Why do the anti-hunters have to rely on emotive language?

The reason is simple, and it is a symptom of poor argument the world over.

The English language is staggering in its richness and diversity. Whatever you want to say, you can put it over crisply, clearly and with no hint of ambiguity.

Yet the anti-hunters insist, and indeed, rely, on using words that are vague, imprecise and general. Words without hard definitions, such as "cruel" and "barbaric".

This is not necessary. Look at my piece on Badger Baiting, an activity that I consider to be vicious, unpleasant and unjustifiable. I have described the activity in precise words that do not relay on the creative interpretation of the reader.

So, why do they do this?

For exactly the same reason that they constantly attempt to discredit hunting by trying to associate it with other activities that are already discredited.

Badger Baiting was banned, so Hunting should be banned they say.

The implication that they want you to draw is that they are the same thing.

The reality is that they are not.

The anti-hunters themselves know this, but they also know that most of the public does not.

So the reason they do it :

Because by doing so, they are able to cover up the paucity of their own argument by relying on the validity of others.

It is merely another example of the anti-hunt lobby’s continuing attempts to dupe and deceive the public into believing that that things are other than they actually are.

It is a cheap tactic, and you should not let them get away with it.