Unpopular Opinions

Posted In: Main. Reading This Thread:

Steve-Dave

| 10,860 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 6:27 pm

Steve-Dave -

 
Is there anything you believe or think which goes against the social norm or human rights?

For example, I believe murderers, rapists and paedophiles should be locked in solitary, given three meals a day or whatever, but thats it. That is their cell for the rest of their lives, and they are never allowed out of it. Sure, the cell will have a shower, toilet, but thats all. Just them in their cell for the rest of their lives. Should they decide to kill themselves, thats their choice. Obviously, the guards would attempt to save their lives. But if they did revive them, after some medical treatment, back in the cell they go.

Sorry, but if they violate another persons human rights in one of the three ways I mentioned (in my opinion, three of the worst crimes generally committed by members of the general public), then I don't care about their human rights. They lost those rights as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think the rate of rehabilitation is enough to justify the rate of reoffenders constantly released after serving a fraction of their sentences due to legal loopholes or "good behaviour". What happened to their "good behaviour" when they weren't in prison?
There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary, and 9 other different types of people

Anniemal

| 12,106 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 7:35 pm

Anniemal - in controoool

in controoool

 
Banning foxhunting was a mistake.

Foxes are a threat to every endangered small mammal in this country. If a fox gets into a hen coop (and there really is no way of completely protecting chickens), it will slaughter every one of them. Foxes account for the deaths of 1-2% of lambs born in this country every year. A high population of foxes means more are driven into urban areas where they spread diseases, fight with cats and dogs, and kill rabbits and guinea-pigs.

The only reasons that people oppose fox hunting is because they are ignorant about it. I have quizzed antis and honestly been stunned by little they knew. I told one who opposed because he was an "animal lover" about the 20,000 hounds dependent on the hunt for their lives, and he said they could be people's pets. For one thing, it's not as though we have a shortage of unwanted dogs, and for another who's going to want a pet that disappears the first time you take it for a walk and never comes back? I remember a while ago someone on here had an avatar of a pair of fox cubs with something like "the dogs are killing your mother" under it. Whoever that was, the hunting season does not begin until after cubs have finished leaving their mothers; the time when the population is highest and there is the most competition for territory, so it is necessary to thin out the old or ill foxes (the only ones that are killed by dogs because the hunt makes so much noise that the fit ones can make themselves scarce well in advance). Without hunting, you see more and more foxes being forces to venture into farms and urban areas where they cause all of the problems.

Hunting with dogs is not inhumane. Dogs instinctively kill the fox almost instantly, by severing its spine. If someone shoots a fox and doesn't get a headshot, it can take hours for it to bleed to death, if a trap isn't checked regularly enough, any animal caught in it can starve to death. Poison kills badgers and hedgehogs that go for meat. All of the alternative methods kill foxes indiscriminately, rather than only killing the ones too unfit to escape from a hunt.

Up to 2005, hunting reduced the UK fox population by around 23000 (9%) each year, while there was no change in the overall number of foxes from year to year. After 5 years of the fox population being allowed to grow, we seem to have reached the tipping point where in the last 2 months there have been 3 cases of people being bitten by foxes (the twin babies, a toddler at a nursery, and a teenage girl who was asleep in her garden), and unless fox numbers are brought back under control then that sort of incident is only going to become more common.

Removed the point about 1 fox per hunt being killed, that was a misunderstanding on my part from someone who told me she had never seen more than one fox killed in a day of hunting


Edited by Anniemal Aug 2010

Animal

| 32,544 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 8:55 pm

Animal -

 
Quote: Annie, Aug 2010
Banning foxhunting was a mistake.

Foxes are a threat to every endangered small mammal in this country. If a fox gets into a hen coop (and there really is no way of completely protecting chickens), it will slaughter every one of them. Foxes account for the deaths of 1-2% of lambs born in this country every year. A high population of foxes means more are driven into urban areas where they spread diseases, fight with cats and dogs, and kill rabbits and guinea-pigs.


Last time I checked none of the above were endangered.

Just sayin'.
http://www.dasburros.com

The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little rabbits and zeroes, little bits of data. It's all just electrons.

Cycling Antics

Steve-Dave

| 10,860 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 9:02 pm

Steve-Dave -

 
I also agree with Annie. My problem is how they make it into a sport. Fancy uniforms and making a day out of it disgusts me more than the actual event itself. Killing the foxes may be necessary, the uniforms surely are not.
There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary, and 9 other different types of people

Hare

| 14,191 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 9:04 pm

Hare -

 
Quote: Darren, Aug 2010
Quote: Annie, Aug 2010
Banning foxhunting was a mistake.

Foxes are a threat to every endangered small mammal in this country. If a fox gets into a hen coop (and there really is no way of completely protecting chickens), it will slaughter every one of them. Foxes account for the deaths of 1-2% of lambs born in this country every year. A high population of foxes means more are driven into urban areas where they spread diseases, fight with cats and dogs, and kill rabbits and guinea-pigs.


Last time I checked none of the above were endangered.

Just sayin'.


also, sheep have a habit of dropping dead for no good reason anyway, the 1-2% they take are likely the ones which were going to end up doing that anyway.



aaanyway. Cats are sh*t.
*burp*

Animal

| 32,544 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 9:10 pm

Animal -

 
Without meaning to derail things..

Based on my limited knowledge of ecology, shouldn't the Fox population reach an optimum level anyway?

I thought the whole system was supposed to be balanced based on available resources and natural interspecies competition.

This in mind, we've kinda skewed the natural order things in many ways anyway, with livestock farming and urbanisation. Meaning food is readily available in the form of livestock and urban environments lend themselves to scavengers. Essentially suggesting we may have created the fox population problem. This is why I dislike the idea of hunting as population control, it seems like a bit of a sh*tty, graceless solution to something we've potentially caused to be a problem.
http://www.dasburros.com

The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little rabbits and zeroes, little bits of data. It's all just electrons.

Cycling Antics

Hare

| 14,191 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 9:15 pm

Hare -

 
looking back over the years,they only started hunting foxes because there were no more bears/wolves/wildboars
i forget which, but wewiped them allout and somone thought"oha fox can give a good chase"

generally things will balance out eventually, yes. but because all our rubbish is readily availible,the foxes are encroacing into urban areas and thriving on scraps,which is where the problem lies.
it also throws the ecosystems in areas off kilter until say, the rabbits recover.

in my view, i think the main problem people have with fox hunting is that the fox is stressed, chased and eventually killed inhumanely (ripped apart by the dogs in many cases) at the end of the hunt. not the populations.
*burp*

Carpet Remnant

| 11,626 posts


3rd Aug 2010 at 11:50 pm

Carpet Remnant -

 
If the average amount of foxes killed on a hunt is less than one then how come they reduce the population by an average of 23000?

Animal

| 32,544 posts


4th Aug 2010 at 12:11 am

Animal -

 
Quote: Professor Frink, Aug 2010
If the average amount of foxes killed on a hunt is less than one then how come they reduce the population by an average of 23000?
23000 hunts a year?

The fox hunting debate is one where nonsensical arguments will be thrown about by all parties involved. Same as file sharing.
http://www.dasburros.com

The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little rabbits and zeroes, little bits of data. It's all just electrons.

Cycling Antics

Hare

| 14,191 posts


4th Aug 2010 at 12:14 am

Hare -

 
Also hunting vixens?
Hunting pregnant vixens?
Hunting vixens with a nest of cubs?
Hunting the fox that a next of cubs + vixen depend on for food?

Sure I don't think the vixen would sit there & starve, but it could happen...
*burp*

Carpet Remnant

| 11,626 posts


4th Aug 2010 at 12:32 am

Carpet Remnant -

 
Quote: Darren, Aug 2010
Quote: Professor Frink, Aug 2010
If the average amount of foxes killed on a hunt is less than one then how come they reduce the population by an average of 23000?
23000 hunts a year?

The fox hunting debate is one where nonsensical arguments will be thrown about by all parties involved. Same as file sharing.

63 a day....hmmm.
Second question, what advantage does smearing foxes blood on your face give you when bedding women?

Albert Johanneson

| 14,477 posts


4th Aug 2010 at 12:37 am

Albert Johanneson - Outside-left

Outside-left

 
Beat policing is a job for a 6ft+ man. Like f*ck do people feel protected/assured by someone they could run through.

Animal

| 32,544 posts


4th Aug 2010 at 12:42 am

Animal -

 
Back to opinions.

File sharing is actually a bad thing.

Forget the fact that it is theft, despite what a few people myself and others have argued with on here int he past seem to think. Its genuinely going to harm the industry in the long term. And possibly more than just the music industry too.

We are already seeing some of its affects now.

Point in case. I've argued before the bland sh*te we have forced on us by the industry is a necessary evil, since its this same bland sh*te that sells in droves and as such lines the pockets of those in charge. Its safe and inoffensive to the majority. As such it sells well. Because this sells, labels are able to take risks on more edgy artists. Do you honestly think we would have Radiohead if the industry didn't have a big fat wad of cash in its pockets to act as a buffer to cushion the possible risk of taking them on. Same with the Eels, Tool, NIN TMBG and a million other bands I know people on here love.. This cushion comes from the safe music sold.

Now.

Fast forwards to today. We still have the safe, turgid sh*t rolled out which still generates money, but not as much.. Sure there are a few reasons, economic crisis, albums being priced at obscene amounts and the likes. But we also have higher levels of piracy now than we did a decade ago, this will also contribute. More than some people think. As such, that fat wad of cash is looking less fat, rgo less chances are taken on the higher risk acts, the less safe ones that go onto be the acts that we all come to know and love,meaning less of them will get taken on, meaning less chance of us discovering that new favourite band.

Yes, this is a MASSIVE over simplification but I cannot be arsed getting into the full indepth thing with facts and figures right now.

Also, the other methods of funding bands, such as VC funding, online crowdsourced funding and the likes haven't as far as I am aware produced anyone of note yet musically. Yes its early days for these alternatives, but still. Even in the early days of the industry realising what it was like to make a profit we had great acts showing up a hell of a lot.
http://www.dasburros.com

The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little rabbits and zeroes, little bits of data. It's all just electrons.

Cycling Antics

Gob

| 12,043 posts


4th Aug 2010 at 8:33 am

Gob - Come on!

Come on!

 
I think Muse are whiney dogsh*te.


 
 
Jimmy: Holy sh*t everything's Barry.
Steve-Dave: Everything's better!
Puffalump: Barrier
Steve-Dave: The Barryest it's ever been
Jimmy: I can't wait for more "Important Barry and changes"
Steve-Dave: Well there will be some Barry and changes coming soon, because we need more donations. It no longer just takes £10 a year to help Barry survive
Steve-Dave: It takes like... £13
Steve-Dave: Barry has to walk 5 metres to his car every day... just to go to work and earn money for DVDs and comic books
Steve-Dave: His eyesight is so bad... that he has to wear glasses. Stylish rimless glasses which cost €250
Steve-Dave: His living space is so cramped... that h had to put his workout bench in the garage meaning he doesn't really use it any more
Steve-Dave: But for just €13 a year... You can help Barry afford a DVD that he heard was good but has been out for a while so it's not as expensive as new DVDs
Steve-Dave: Please... Give generously... And help save this poor man's DVD shelf from not being completely full because it just looks weird when it's nearly full. I mean, when it's half full, that's fine. But when there's only a few gaps left... it just looks kinda sad.... y'know
Steve-Dave: Thank you
Rayanne Graff: It scares me when people refer to themselves in the third person.
Steve-Dave: It scares Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV esq. too
Steve-Dave: Like my Grandfather, Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XII Esq. always said: "Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV esq., Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XII esq. gets scared when people refer to themselves in the third person, and Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV esq., Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XII esq. promises to never do that"
Steve-Dave: And like my twin brother, Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV.5 esq. (or Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV esq. for short) says: "Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV esq., Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV.5 esq. doesn't like when people refer to themselves in the third person. You and Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV.5 esq. must have gotten that from our grandfather, Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XII esq."
Rayanne Graff: You nerds crack me up.
Steve-Dave: Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XII esq., Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV.5 esq. and Professor Barrington Cornelius Smashathing XIV esq. all try our best
Rayanne Graff: ... in the pants department.

 

Page: