We know that because it is possible - with swift reaction - to enable full recovery in a person whose heart has stopped (due to electrical shock, f.eks.)Indisputable, but less than relevant because the level of conciousness must be taken into account after the head has been severed.

This is getting off-topic, but you need to show me some sort of evidence otherwise to convince me.

The brain is "alive" though there is no evidence whatsoever that you are conscious of anything.

There's never enough time to reattach the head and ask the person before the brain dies completely.

Banning hunting is like banning you sitting and complaining about hunting on a forum or banning you from using a computer at all.

Dont tell me that because of your liberal unions and such the coal or oil or natural gas wasnt gotten from a nation without evironment laws, because chances are atleast some of it killed animals, more than 45 a year too. Not to mention you eat meat too, or use products that are meat based. Or you eat vegatables that were once alive so you are killing those off too. Those cruel inhumane combines ripping up all those poor innocent plants.

Give me a break, everything you do will eventually kill some animal one way or another. What about the millions of bacteria you undoubtedly put to death every day when you shower brush your teath clean the toilet you name it.

Just because you think its inhumane and has no reason to be done doesnt mean its not enjoyable to somebody. Humans have hunted for all time and there is not going to be a stop to it, if anything people will just poach.

So then you spend millions of dollar to stop poaching.

Never going to work. Ever.

If someone wants to do it, it will happen, and if you want it to stop it will be at your countries expense for something that never needed to happen.

So that is everything discussed in every thread in these forums that is the fault of the liberals then? You seem to have solved the problems of humanity in just one day. Anyone have any beer to celebrate?

Just because you think its inhumane and has no reason to be done doesnt mean its not enjoyable to somebody. ???? Are you just trying to get a reaction?
Just because something is pointless and inhumane it shouldn't be banned if it is fun to someone? In that case why don't they just hunt people instead? It would be more of a challenge and a lot more fun...

I know that if your head is severed, your body "kills itself"

Really? Tried it lately? Or maybe ...you've asked people pre/post head separation. Let me just rephrase this. You're suggesting that if you chop of someone's head, their body self destructs? O...k..a...y.
Nonetheless, this is irrelevant, I am referring to the head.

but you need to show me some sort of evidence otherwise to convince me.

I'm really not bothered whether you're convinced or not. If you're really that interested, look yourself.
However, let me suggest a scenario:
A crazed anti-fox hunting madman runs up to a hunter and grasps his neck, grasping so tight, that the flow of both oxygen and blood to the brain is inhibited. Are you seriously suggesting that the hunter would instantaneously die?


You can determine what is moral and immoral.

That you can and that you may. Although I stated you cannot determine if something is logically moral.


[Torturing] foxes are in no way like torturing cats


Huh? Why not? Because cats may belong to someone? Because cats don't steal from you? What about feral cats and other homeless cats that rip apart your garbage bags at night? I suppose it's okay for me to get a rifle and car and a team of dobermans and pursue the thing for miles, then...

Read the original post again. I never said that.
Inventing words and phrases to suit your argument won't get you anywhere.

On what possible location on Earth did you learn that, Mr. Freud?

Uhm...It's a quote... :rolleyes:
'Mad' is a term we use to describe a man who is obsessed with one idea and nothing else.
[Ugo Betti]

hich we don't? Heard about trapping and then, upon discovery, euthanization? Heard about trapping and relocating foxes? Heard about this, heard about that... geez.

...Those are great suggestions!
Presuming they would humanely kill a fox, then they should be supported.
Once again you've completely missed the argument.
Banning fox hunting in exchange for another equally painful and equally long process (such as poisoning) therefore means that the ban is not 'moral'.


What about the millions of bacteria you undoubtedly put to death every day when you shower brush your teath clean the toilet you name it.

This raises a good point. Who defines necessity? The statistics on omnivorous humans suggest a lot of people in this forum eat meat, yet this is not necessary. It would be extremely hypocritical to cry out over the 'horrific' activity of fox hunting when you, yourself, eat the produce from appallingly bred and slaughtered animals. :rolleyes:

And Spiddy, I have answered all of your points previously. Whether you choose to ignore them is your prerogative. :)

Before you go back to my ignore list, let's set some things straight.

Really? Tried it lately? Or maybe ...you've asked people pre/post head separation. Let me just rephrase this. You're suggesting that if you chop of someone's head, their body self destructs? O...k..a...y.
Nonetheless, this is irrelevant, I am referring to the head.

I meant the head.

And no, of course I haven't asked anyone, funny pie. But there's something called "school"...

Read the original post again. I never said that.
Inventing words and phrases to suit your argument won't get you anywhere.
I did not say you didn't say those things. I was just supporting my point by answering theoretical questions (and I think you know that).

Once again you've completely missed the argument.
Banning fox hunting in exchange for another equally painful and equally long process (such as poisoning) therefore means that the ban is not 'moral'.
Who says euthanizing is painful? Who says relocation is painful? Nobody I know.
Euthanizing:
1. Give the subject an injection of very a very powerful drug that makes them fall asleep in seconds.
2. Once the subject sleeps, inject an agent that kills it while it feels nothing.

Doesn't sound too painful to me, and it's certainly better than being chased and then ripped to pieces by dogs...

Anyone have any beer to celebrate?
Not so loud, you know beer was invented by libe**** to poison the minds of the people... :D

???? Are you just trying to get a reaction?
I've been on a boat a lot. I know a trawler when I see one. I'm also a native Norwegian and also quite educated when it comes to the trawlers' off-spring, trolls. So let me tell you that you are probably right.

Good night, "I am Trip".

iamtrip:

And Spiddy, I have answered all of your points previously.No you haven't:

1: You still haven't explained why you think that because ONE immoral thing goes on, that makes ANOTHER immoral thing acceptable.

This is the crux of your argument, and you haven't even had the decency to defend it once.

2: You have NOT answered the point that someone killing something else merely for pleasure (fox hunting) is more immoral than killing something else to support your livelihood, and taking no sick pleasure in it. (poisoning)

3: You have NOT answered the point that fox-hunting is not a valid method of pest control because it does not kill enough foxes, while also damaging the farmland that its apologists claim to be defending. It is too inefficient to be useful or cost-effective, thus it cannot be defended on the basis of its pest-controlling side effect.

Without explaining your reasoning in these respects, your argument will remain illogical, and therefore utterly invalid.

Invalid, in its totality.