More Metallica Controversy

[autoinflate]

well that might be the case if you accepted that animals only existed for us to eat

which is an odd concept

[eFestivals]

I'll bite. You have just agreed with the 'dim' posters you refer too. The motivation of the hunters is the same, regardless of any beneficial secondary effects. Cheers

You are aware, assuming Hetfield only engages in legal hunting in Canada and North America, its done for similar reasons? Its heavily regulated and 'justified' as a means of population control.

Nope, I've not agreed with the dimbos at all.

The dimbos say that Eavis is no different to any hunter. That's bollocks.

As for Hetfield, I know he's been hunting bears in Siberia. Is that regulated, or was the joy of that the fact that it wasn't?

[bamber]

Oh of course not, but if we didn't eat them, a hell of a lot of them wouldn't exist.

Is it better for an animal to live, die and be eaten, or not live at all?

Edited June 6, 2014 by bamber

[JayBalls]

Apologies if this has already been shared

http://teamrock.com/#features/2014-06-05/blog-the-real-reason-james-hetfield-is-being-hunted-over-glastonbury

[autoinflate]

None of the modern Pigs and Cows you eat would exist if they had not been bred for millenia as farm animals. They would not fair well if left to go wild escpesially if there were preditors present. This is deeply embroiled with our own evolution as a species. I take the view that scince I am not comfortable with killing animals, I don't eat them ever. Anyone comfortable with the process of killing has every right to eat what they kill. What I think is wrong though is the sheer amount of meat people eat, and the disregard and separation from the act of killing that far to many suffer from.

Killing Bears for fun is so obviously completly wrong, it hardly warrants commenting on.

Edited June 6, 2014 by autoinflate

[Guest]

Oh of course not, but if we didn't eat them, a hell of a lot of them wouldn't exist.

Is it better for an animal to live, die and be eaten, or not live at all?

Edited June 6, 2014 by tonyblair

[autoinflate]

which ones wouldn't exist if we didn't eat them...?

[Guest]

the billions we breed for food?

[autoinflate]

but they existed before we bred them

[The Nal]

I've cooked lobster loads of times before. Bought them when theyre alive, brought them home and then boiled them alive, cracked them open and pulled their flesh out and eaten them.

Apologies if this has already been shared

http://teamrock.com/#features/2014-06-05/blog-the-real-reason-james-hetfield-is-being-hunted-over-glastonbury

[autoinflate]

I've cooked lobster loads of times before. Bought them when theyre alive, brought them home and then boiled them alive, cracked them open and pulled their flesh out and eaten them.

[eFestivals]

Do you have to join to read? Cant see it?

it's just another attempt to try and put Hetfield in the clear for his joy at killing for fun, by saying "Eavis is as bad".

As I keep pointing out, that's bollocks. The motivations are entirely different. Eavis doesn't kill animals for the fun he gets out of causing their death.

Edited June 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[Guest]

i'm not talking about species. i'm talking about individual animals.

pig A and pig B are individual beings you know.

[autoinflate]

well, obviously.

We breed them to eat. If we weren't around, they'd be doing just fine.

[Gnomicide]

Do you have to join to read? Cant see it?

[The Nal]

You do, it wasn't worth the hassle but I've sent you a PM of it anyway.

[Gnomicide]

Guardian chips in.....

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jun/05/if-metallica-are-incompatible-with-glastonbury-who-else-is?CMP=ema_630

[Paul_w]

Some people are really a special kind of stupid when it comes to fox hunting. Anything that comes onto a farmers land and threatens his livestock needs to be dealt with. Is the method used by Eavis and countless other farmers the best one? Honestly, i don't know, and unless you're a farmer and had to deal with the consequences of foxes on your farm, the chances are you don't know either. How that can be compared to somebody going out and shooting animals purely for kicks is beyond me.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Paul_w

[The Nal]

Guardian chips in.....

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jun/05/if-metallica-are-incompatible-with-glastonbury-who-else-is?CMP=ema_630

Edited June 6, 2014 by The Nal

[Klyde]

Some people are really a special kind of stupid when it comes to fox hunting. Anything that comes onto a farmers land and threatens his livestock needs to be dealt with. Is the method used by Eavis and countless other farmers the best one? Honestly, i don't know, and unless you're a farmer and had to deal with the consequences of foxes on your farm, the chances are you don't know either. How that can be compared to somebody going out and shooting animals purely for kicks is beyond me.

[Jelly Belly]

Some people are really a special kind of stupid when it comes to fox hunting. Anything that comes onto a farmers land and threatens his livestock needs to be dealt with. Is the method used by Eavis and countless other farmers the best one? Honestly, i don't know, and unless you're a farmer and had to deal with the consequences of foxes on your farm, the chances are you don't know either. How that can be compared to somebody going out and shooting animals purely for kicks is beyond me.

[eFestivals]

What makes someone 'stupid' because they see Fox Hunting in the same light as they see Big Game hunting? It is EXACTLY the same

Fox hunting is as bad and the same as big game hunting, yes.

But Eavis isn't so much a supporter of fox hunting, he's a supporter of fox control on his farm. His reason for wanting foxes dead is nothing to do with a pleasure he gets from their death as a huntsman does.

I completely disagree with Eavis's views towards foxhunting, but his view is something completely different to being one of the actual fox hunters.

Eavis is happy to go along with it because it rids him of fox pests, and not for any other reason.

Anyone who can't understand that a farmer needs to control pests needs to reset their moral compass. Anyone who thinks that pest control, and killing animals just the fun of it, are in the exact same moral place needs to reset their moral compass.

That doesn't mean that you have to agree with each of those acts (pest control, and killing for fun), but you're mighty stupid if you want to think them morally identical.

Edited June 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[Jelly Belly]

Fox hunting is as bad and the same as big game hunting, yes.

But Eavis isn't so much a supporter of fox hunting, he's a supporter of fox control on his farm. His reason for wanting foxes dead is nothing to do with a pleasure he gets from their death as a huntsman does.

I completely disagree with Eavis's views towards foxhunting, but his view is something completely different to being one of the actual fox hunters.

Eavis is happy to go along with it because it rids him of fox pests, and not for any other reason.

Anyone who can't understand that a farmer needs to control pests needs to reset their moral compass. Anyone who thinks that pest control, and killing animals just the fun of it, are in the exact same moral place needs to reset their moral compass.

That doesn't mean that you have to agree with each of those acts (, but you're mighty stupid if you want to think them morally identical.

[autoinflate]

Fox hunting is as bad and the same as big game hunting, yes.

But Eavis isn't so much a supporter of fox hunting, he's a supporter of fox control on his farm. His reason for wanting foxes dead is nothing to do with a pleasure he gets from their death as a huntsman does.

[eFestivals]

Finally, we agree on what we were trying to get over yesterday.

My example of Eavis and his support of Fox Hunting was to illustrate the hypocrisy of that group started up on Facebook because their main argument (I can't recall the exact quote) was that 'Hunting goes against all that Glastonbury stands for' or something along those lines? Going out and looking for animals threatening livestock, albeit a Fox or in massively unfortunate circumstances, a stray Dog, the farmer has only one option. The difference between that and a 'Fox Hunt' is that they turn it into a sport and it was the fact that Eavis (although not directly on a hunt) allowed these Hunts on his land, there by, supporting Fox Hunting.

Again, it was to illustrate the floor to the main argument why that group was set up.

It's a flaw, yes, but it doesn't mean they haven't got a distinct point.

Eavis going along with hunting for the perceived benefit of his farm is a different - lower - moral violation than is Hetfield killing animals for fun.

And somewhere in a person's thinking reality has to kick in. While we might like to correct all moral wrongs in a clean sweep, that's never going to happen. The best we'll ever get is to tackle the things where there's already a groundswell of support.

And there's a groundswell of support for stopping people killing animals just for the fun of it, while there isn't so much for stopping an ageing farmer not having much of a problem if others want to kill the pests on his land.