bluff, wrestling is extremely popular among children and teens and they are too considered to be family entertainment. They don’t believe it is acting and they don’t care it is fake they enjoy the violence. The more the better. As opposed to gladiators if someone gets hurt it is by accident and it is a huge difference in the practice but the audience is there today for exactly the same reasons it was there 2,000 years ago. For that matter nothing has changed.
The fact that gladiators fights had gone a refinement to boxing and wrestling and aggressive sports where violence is not the main issue but is very evident like football, handball, rugby and hockey, is an indication of the true character of the human race and to the fact that the changes are on the surface mostly.
And this is only regarding man to man fights. I can’t say and I hope you can’t either, that animal vs. animal fights which not only didn’t alleviate at all over the years but gotten worse and more popular, are a progress compared to gladiators fights.
With such a violent basis of this race, it is impossible to create a non violent, egalitarian, non speciesist society. 

Offline Earth to Venus

  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: A thrill to kill
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2009, 07:03:59 AM »
I recognize there is a certain level of progress in the passing of the act, a symbolic call that significant parts of the public don’t accept this blood sport. But that all there is to it- symbolism, since the hunt continues uninterrupted.
It would reduce the number of hunted animals in the specific place where it was banned
From news I've been getting this hunting act made little to no difference for the foxes and hares in the field! Hunt thugs that are above the law, sided by the police that admittingly overlooks these criminal offences and instead turns against those committed to the ban, actually doing the cops’ job enforcing the law - all in this bleak report, I pasted the most important bits in my view:
It’s pretty much business as usual hunt sabbing in the fields of rural England, three years after the hunting ban came into force - if you can call it a ban; week in week out we see hunts chasing and killing foxes in direct violation of the ban.” - H.S.A. Press Officer

Three years since the ban on hunting with hounds was passed through parliament, has it made a blind bit of difference to the bloody fate of persecuted British wildlife? No – but it has provided an invaluable lesson on how people with cash and influence can buck the law with impunity. Not only that, but those trying to curb their illegal activities face police harassment and hunt thuggery.  
Bloodsports enthusiasts carried on their merry way, initially using the flimsy legal camouflage of ‘exempt’ hunting. What this meant in fact was that some hunts took to having a bird of prey on hand (falconry isn’t banned), others a few bumpkins with shotguns (because it’s allowed to use two hounds to flush prey towards guns) and others still took to dragging smelly rags around miles from the action in attempt to pretend they were drag-hunting. Once it became apparent that across the country police were not about to take any action anyway even these pantomimes were dropped. For example on Saturday 5th January, the Surrey Union foxhunt chased and killed a fox on the village green at Ockley, Surrey. This was photographed by sabs. Efforts to interest police in the footage were met with the thin blue line of complete indifference
As one greying veteran of the anti-bloodsports battles told SchNEWS, “Screw this monitoring lark: no more standing around with cameras while still getting attacked by the huntscum and arrested by the plod – let’s get back to old fashioned sabbing...”
The report failed to mention the instance parliamentary effort that was put in the passed years, some say a few decades, to reach this empty piece of parchment.
I don’t live in England but I happen to know there is plenty of frustration in light of the failure of the ban to hold on to it’s promises.
When police do turn up, naturally they haven’t developed a sudden sympathy for the anarchists in their (t)rusty black landrovers. In November last year, sabs out with the notorious Old Surrey and Burstow fox hunt, filmed huntsman Mark Bycroft blatantly urging his hounds on to a fox.
One sab told us, “They were on to their third fox of the day – it broke out of some woodland and we were standing there filming. Police arrived and told the sabs, “You lot move away or you’ll be arrested.” When we asked what for, we were told aggravated trespass. Pointing out that we were disrupting a unlawful activity didn’t do any good as at that point Bycroft rode up and told the police, “You lot sort ‘em out or we will.” The cops then immediately jumped on one cameraman and wrestled him to the ground, putting him in handcuffs. Minutes later they arrested me. ”All charges have since been dropped
Of course it’s not surprising that the boys in blue line up with the chinless in pink – some of them ride with the hunt! On Saturday 9th February 2008, Sabs on the South Downs and Eridge hunt were bemused to have an off-duty WPC from Surrey ride up to them flashing her warrant card. Strangely enough two sabs were later arrested and held for 22 hours. “Basically our vehicle had been blocked in by hunt thugs. After one female hunt sab had been ridden down we’d asked for police assistance and been told that the matter ‘had already been dealt with’ – i.e. they’d asked the WPC if everything was OK. To try and get out I rolled forward with the Land Rover and cracked a brake light on the 4x4 blocking the road. When the police eventually did turn up I was nicked for criminal damage!”


I wasn’t naive enough to think the ban would mark the end of pack hunting but it’s the first time I hear such a blunt shameless breach of the law by the law keepers themselves.
I don’t tend to place hopes in parliamentary work and this is such a classic example why.
The laws themselves are neutral, they are only as relevant as their level of public support otherwise there would be no implementation.
Usually legislative work is drawn out of context down the long road to the vote, by either changes of language, adds of clauses and subclauses or any other underhanded tactics. And for whatever left of the text that manages to pass all impediments- there is no promise for enforcement.  
In principle parliamentary work always strikes me as bizarre considering the unequivocal fact that politicians are in the pockets of big businesses interested in preserving the status-quo, and no where there is a more noticeable interest considering the large profits nonhuman exploitation provides
Countless lawful acts against public interest aren’t being stopped since they fit a small group of interests like pollution of residential areas, GMOs, wars or privatization of public services…and everyone stays mute. And in chance public action starts to take shape it’s soon settled as public officials are clever enough to throw protesters an empty gesture in the form of legislative work with a promising title and no gist, providing a sense of achievement and ensuring at the same time no more than small shifts have to be made. That’s the way it’s been so far. If legislation couldn’t provide clean water and nontoxic food it’s hard to envision any significant improving for the lives of nonhumans coming from within the parliament anytime soon  
« Last Edit: September 26, 2009, 07:05:52 AM by Earth to Venus »

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: A thrill to kill
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2009, 11:01:07 AM »
Although I agree with the corporations’ significant share, the fundamentally corrupted system and the substantial invalidation of the laws by lawful manipulations, it’s the activists’ beliefs and actions that matter most, especially in this forum.
I am much more interested in what the activists think and do than in what politicians and legislators and judges think and do. They are the real decision makers or at least this is how I see them and I hope they will see themselves.
The problem is that activists believe legislation is a relevant method in their struggle to stop animal abuse. They believe in the legal system, the police, politicians, judges and etc. The article you quoted is a proof to whom who needed proof that laws are meaningless. There are laws against animal abuse in almost every country in the world. So what?! They are all fig leaves as Earth to Venus pointed out. Going into details and they are all absolutely meaningless. None of the lawmakers even thought of the necessity of dealing with cases of conflict of interests between humans and non humans because it is so obvious that it’s a non issue. The thought of really thinking of animals’ interest is totally imaginary.
All these laws don’t even try to deal with the big issues. All will be driven away confronting with "freedom of occupation choice". It is not abuse anymore when it is some humans’ source of income. Colliding with humans’ interests, and all the laws that are many activists’ wells of salvation (and as I say that will never even pass) will be omitted in the twink of an eye, and conflict of interests between humans and the rest of the species happens every second everywhere. It is something that can’t be regulated.
The fact the legislation is failing in the most simple cases of interests collision (and invading into a territory where animals live in and start shooting them for amusement is defiantly one of the simplest examples I can think of) reveals the chances of the allegedly much more complex conflict of interests like building more dams, roads and houses, the use of oil, disinfestation, trees cutting for any reason, lights at night in near coastline areas, creating waste (because animals live everywhere) and of course humans unrestrained procreation which is a blatant violation of animals’ rights. This is an extremely partial list and non of the mentioned will ever be considered seriously, not even by animal rights activists and only as a domestic policy among them, so animal rights and I mean genuinely acknowledging the interests of other animals not empty declarations that more suffer was caused in the making of the paper they are signed on than they will prevent, are not relevant. 

Every activist should consider the theoretical boundaries of the term rights in that sense and how narrow they really are. And for the ones who wish to deal with the theory later and with the practice now, the horrible evidences Earth to Venus brought to our attention leaves no room for doubts.
When it took so long to pass laws against hunting with hounds (not against hunting in general but against a very specific form of hunting) and even they are not enforced laying hopes on the legal system is not naïveness it is stupidity and irresponsibility.
The idea of animal rights is absurd from the starts. Equal rights are not possible for different creatures who share the same territory and the same limited resources. More than 150 wars have broken since World War II, about 3 new wars every year, and that’s after the UN – an international institution that is supposed to settle conflicts between nations, already exists. Humans are failing again and again and again with inner-species conflicts so regulating inter-species conflicts? And not to mention that it’s humans who will be totally and exclusively in charge of the legislation, implementation and enforcement. They will be the legislative authority, the executive authority and judicial authority.
They will have the exclusive authority to decide about the resources distribution, they will be in charge of the quota of each species according to their own interest and they will make the census registration of all the world. Humans only, will have the competency to change the laws as they wish and the rest of the species will have to comply. They are totally powerless. Not even aware of what’s taking place. This is not rights it is enlightened tyranny. And this is the best the animals can receive in this world, an improved despotism. Rights are out of the question. It’s not only a non achievable notion, it’s also a non existing notion. Rights is a privilege preserved only for the strong. At any given time "rights" are being violated by people who can, and when the option to violate them is so frequent and arbitrary they are practically devoid of their contents, especially what is mistakenly called natural rights.
The only thing natural about rights is how naturally they are violated.
Genuine rights can only take place when there are no interest collisions and that as you all know is biologically impossible. All the world’s creatures live on the expense of the others. There will always be interest collisions and therefore there will never be rights. Even theoretically it is a false concept leading to false hopes.

And if what I say about the chance for declaration of rights for animals and about legislation, or what Earth to Venus quoted here, or all of your personal experience as activist, and all the history of the human society and its relationships with the rest of the species so far, didn’t convince all of the conventional activists among you, please read the article vegan suffer and tell me how can animals and humans live together when even the best option humans’ have to manufacture energy is so harmful towards animals?

If we can’t practically stop one form of hunting, dog fights, cockfights, the cruel Animal Olympics games before the Olympiad, the various rituals in various places in the world where goats are tossed out of towers, blindfolded eagles are tied to a running bull and sheep’s heads are cut of and football on horses is played with their corpses and etc, when will we stop the milk industry? And more important for me right now than convincing you that it is impossible, is to convince you that it is not moral to wait even if it was possible. Dismiss the tendency to work with humans and the dependency on their willingness to stop abusing. It is not about them. Even if changes were possible, this world is horrible enough that you must try to destroy it, not try to change it.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015