kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Can we even eat foxes? Anyone?
Why not? Chances are it tastes like Chicken.
Can we even eat foxes? Anyone?
Can we even eat foxes? Anyone?
Why not? Chances are it tastes like Chicken.
I thought they had rabies and stuff
In England?
Deers, foxes, Grouse and pheasant shooting is also popular.
In Scotland you can hunt more.
Legal .... for now.
I thought they had rabies and stuff
These laws just about the fox hunting with dogs, or hunting in general? Scotland or England (I sorta clump the UK together)?
I don't think they all do, but I've still never heard of anyone eating fox.
I don't think you understand what I advocate and my system would certainly have a lot less gov't intervention than now.You call for a decentralized government yet your ideology simply gives more power to them by allowing them to control us through the economy. Im just saying, its wrong.
EDIT: And in the name of religion too. I couldn't think of anything worse.
I don't think you understand what I advocate and my system would certainly have a lot less gov't intervention than now.
Also I object to the idea that morality and eocnomics are separate. Economics is intertwined with human society and human behaviour is part of the moral sphere.
Again your focusing on that word but I must say rubbish. All human society is within the moral sphere.If it involves the government and spirituality, its no no mate.
Again your focusing on that word but I must say rubbish. All human society is within the moral sphere.
Do you not believe in laws against child labour? Or dodgy consumer goods? The idea that you can separate economic areas completely from the rest of society I'm not sure. And I struggling to see your social conservatism here.
And I my morality is religious but as I said you could hold a very similar economic philosophy to me on purely secular grounds. Many people from Thomas Jefferson to Henry George to Peter Kropotkin to Ralph Borsodi have. Not that I'm in an way ashamed of religious motivations, I'm not a liberal, I believe traditional religion is extremely important for society.
Your trying to base the economic system on Catholicism for christ sakes.
Being American, I find it very intresting that this issue provoked so many posts and so much passion. If anyone does fox hunting in that manner in the US, I'm not aware of it, though it is possible.
In some hunting sports, we do use dogs, but primarily to find and/or corner the critter in question before it is shot dead, or in the case of birds to find and retrieve same after the shot.
Not my country, so I have little opinion on the matter.
One thing someone said, about a fox hunt group tearing up his vegetable garden: yeah, that definately shouldn't be allowed, or at a minimum suitable compensation plus a little extra for the bother and mess. Are the hunts allowed to cross other's private property without leave? Sounds like they are.
I grew up a farmboy, and I hunt sometimes, but my family tradition was to make a clean kill with one shot if at all possible, in order to be humane. It wasn't some big philosophy, just my Dad said "if you can't make a clean kill, better not to take the shot. Don't want it to suffer more than we can help."
Otherhandwise, I can see where Wessexman is coming from: if these hunts take place in the countryside, it seems like it is the business of the folks living in the countryside whether they want it to be legal or not, and what sort of regulations might apply.
None of my business really, I'm on the other side of the big pond. :mrgreen:
When did I say that?
It's more of an upper-class passtime than anything else, really. It's much quicker, and far more cost-effective, for a farmer just to shoot any persistent pests, than it would be for him to dress up pretty, round up a group of friends on horseback and go jaunting around the countryside for a few hours.
Narrow distributism is. Broader philosophies that could be classed as distributism are not necessarily. I have said this several times.Its an ideology made by a bunch of Catho's/Anglo's aint it?
In fact I have repeatedly said you can base most of it on secular ethics and many have. Not that I'm ashamed to admit religious morality and simply referencing that is not an argument mate.
I'm wondering why we are discussing this topic any more. I have yet to see any real comprehension from you on this topic. At least try and get a grip on what I'm actually saying and advocating.
Was Thomas Jefferson a Catholic? Was Henry George? Was Peter Kropotkin or Lewis Mumford or Kirkpatrick Sale or the Southern Agrarians?
I think you are misunderstanding spiritual what means. It simply is talking about higher motivations than material possessions such as creativity, community, companionship and such. Even many agnostics and atheists recognise this side of man. It is not directly a religious thing. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is mostly as reflective of this view as much as any religious document.You said yourself your friggin ideology was based less on consumerism and more on human needs and spiritual needs. How the HELL would spiritual needs incorporate secularism? Thats all i need to know.
Firstly that is an unsupported assertion which I reject, let's try and have a discussion without that. I could easily counter that if you don't believe morality always has a place in human affairs then you shouldn't be talking about them.Your ideology does not advocate secularism as much as you claim it can have secular ethics which it obviously cant. If you don't believe in the sanctity of secularism you shouldn't be talking about the economy.
Some were, some weren't.Where they in someway associated to a religion?
Firstly when you say you separate morality from human affairs that destroys all my respect for your economic ideology. Secondly I do believe in religion and its place in society but it has only a marginal place in my economic theory, as an agnostic I held quite a similar viewpoint. It is based around the idea of man and his needs I've spelt out several times already.The thing with your ideology is, it varies from person to person depending on what religion they would like to see a distributive economy worked with. You for example have the "christian view". So naturally you would want to incorporate that with your distributive ideology? Thats all i need to know, ive lost all respect at that point.
It has to do with morality and what you think human needs are. If you don't believe in child labour or bans cigarette advertising or pretty much any intervention in the economy in the name of a better society then you are being inconsistent.The hell does that have to do with spirituality?
I think you are misunderstanding spiritual means. It simply is talking about higher motivations than material possessions such as creativity, community, companionship and such. Even many agnostics and atheists recognise this side of man. It is not directly a religious thing. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is somewhat as reflective of this view as much as any religious document.
It does seem this misunderstanding of what spiritual means or can mean has very much led you to misunderstand me.
Secondly my ideology cannot be compatible with crass materialism that views man's only needs as the gaining of material possessions and fulfillment of low passions. It is compatible with many non-religious, and certainly non-traditional religious, however including many that could be classified as secular. It is simply based on a view of man as having many higher needs that go unfulfilled by consumerism.
Firstly when you say you separate morality from human affairs that destroys all my respect for your economic ideology. Secondly I do believe in religion and its place in society but it has only a marginal place in my economic theory, as an agnostic I held quite a similar viewpoint. It is based around the idea of man and his needs I've spelt out several times already.
It has to do with morality and what you think human needs are. If you don't believe in child labour or bans cigarette advertising or pretty much any intervention in the economy in the name of a better society then you are being inconsistent.
Some were, some weren't.
Tories "will scrap hunting ban" - Telegraph
Nice to see Tories still know how to make this a class issue and where their priority lies.
What the hell? Only toffs go gallivanting off to tear a fox apart in a red suit all done up :/
It is my view that society should be arranged to help man fulfill his needs and potential. The economy is very much part of society. Just about everyone believes similar, even you. Don't pretend you view of man is neutral nor that pretending people should simply be allowed to choose in an economy that is part of a society, full of power relationships and state intervention is neutral either.So the economy arranges camping days out and must attend leisure centers? What business is this of the economies? :shock:
It is not community work and please try and not be offensive to my religious views. Have you ever read Lord Northbourne? I recommend his work.Perhaps ive misunderstood you. Spirituality to me religious baloney, not "community work".
I have my views on society. It is pretty much excepted most people have higher needs, hence Maslow's place in psychology. Again don't pretend your view of man is neutral nor that our society is.The needs of man is not yours to dictate. We all have indivisual needs. Some believe material things are all they want. Others don't...so what?
The economy is part of society. I believe in making it better for man in a libertarian and decentralist fashion like replacing most taxes with a locally collected land value tax and encouraging mutual banking.Religion is not for the economy to enforce or assert, thats for the people to decide.
These moral boundaries are based on a view of man as is my idea of spirituality. If you believe in these rules then you go beyond the Thatcherism you are espousing.Im talking about spirituality, not morality. Every idiot can tell you that an economy needs to fall within certain moral boundaries.
I don't think Kirkpatrick Sale or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford"]Lewis Mumford[/ame] could be said to be and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin"]Peter Kropotkin[/ame] was an anarchist. There are many more.Of course they where.