I said my last post would be the last, but the same defences keep resurfacing under new labels, so here it is in one place.
The core distinction
There is a simple line that keeps getting blurred on purpose: necessity versus spectacle.
Taking animals for food or genuine population control is a separate discussion. Organised pursuit framed as entertainment — with ritual, pageantry, spectators, and nostalgia — is not the same thing. Calling both “hunting” doesn’t collapse that distinction.
Why tradition fails as a defence
Tradition explains how long something has existed. It does not justify its continuation. History is full of practices that ended once standards changed. Longevity earns scrutiny, not immunity.
Phrases like “ban the ban” or “keep the tradition alive” don’t argue necessity. They argue preservation. That’s the difference.
When the argument becomes aesthetic
Statements like “may the sound of horns never die” concede the point. They defend a feeling — the sound, the sight, the ritual — not an outcome that’s required. Ethics don’t hinge on atmosphere.
Rebranding doesn’t change outcomes
Renaming a practice while preserving the same behaviours doesn’t address why it was scrutinised in the first place. If legality depends on perfect conditions in a chaotic environment, the practice is the risk.
If something truly causes no harm, there is nothing meaningful to mourn losing.
And on sabos: if fox/trail — whatever branding you prefer — didn’t exist, there would be no need for them. Remove the practice, remove the conflict.
Experience is not a veto
You don’t need to participate in a practice to judge it. Ethics don’t operate on a “try it first” basis. Observation, evidence, and outcomes are sufficient. Gatekeeping scrutiny is not expertise.
Jobs are not an exemption
Employment does not grant moral immunity. Industries change or end when practices fail ethical or legal standards. That process is normal regulation, not persecution.
Threatening downstream harm — “jobs will be lost,” “dogs will be euthanised” — does not justify continuing upstream harm. Systems built without ethical exit routes are the problem, not their regulation.
Animals, instinct, and false comparisons
Invoking animal instinct — “cats do it,” “it’s in their blood” — abandons intent and responsibility. Ethics judge what humans choose to organise and endorse, not incidental animal behaviour.
Comparing unintended predation to planned, ritualised pursuit for enjoyment is a false equivalence.
Ethical alternatives exist
There are alternatives that keep dogs working without a kill and without holding harm hostage to tradition. When ethical alternatives exist, continuing harm becomes a choice, not a necessity.
Change is not erasure
Societies don’t freeze in time. Old ways either adapt to new standards or give way to alternatives that do the job better. That isn’t hostility — it’s how progress works.
Final position
This is why the argument keeps looping: the defences rely on nostalgia, identity, jobs, and exclusion of scrutiny — not on necessity or outcomes.
Traditions worth keeping don’t need harm to justify them.
Comments policy
This page is a statement, not a forum. Repeating arguments addressed above will not be engaged with.
This position is settled. Link this page if needed. Then move on.
Survivor Incognito 