Jane wrote:
>>>We all care about civil liberties,
>>
>>Lip service and duplicitous. You only care about civil liberties as they
>>apply to some issues.
> 
> That's correct. I'm behind a ban on street begging and halal
> slaughter as well. Certain freedoms should be removed if
> society deems them wrong and wants them removed. It's
> what a democracy is all about.

Was Hitler right, since he had popular support for exterminating Jews? 
That's what democracy is all about, right?

Imposing the twisted will of a majority upon a minority isn't 
democratic, so that's not what democracy is all about. There are some 
democracies like that. North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba. Perhaps you 
would feel more at home in one of those democracies.

>>You are quick on the trigger to want to reduce
>>freedoms enjoyed by others because you don't like what they do.
> 
> I'm not behind the ban simply because they're doing something
> I don't want them to do. 

Yes, you are.

> I'm behind it because I believe what
> they're doing is wrong and sadistic. 

Why is it wrong? "Sadistic" is hardly an objective standard. Do you 
really seek to force others to behave according to your subjective 
aesthetics?

> I don't want that element in my society.

What do you intend to do with them, Jane?

>>That's
>>hardly a trait of a civil libertarian, but it IS the hallmark of a
>>demagogue.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion.

Yes, and I'm also entitled to express it openly.

>>>but your so-called freedom to hunt isn't one of them.
>>
>>According to whom or what standard?
> 
> According to legal and moral standards. 

*What* legal or moral standards?

> They do not have a right to hunt.

They do, actually. Under common law, what is not forbidden is allowed. 
As I stated previously, it is not a codified right, but it IS an assumed 
one.

> They have the freedom to hunt, for the time being,
> but not the right.

Yes, they have both. The question you should really answer is, Why will 
you not allow them the peace in the interim to enjoy their liberty, 
freedom, and/or right? I know the answer, and so do you. You're a 
totalitarian and you will not let the issue rest until you can force 
others to live according to the dictates of your own fractured conscience.

>>>Animal rights groups have worked very hard to
>>>ban it,
>>
>>Meaning that it's already legal to hunt -- it may not be a codified
>>right, but it transcends common law.
>>
>>
>>>and the public are behind them,
>>
>>Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
> 
> It would be if I were suggesting we should ban it purely on
> the strength of public opinion. I'm behind the ban for a
> completely seprate reason to that.

Then you should've stated your reason and leave exogenous matters alone. 
Since you actually appealed to popularity, you resorted to the logical 
fallacy of appealing to popularity.

>>As noted by another poster,
>>urbanization is the cause of anti-hunt sentiment. Your artificial
>>worldview is not the function of morality or any other lofty endeavor,
>>but of an estrangement from nature.
> 
> You are tying to draw an analogy between your conclusion, (that
> hunting for sport and pleasure is right and should continue) and
> some aspect of the natural world, (that other animals act in that
> same particular way)?

No, I'm stating that the novel concepts which have led your nation to 
this juncture -- whether hunting will be allowed or banned -- is a 
recent development. It has only come about by the occurrence of more 
people being separated from nature. Your primary contacts with animals 
are in movies, pictures, styrofoam at the supermarket, etc. You are 
isolated from reality. This is how anti-hunting and pro-AR sentiment has 
grown.

>>>and those who continue to
>>>hunt after the ban will be breaking the law.
>>
>>Are you willing to admit that right now the largest group of people
>>breaking laws, at least with respect to hunting, are those who harass,
>>intimidate, vandalize, and terrorize hunters and landowners?
> 
> No.

Cool, so you're also in denial.

>>>Your senseless cruelty is going to make you a criminal.
>>
>>One is not a criminal if he or she hunts before your radical legislation
>>becomes law, right?
> 
> Did you notice I wrote, "is going to ...."?

Yes. Did you notice my question addresses the legality of hunting? BTW, 
history is on our side.

>>Hunting is not cruelty.
> 
> Ipse dixit.

No, it is well-established that most hunting is quickly lethal. Animals 
do not suffer when shot by well-trained marksmen and bowhunters. The 
claim that "hunting is cruelty" IS ipse dixit: it is a jingo used by 
activists, not something accepted by wildlife biologists.

>>Living a sheltered, urban
>>existence and forcing your own peculiar beliefs upon others in the
>>country is quite cruel. It's called totalitarianism.
>>
>>
>>>Have you thought about that?
>>
>>Have you ever considered tolerance for your fellow man and for your
>>fellow man's customs?
> 
> I don't tolerate cruelty and those who are cruel to animals.

Yes, I know. You are intolerant of others and you are a totalitarian who 
wishes to mold others into something you *can* tolerate.