Crosswords1 min ago
Prince Harry In Africa
Just been seeing the pictures of Prince Harry highlighting the rhino (and other wild animals) killed in Africa. While this needs bringing to light as often as possible does this mean that Harry and William (who is also into conservation) will stop killing animals over here? Will the Sandringham shoots end? and Deer hunting up in Scotland? I think not. Hypocritical!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by quizzywig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ummmm - //Andy - we don't eat rhinos. We eat deer and pheasants. Do you imagine they just leave the dead bodies where they fell or would they be butchered and consumed? //
That doesn't negate my point either.
Hunting for food is something humans have done since before they were humans - I have no problem with that at all.
I have no problem with the Royals having their kills prepared for the table by their staff either.
But I don't think any of the Royals actually need to hunt in order to eat something - do you?
The use of their kills for food is by-product of what they do - not the original reason.
The original reason is that they like shooting and killing live animals and bids, they do it for the fun of it.
And that does not sit well with the notion of worrying about species dying out - as I say - is it simply a 'numbers' game?
That is not a moral argument in my view.
That doesn't negate my point either.
Hunting for food is something humans have done since before they were humans - I have no problem with that at all.
I have no problem with the Royals having their kills prepared for the table by their staff either.
But I don't think any of the Royals actually need to hunt in order to eat something - do you?
The use of their kills for food is by-product of what they do - not the original reason.
The original reason is that they like shooting and killing live animals and bids, they do it for the fun of it.
And that does not sit well with the notion of worrying about species dying out - as I say - is it simply a 'numbers' game?
That is not a moral argument in my view.
ummmm - //How do you feel about anglers? //
The jury is out with me on that one.
There is an argument that fishing is cruel, and it hurts the fish, but having seen the amount of fight a fish will put into not being brought to land ponders the question that if it did hurt, wouldn't they go with the pull of the line and not fight against it?
It's not something I would do personally, but I don't have any really strong feelings either way to be honest.
The jury is out with me on that one.
There is an argument that fishing is cruel, and it hurts the fish, but having seen the amount of fight a fish will put into not being brought to land ponders the question that if it did hurt, wouldn't they go with the pull of the line and not fight against it?
It's not something I would do personally, but I don't have any really strong feelings either way to be honest.
ummmm - //Humans put up fights even though it could make the outcome worse. It's instinct. //
I don't think that analogy flies ummmm.
A human has the mental capacity to make a decision on an action, a fish does not.
I think it's reasonable to assume that a fish does not understand the concept of angling - the sport would cease overnight if it did!
All the fish knows is that it has eaten something, and now it finds itself unable to swim on.
The contention that was put to me in defence of angling is that - if the hook and tug caused pain to the fish, it would not resist at all - and it would certainly not resist with the vigour that all fish bring to the situation, big or small.
I don't think that analogy flies ummmm.
A human has the mental capacity to make a decision on an action, a fish does not.
I think it's reasonable to assume that a fish does not understand the concept of angling - the sport would cease overnight if it did!
All the fish knows is that it has eaten something, and now it finds itself unable to swim on.
The contention that was put to me in defence of angling is that - if the hook and tug caused pain to the fish, it would not resist at all - and it would certainly not resist with the vigour that all fish bring to the situation, big or small.
ChillDoubt
/// Helicopter pilot in Afghanistan obviously didn't measure up against your achievements then AOG? ///
He left the Army in June, although since he came back from Afghanistan he was only in the Army in a part time capacity.
He wasn't a helicopter pilot in Afghanistan either, he was a co-pilot/gunner.
/// Helicopter pilot in Afghanistan obviously didn't measure up against your achievements then AOG? ///
He left the Army in June, although since he came back from Afghanistan he was only in the Army in a part time capacity.
He wasn't a helicopter pilot in Afghanistan either, he was a co-pilot/gunner.
I suspect, Andy, that the instinct that kicks in trying to stay in water. They are not as stupid as people think. They must know that above the water is not good so a hook in the mouth being pulled to the service equals panic, they are fighting to stay in the water, as you would do if someone held you under the water.
ummm - //I suspect, Andy, that the instinct that kicks in trying to stay in water. They are not as stupid as people think. They must know that above the water is not good so a hook in the mouth being pulled to the service equals panic, they are fighting to stay in the water, as you would do if someone held you under the water. //
That argument would follow if the fish commenced struggling when it left the water - I don't believe fish are intelligent enough to know that there is another environment that is hostile to them, and they are heading for it - how would they know that?
The argument also falls down if you watch anyone game fishing - a three-hundred-pound marlin is in no danger of leaving the water any time in the next hour or so from when it is hooked, but it still heads for the bottom as though its tail is on fire - pulling the hook and line with it, against the resistance of the angler. No sight of air, much less a feel of it.
I am only playing Devil's Advocate here - but I do think your argument has those points against it.
That argument would follow if the fish commenced struggling when it left the water - I don't believe fish are intelligent enough to know that there is another environment that is hostile to them, and they are heading for it - how would they know that?
The argument also falls down if you watch anyone game fishing - a three-hundred-pound marlin is in no danger of leaving the water any time in the next hour or so from when it is hooked, but it still heads for the bottom as though its tail is on fire - pulling the hook and line with it, against the resistance of the angler. No sight of air, much less a feel of it.
I am only playing Devil's Advocate here - but I do think your argument has those points against it.
I shouldn't really complain because of all food in the world fish is my favourite. I just remember years back watching a programme on trawler boats. They landed their catch and just kicked them about.
They must feel pain...and they are drowning...and someone kicks them.
These fish do have an instinct to avoid predators...
If I was given the choice of only being able to eat what I caught/hunted I wouldn't eat the flesh of any animal.
They must feel pain...and they are drowning...and someone kicks them.
These fish do have an instinct to avoid predators...
If I was given the choice of only being able to eat what I caught/hunted I wouldn't eat the flesh of any animal.
ummmm - //I shouldn't really complain because of all food in the world fish is my favourite. I just remember years back watching a programme on trawler boats. They landed their catch and just kicked them about.
They must feel pain...and they are drowning...and someone kicks them.
These fish do have an instinct to avoid predators...
If I was given the choice of only being able to eat what I caught/hunted I wouldn't eat the flesh of any animal. //
I understand completely - I watch 'Deadliest Catch' where Alaskan crab fishermen hunt king crabs, and they don't treat the gently at all.
I would never knowingly be cruel to an animal personally, but I am by default because I eat meat that has been butchered, or fish that has been caught - it is hypocrisy, and I know that.
They must feel pain...and they are drowning...and someone kicks them.
These fish do have an instinct to avoid predators...
If I was given the choice of only being able to eat what I caught/hunted I wouldn't eat the flesh of any animal. //
I understand completely - I watch 'Deadliest Catch' where Alaskan crab fishermen hunt king crabs, and they don't treat the gently at all.
I would never knowingly be cruel to an animal personally, but I am by default because I eat meat that has been butchered, or fish that has been caught - it is hypocrisy, and I know that.
/// andy-hughes
jack - //I don't believe that AOGs brief (compulsory) attendance in military uniform can be compared to Harry's, either. //
INCOMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ///
I was going to ignore your mischief making remark, until I read what sqad had put, and he had hit the nail right on the head, you do nothing towards the debate by typing what you did, you are just trying to entice.
But later I was pleased to see you admitted to being a hypocrite, which I discovered you were a long time ago.
/// I am sure Ummmm will be along to speak for herself, but I disagree that anything I have said is inflammatory in any way, and I am sorry to read that this is your perception. ///
Then how do you explain why you went to the trouble to copy and post part of jackthehat's post, and then adding your own mischief making snippet?
Is it any wonder how threads in which you are involved always turn to slanging matches, time you realised that you are the prime culprit.
jack - //I don't believe that AOGs brief (compulsory) attendance in military uniform can be compared to Harry's, either. //
INCOMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ///
I was going to ignore your mischief making remark, until I read what sqad had put, and he had hit the nail right on the head, you do nothing towards the debate by typing what you did, you are just trying to entice.
But later I was pleased to see you admitted to being a hypocrite, which I discovered you were a long time ago.
/// I am sure Ummmm will be along to speak for herself, but I disagree that anything I have said is inflammatory in any way, and I am sorry to read that this is your perception. ///
Then how do you explain why you went to the trouble to copy and post part of jackthehat's post, and then adding your own mischief making snippet?
Is it any wonder how threads in which you are involved always turn to slanging matches, time you realised that you are the prime culprit.
AOG - ///// andy-hughes
jack - //I don't believe that AOGs brief (compulsory) attendance in military uniform can be compared to Harry's, either. //
INCOMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ///
I was going to ignore your mischief making remark, until I read what sqad had put, and he had hit the nail right on the head, you do nothing towards the debate by typing what you did, you are just trying to entice.
But later I was pleased to see you admitted to being a hypocrite, which I discovered you were a long time ago.
/// I am sure Ummmm will be along to speak for herself, but I disagree that anything I have said is inflammatory in any way, and I am sorry to read that this is your perception. ///
Then how do you explain why you went to the trouble to copy and post part of jackthehat's post, and then adding your own mischief making snippet?
Is it any wonder how threads in which you are involved always turn to slanging matches, time you realised that you are the prime culprit. //
It was an attempt at a little light humour, not 'mischief-making' - obviously it failed.
Shall we draw a line?
jack - //I don't believe that AOGs brief (compulsory) attendance in military uniform can be compared to Harry's, either. //
INCOMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ///
I was going to ignore your mischief making remark, until I read what sqad had put, and he had hit the nail right on the head, you do nothing towards the debate by typing what you did, you are just trying to entice.
But later I was pleased to see you admitted to being a hypocrite, which I discovered you were a long time ago.
/// I am sure Ummmm will be along to speak for herself, but I disagree that anything I have said is inflammatory in any way, and I am sorry to read that this is your perception. ///
Then how do you explain why you went to the trouble to copy and post part of jackthehat's post, and then adding your own mischief making snippet?
Is it any wonder how threads in which you are involved always turn to slanging matches, time you realised that you are the prime culprit. //
It was an attempt at a little light humour, not 'mischief-making' - obviously it failed.
Shall we draw a line?
