Re: David Starkey

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Rosalind Mitchell
<mitchellrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Tony Gardner wrote:
>> That's a circular argument, rather than question-begging.
>
>Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the justifictaion of the
>gratuitous harassment and tearing apart of sentient beings for fun, oh
>sorry, I mean fox hunting, on the grounds that it's a god way of
>controlling foxes, taking as granted the assumption that foxes need to
>be controlled. The foxes were there first.

You see Rosie, that's why you sometimes have a problem here. We're
having a good old grumble about the state of the world, and cherished
national institutions like radio 4, and the meaning of English and you
suddenly not just change the subject...

>I will make it clear here that I believe that hunting amd killing
>animals for plewasure (as opposed to hunting them for food) is an
>abomination. Hunting foxes with dogs is now illegal, quite properly, by
>the decision of the elected representatives of the people, and the hunt
>fands should deal with it. Go running, or read a good book.

but drag it into a deliberately contentious area in an almost trollike
fashion....

>Any offence caused to fox-huntingrats is entirely intentional.

and end up like that. I'm really now wondering why I bothered to give
helpful advice on web hosting, when you've just not only insulted my
friends[*], but gloried in it.

[*] - I'm not sure if there actually are any foxhunting umrats, but if
there were they would be by friends, obviously.

Interestingly, you've just moved my personal ratchet a notch further in
favour of hunting. Taking the opposite view to closed-minded bigots
works quite well as a guide to what to think, I often find.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
.

Relevant Pages