-
I've never worked out how this would affect the debate one way or the other.
Because you wouldn't have to waste time entertaining the various other pro-hunt arguments. We could just have a simple honest debate about whether the pleasure and economic benefit derived by a few outweighs the negative impact on foxes, horses and the countryside.
hugo7-
Because you wouldn't have to waste time entertaining the various other pro-hunt arguments. We could just have a simple honest debate about whether the pleasure and economic benefit derived by a few outweighs the negative impact on foxes, horses and the countryside.
That doesn't make any sense. Whether or not people enjoy it (which I assume they did, because they weren't forced to do it) you still have to entertain the economic, environmental and social pro-hunting arguments. If you could prove that the only benefit was enjoyment that would totally change the debate but, as you said, there are other arguments.
There seemed to be a strange mentality of "you enjoy something I find abhorrent, so it should be banned" as if the enjoyment itself was deplorable and ignoring the fact that we all enjoy things that result in animal suffering.
ffm
Sure, and I consider myself one of them. But the idea that the majority of Brits have a deep, ideological passion for animal welfare is not really borne out by our shopping habits.
I've never worked out how this would affect the debate one way or the other.