From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >a) Just because you find something distasteful is not a good
> >enough reason to prevent other people who happen to enjoy that
> >activity from engaging in it.
>
> But if - say - 70% of the country find it distasteful - does it become
> reasonable to look at preventing that activity from being engaged in? At
> what time does it become good enough reason to look at?
No to the first and "never" to the second. It dosen't matter
how few people partake in an activity or how many people
don't like it, it dosen't make it right to ban it. If you follow
that line then the persecution by the Nazis was perfectly
legit because the Nazis were voted in by the people who
knew they had these political leanings. If someone's
activties aren't harming anyone they should be restricted
regardless of how much society disapproves.
> >b) The perception that hunting is the sole preserve of
the
> >wealthy is way off the mark. Go to any meet and for every toff on
> >horseback you'll see half a dozen scruffy ordinary Joes who are following
> >on foot or in their car. I'm a case in point - I've been hunting
> >for nearly twenty years yet never once have I ridden to hounds nor have I
> >ever had much more than two brass farthings to my name.
>
> Seems to illustrate the original point I was making.
>
> Why have you never ridden? Why do the scruffy ordinary Joes always
> following on foot or in their cars. Why are the scruffy ordinary Joes never
> riding to the hounds?
Many people who are not rich toffs do ride to hounds.
You seem to be implying that it should be banned
*because* the scuffy ordinary joes don't do it.
Jonathan Laws
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
