The stupid hunt ....

[wanabe]

Now, this post is thought-provoking! I am sure there is more than a grain of truth in what you say. However, can the fact that empathy is sometimes misdirected be used to argue that people should have less empathy?

I'm glad you got it. I feared most wouldn't as it is a subtle point.

I think too-little or too-much empathy causes trouble. It's something that ideally should be right-sized.

 

[Mary Poppins]

One thing that bothers me about the antis who can't stand the thought of any suffering on the part of an animal is that they REALLY aren't concerned about the animals -- they're concerned about their own psyhic pain. These people suffer from a surfeit of empathy. Empathy is a good thing but only to a degree. If it is so strong in you that you feel so miserable about certain things that you want to reorder the world in such a way that the animals involved experience more pain and suffering than before, but because you don't see it because the pain and suffering is swept under the rug, then that is IMMORAL. You are putting the real pain and suffering of many animals behind the relief of your own empathy-plagued psyche.

Now I have a degree in psychology and that makes no sense at all to me!

 

[colettybetty]

I'm glad you got it. I feared most wouldn't as it is a subtle point.

I think too-little or too-much empathy causes trouble. It's something that ideally should be right-sized.

Fail to see how you can have too much empathy ? Inability to empathise however is seen in sociopaths, along with lack of guilt. Being very empathetic doesn't make a 'bleeding heart', just socially aware and insightful.

 

[Cate Ged]

One thing that bothers me about the antis who can't stand the thought of any suffering on the part of an animal is that they REALLY aren't concerned about the animals -- they're concerned about their own psyhic pain.

Ok, so here you mean their own psychological pain,that these people (antis) and lets be careful not to lump everyone together as not ALL antis can be described as such are only concerned with their own feeling/reaction to the suffering of the animal rather than the animal itself. Some/perhaps many antis are actually concerned about the animal and what is happening to it rather than their own emotions.

These people suffer from a surfeit of empathy.

Too much empathy When someone can put themselves in someone elses shoes etc. Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or to in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself.

It is important to note that empathy does not necessarily imply compassion. Empathy can be 'used' for compassionate or cruel behavior
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy)

Empathy is a good thing but only to a degree.

At what point do we decide that too much is too much, people want to change many things for example children suffering in Africa (starving etc.) people empathize with these children and want to help reduce their suffering, the same can be said for the antis.

If it is so strong in you that you feel so miserable about certain things that you want to reorder the world in such a way that the animals involved experience more pain and suffering than before

People feeling strongly about something is how changes happen, why apartheid ended and black people were given the vote in America because enough people felt strongly enough to make a difference to what they saw as being wrong.
How are they going to experience more pain and suffering? All animals will die how they die may differ, by removing hunting with hounds (which removes such a small number of foxes and in some areas none at all) you remove ONE type of death and do not suddenly replace that type of death with a new nastier version.

but because you don't see it because the pain and suffering is swept under the rug, then that is IMMORAL.

So far there have been a few pro-hunt people that have said that they do not want to see the fox die/ think about the fox being killed when out hunting are you also saying that they are immoral? I have not heard anyone say that the other methods of killing/death are always better. What I have understood people who are anti hunting to say is that they want to reduce the stress that a fox suffers before death. At times a two hour chase, at the start of which adrenaline will be pumping, however towards the end the adrenaline may have stopped being produced and the animal is tired and very very stressed. Shooting can maim an animal which is why it needs to be very controlled and the shooter needs to be a good shot, this will reduce the risk of maiming although not get rid of it alltogether.

You are putting the real pain and suffering of many animals behind the relief of your own empathy-plagued psyche.

I think that this is very judgmental towards the group of people that you are talking about. First of all you would actually need to interview a lot of people before making a statement as general as this, also if you turn this statement on its head you could then say that all pro-hunts people are lacking in empathy and use this lack of empathy to bolster their justification to hunt, which I am sure is not the case.

I do think that there may be something in what you say, however is not only antis that can suffer from this pro-hunters can as well. It is a way that people form and justify their own feelings, and a common empathy is way that people can become motivated to work together towards a common purpose.

Pleaselet me know if I have misunderstood what you have been saying, this is in no way a dig at anyone just my interpretation of what you said.

 

[Haphazard]

How does this relate to the hunting of foxes?

It doesn't specifically but the word "suffering" has been brought up may times. Many people get very passionate about the suffering of animals, How often do we hear "what a kind thing to do to have *** pts to end the suffering" but would do all in there power to prolong human life even if a person is suffering.? life is full of dual standards

 

[Liz1949]

Many people get very passionate about the suffering of animals ... life is full of dual standards

not surprised you're confused, what with this thread so full of impassioned support for Reynard - alongside a thread about the best ways of 'controlling' (ie killing) rats, expressed in a very light-hearted way.

Bizarre!

 

[india]

It doesn't specifically but the word "suffering" has been brought up may times. Many people get very passionate about the suffering of animals, How often do we hear "what a kind thing to do to have *** pts to end the suffering" but would do all in there power to prolong human life even if a person is suffering.? life is full of dual standards

Not me, I think it's disgusting we are able to put animals out of their misery yet have to sit and watch while our loved ones die a slow, painful and often undignified death.

There are some countries where euthanasia is legal though.

 

[wanabe]

Cate Ged -- that was a very good, thoughtful response to my earlier, admittedly provocative post.

I don't want to quote you because your response was so long. And I won't address your point-by-point responses.

I'll just say that too-much empathy is certainly bad for the emotional balance of people who have this trait. I know two, personally, and they are depressed a lot of the time by the suffering in the world.

It's also bad for just the reason I gave. Sometimes, some of them, DO put the relief of their psychological pain before real physical suffering, on a large scale, of animals.

We don't have to decide (at least here, ) when too much is too much. Just be aware that it can be.

People feeling too strongly about things is also how great evil has been done -- not just good.

I agree that most hunters and fishermen are probably below average in empathy. I think they're wrong described as getting enjoyment from the killing of animals and fish. They just aren't bothered by the suffering as much. That's an important point that escapes most antis.

 

[hedgehunter78]

my parents had a pet fox when they were first married just over 40 years ago, the fox was in no means vicious and lived a very happy and content life, just like one of their dogs, they also had rabbits and the fox didnt bother them in the slightest

If we all made foxes into pets all our livestock would be safe.......I presume they fed the friendly fox?

 

[Mary Poppins]

People feeling too strongly about things is also how great evil has been done -- not just good.

No - great evil is done by people who want control and power. They have a complete lack of empathy otherwise they won't be able to do the things that they do.

Having empathy and channeling it in the correct manner will result in legislation change to make our country a better place - hence the reason that fox hunting was banned in the first place.

 

[Tre]

If we all made foxes into pets all our livestock would be safe.......I presume they fed the friendly fox?

yes they fed it, it ate the same food as the dogs, it used to curl up with the dogs and go to sleep, walk out on a lead with them, everything a normal pet dog did really.

my parents still continue to feed the wild foxes, they save the carcasses for them and put them out at night then wait and watch them

 

[Haphazard]

Not me, I think it's disgusting we are able to put animals out of their misery yet have to sit and watch while our loved ones die a slow, painful and often undignified death.

There are some countries where euthanasia is legal though.

I am with you on this one but obviously our government, for one, are not. I think with the government it has nothing to do with the personal convictions of MP's but more "how many votes is it worth"

 

[zizz]

Having empathy and channeling it in the correct manner will result in legislation change to make our country a better place - hence the reason that fox hunting was banned in the first place.

Do you really believe that the ban on hunting has made our country a better place?
IMO it would have been much more worthwhile to use the governmant time to end some of the cruelties inherent in modern farming practises (Battery hens, Intensive pig rearing units etc) than write a useless peice of legislation that still allows legalised hunting, allows foxes to shot and above all has in no way improved thier welfare because of the inpracticalities of enforcing it.
All the hunting ban has done is to show the world how inept our government is!!

 

[Yann]

Do you really believe that the ban on hunting has made our country a better place?

In a small way, yes, flawed as it is it's still a step in the right direction. And time spent legislating on something a lot of people care about is time well spent IMHO.

Interesting you mention tradition. That's something that hasn't been discussed at all (probably because it's not such a big issue).

The traditions, the dressing up, the settings and the sense of occasion are one of the things I really enjoyed during my recent experience riding with hounds. It's a window into another world for a townie like me

 

[zizz]

And time spent legislating on something a lot of people care about is time well spent IMHO.

I would agree if at the end it was a good piece of law, but IMO the government has just pandered to both sides rather than doing anything constructive for the welfare of the animal. Labour to Antis "we've banned hunting so vote for us!!"
Labour to Pro's "We have been forced into regulating hunts by the antis, but its still ok as long as you shoot them before the hounds catch up, see we're on your side really, vote for us!"

Our government stinks. Problem is Conservatives and Lib Dems are just bad

 

[Yann]

I agree - the legislation as it turned out was spineless poop that didn't really satisfy either side of the divide.

 

[Mary Poppins]

Do you really believe that the ban on hunting has made our country a better place?

Yes I do because it shows that we live in a democratic society where peoples views are listened to. On the whole, goverments put legislation in place based on what the voters want. There was huge pressure from the anti-hunting movement to put this legislation in place so that is what was done. Like it or not, the majority of the country is anti-hunting.

There is so much more to do in terms of animal welfare and by speaking out and standing up for what we believe we will be able to influence the future. I believe that fox hunting should be totally banned in any form so the next step is to tighten up the existing legislation to ensure that hunting with dogs is banned altoghter.

 

[india]

I would agree if at the end it was a good piece of law, but IMO the government has just pandered to both sides rather than doing anything constructive for the welfare of the animal. Labour to Antis "we've banned hunting so vote for us!!"
Labour to Pro's "We have been forced into regulating hunts by the antis, but its still ok as long as you shoot them before the hounds catch up, see we're on your side really, vote for us!"

Our government stinks. Problem is Conservatives and Lib Dems are just bad

The Hunting Act has many flaws in it that need to be addressed. In my opinion, it should have been a complete ban on all bloodsports with no loop holes or compromises. I voted for labour purely and simply because they promised to ban hunting - and although I feel let down by them, I will continue to vote for them in the hope they will eventually iron out the flaws in the present hunting law.

 

[Cerys]

The Hunting Act has many flaws in it that need to be addressed. In my opinion, it should have been a complete ban on all bloodsports with no loop holes or compromises. I voted for labour purely and simply because they promised to ban hunting - and although I feel let down by them, I will continue to vote for them in the hope they will eventually iron out the flaws in the present hunting law.

I just really think that we are going down a dangerous road, you want to ban all blood sports because you disagree with it. Even though there are many people that enjoy them and it generates money for the economy and the countryside and is good for countryside management. What about the Animal Rights people who believe that it is wrong and degrading to keep animals as pets? I know it sounds far fetched but whos to say in 50 years that people won't be campaigning to ban horseriding because it is not fair on the horse? Will you be in the same boat then as people who want to keep hunting and shooting now?

 

[Mary Poppins]

I just really think that we are going down a dangerous road, you want to ban all blood sports because you disagree with it. Even though there are many people that enjoy them and it generates money for the economy and the countryside and is good for countryside management. What about the Animal Rights people who believe that it is wrong and degrading to keep animals as pets? I know it sounds far fetched but whos to say in 50 years that people won't be campaigning to ban horseriding because it is not fair on the horse? Will you be in the same boat then as people who want to keep hunting and shooting now?

I am not aware of any groups who campaign to ban pets or horse-riding? Can you enlighten us?

If there were such groups I would listen to their arguements and consider if I agreed with them or not - perhaps they might have some good points worth listening to? Perhaps in the future some evidence may come to light which shows some huge physical and psychological damage that we are doing by riding horses. If that were the case, and there was a compelling arguement for banning horse riding then I would gladly accept this.

In life you always have to have an open mind and not be set in your ways. Until a few years aog it was legal for a man to rape his wife, women were not allowed to vote and children were caned at school. At the time these were totally acceptable practices - now we are shocked that people used to live like that. Just because something is once acceptable, it doesn't mean that it will always be.