https://i.imgur.com/I8NKFEX.jpg
Printable View
Wrong. It turns out that we actively support many of those policies, or, at least that we tolerate them because they permit other action that we value more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
That fact that you do not understand the value constructs that lead 'us' to these positions should be a spur to a more open minded learning, and not a prompt for lazy assumptions that writes off as invalid that which is beyond your grasp.
If you haven't yet read Haidt's; The Righteous Mind then you need to do so. Soon.
"Blairites"? You do realise, don't you, that those who voted no confidence in Corbyn included some of his former shadow cabinet ministers, who had no confidence in him because they tried to give him a chance, only to discover close up that he was utterly incompetent. Were they good Corbyn loyalists while they were in the shadow cabinet and sucking it up, only to transform instantly into Blairites when they resigned their positions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Edit: Your poster above misses out the assistant director, Jeremy Corbyn. He was one of the first to want article 50 to be activated (before the other five names).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://www.the-american-interest.co...ats-globalism/Quote:
By the summer of 2015 the nationalist side was already at the boiling point, shouting “enough is enough, close the tap,” when the globalists proclaimed, “let us open the floodgates, it’s the compassionate thing to do, and if you oppose us you are a racist.” Might that not provoke even fairly reasonable people to rage?
[...]
But that is not all we need to know. On closer inspection, racism usually turns out to be deeply bound up with moral concerns. (I use the term “moral” here in a purely descriptive sense to mean concerns that seem—for the people we are discussing—to be matters of good and evil; I am not saying that racism is in fact morally good or morally correct.) People don’t hate others just because they have darker skin or differently shaped noses; they hate people whom they perceive as having values that are incompatible with their own, or who (they believe) engage in behaviors they find abhorrent, or whom they perceive to be a threat to something they hold dear. These moral concerns may be out of touch with reality, and they are routinely amplified by demagogues. But if we want to understand the recent rise of right-wing populist movements, then “racism” can’t be the stopping point; it must be the beginning of the inquiry.
Hmm, yes, it's not bad, but in the end he doesn't really seem to say much. First the right wingers might be fairly reasonable people, then their ideas are based on exaggerations and false fears. How is that a big improvement for the right winger? Would a fairly reasonable person not at least notice the false nature of their fears and the exaggeration of demagogue influence?
You are hinting that you want to blend these two threads as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
that is a good and interesting article in its own right - i read it shortly after it was published last July - but it does not address the same issues covered in The Righteous Mind, and therefore has little relevance as a response to Beskar's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
There is a difference between understanding something and agreeing or supporting something. Just because I can understand authoritarian tendencies does not make me think they are suddenly right opposed to the situation that people are more often or not misguided and shooting themselves in the foot. Because knowing Fox News and Daily Fail like to whip up a frenzy to trigger people more than Milo Yiannopoulos at a SJW seminar because it sells them more newspapers doesn't stop the fact people cannot sift through these ploys and vote in directions which are counterintuitive to their interests. Pannonnian regular makes reference to people being massive beneficiaries for EU funding in Cornwall and how they are crying because they are losing that grant money due to voting leave in Brexit topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Rant Below:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So...
Labour is, at the moment, led by someone who is a true communard (thus appealing to the party's emotional 'heart' and unionists-to-the-barricades roots) but who cannot seem to function well as an executive, while the other leadership contenders are probably more competent at the affairs of governance but seem "tainted" by right-wing attitudes or alliances and thus unappealing to a large portion of the labour voting base. All of which is confounded by being supported by a minority of the voters at large and with few prospects for establishing a coalition government with one of the other parties.
Is that an accurate summary of the current state of things?
Well, it is linked here: http://righteousmind.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
So for some strange reason I assumed it was related, but I'm gonna have to let you down about buying the book. If I buy everyobdy's favourite book just to argue with them, my own life will be ruined faster than I can read the books...it's only self-preservation. ~;)
You could like, try to summarize it or so.
Hmmm, his blog has the same title as the book i refer to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Fair enough, the guardian and telegraph co-reviewed the book back in the day:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ay-people-vote
http://www.edwest.co.uk/telegraph-bl...conservatives/
not quite the exact links, but close enough to expand on the premise.
I have no objection to you feeling the way you do, nor would i suggest that you are 'wrong' to hold the values that inform that view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I do object to the way you phrased the quoted text, so while your riposte is no doubt cathartic i still feel you are blind to the problem i describe.
It was definitely cathartic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Labour is led by someone who has cultivated ties with all the ideological causes of the non-mainstream Left. These causes often conflict with each other, but they have the common theme of despising compromise and the centre. The latter is personified by Tony Blair, who made alliances with people whom the ideological Left loathe, and who appealed to the centre. Corbyn's leadership shtick is that he is everything Blair isn't. This appeals to his supporters. Unfortunately, there's a reason why Blair won 3 elections, including two of the largest majorities in British history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
And for Beskar: Blair's government did more to help the vulnerable than any other government in my life time. I am deeply appreciative of the things his government did, as my other experience of British government is Tory to greater and lesser extents. Corbyn's supporters despise Blair's government, describing them as no different from the Tories. I strongly, strongly disagree, especially given the pedigree of the man they support instead. Corbyn entered Parliament in the same election where Blair was first elected as MP. What has Corbyn done in this 30-odd years as MP? Does it compare with what Blair has done? Why should I hate Blair?
Lots of people disagree with the War, PFI schemes, the poor economics of boom-boom-boom-no-bust which was sorely mistaken, and his tendency to lie and be two-faced about everything. There is also the whole thing post-government where he went around trying to glorify himself more, raking in millions from publicity stunts. He also tried to purge the left from the Labour party too, which as you now know, were not very happy with that and resurged itself with avengeance. His policies were definite improvements from Margaret Thatcher and John Major, but he courted a lot of the moneyed interests which ended up bringing New Labour centre-right politically. The conservatives as a reaction made themselves more and more right wing to try to distant themselves (Remember Michael Howard? *shivers*) which was only corrected under David Cameron which went back to the centre-right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Well, the Corbynista faction has won now, with the rules guaranteeing their perpetual control of the Labour party. What happens to the Labour party is now their responsibility. Blairites will never again be a factor in the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Quoting from article which refers to the book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The problem is the persons perspective of themselves and their actual actions. There is a cognitive disconnection between these in the cases of Conservatives. As for the question about defenceless animals, just look at how the Tories are so keen on scrapping the ban on Fox Hunting. They are frothing at the mouth to get rid of that, despite the majority of the country firmly wanting it in place. In America, Conservatives are the ones who travel across their countries and others to shoot wild animals, especially endangered creatures. With a question such as "Do you think hurting defenceless creatures is wrong?", they will obviously not disagree with it in answering, but it doesn't stop the fact in practice they actually do it.Quote:
The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as ‘One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenceless animal’ or ‘Justice is the most important requirement for a society,’ liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
It is like answering a question: "Do you enjoy kicking homeless people when they are down?" I would highly suspect a Conservative will not be answering "Actually, I do enjoy that, I strongly agree!", they will most likely put down 'strongly disagree'. At the same time, that same Conservative will vote for the candidate who will tackle vagrants and homelessness by installing anti-homelessness spikes. mandating people have to have an address for a bank account, mandating they need an address for benefits, mandating they need passports to rent any accommodation to prove they are not illegal immigrants, harsher punishments for petty crimes as they steal a loaf of bread from corner shop to feed themselves, and provide no funding for any socioeconomic programs to help people get off the streets and back within society.
It is like the example of the person who was moaning about eastern europeans flooding the UK and driving down wages, and the threat of Turkey doing similar if they joined the EU. He moans about this despite the fact he actually owns and runs a business who employs staff at minimum wage on zero hour contracts! He even moans about the fact minimum wage goes up as it is costing his business profit to pay for increases in salaries. How can someone who employs people on the bare minimum also complain about immigration driving down wages? There has to be a clear cognitive disconnect going on. You would think someone expressing values about immigration driving down wages would employ staff on a living wage with secure contracts... but nope. Voting Conservative because it suits his pocket better. Also an argent Brexit supporter, he is rubbing his hands at scrapping the working time directive. In some ways, would be great if the Europeans returned home, he would probably go out of business because there will be no one working for him or want to work for him, in exchange for a terrible contract and pay. Will be forced to actually offer good job opportunities to people.
Could argue it is leading question. If the question was "Do you support peoples right to hunt wild animals?" Conservatives would be strongly agreeing with this, rather than phrasing it as them preying on innocent defenceless animals. Brings us back to Yes. Prime Minister.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
Is One Person, One Vote that terrible? The previous system was "33% membership, 33% parliament MPs, 33% trade unions" which was an awful system. It was also blamed for Ed Miliband for getting into power over his brother, David Miliband, due to the 'influence of trade unions'. Liberal democrats have had 1P1V since the 1980s, yet there haven't been any problems with that for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And one member one vote means the membership has to accept responsibility for the choice they make. What happens to the Labour party happens because they've chosen the leader they have. Watch the Corbynista fans blame everyone but Corbyn though. It's their way of taking power without accepting responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Beskar, you appear to have fallen headfirst inot the trap of believing your political opponents are an inhuman "other". My friend, it is not so and such thinking leads down a decidedly dark path.
OK, first of all, the phrase "frothing at the mouth" is linked to rabies - you are comparing Conservatives to uncontrollably violent animals that have to be put down. Think about that. As to the Fox Hunting ban, please allow me to explain the rural perspective to you, which you are missing. Foxes do not come under the catagory of "defenceless animals". Foxes are mercilous, and wasteful, killers, the defenceless animals are the small lambs, chickens, rabbits and occasional babies that they savage and kill. The worst thing about a fox is that it kills many but takes few. If a fox is disturbed in a hen house it kills all the hens to stop the squarking but takes only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
A Fox is more wasteful, by far, than any human thief and more violent and this is why we hunt and kill them. There is no cognitive difference here.
Most hunters of this type would reply that they make every effort to kill quickly and they eat what they kill. There are exceptions, of course, but we are not talking of exceptions, we are talking generally. Many hunters would also reply that the way they kill animals is far less traumatic than killing in an abattoir where we have mechanised death, and that is undoubtedly true in the case of a skilled hunter with a rifle.Quote:
In America, Conservatives are the ones who travel across their countries and others to shoot wild animals, especially endangered creatures. With a question such as "Do you think hurting defenceless creatures is wrong?", they will obviously not disagree with it in answering, but it doesn't stop the fact in practice they actually do it.
Here, again, there is an implication of moral degeneracy on the part of Conservatives, Conservatives might be psychopaths who enjoy inflicting pain. To even suggest that is stupid.Quote:
It is like answering a question: "Do you enjoy kicking homeless people when they are down?" I would highly suspect a Conservative will not be answering "Actually, I do enjoy that, I strongly agree!", they will most likely put down 'strongly disagree'.
This is a difficult issue. On the one hand you have the need to get the homeless off the streets, on the other you have the need to balance that with the safety and well-being of the rest of the local population. For example, if banks are allowed to hold accounts for people with "no fixed abode" then this allows huge scope for fraud, from the banks and their customers. If banks are persistently defrauded they lose money, go bankrupt and have to be bailed out by government, and all their customers' deposits need to be covered.Quote:
At the same time, that same Conservative will vote for the candidate who will tackle vagrants and homelessness by installing anti-homelessness spikes. mandating people have to have an address for a bank account, mandating they need an address for benefits, mandating they need passports to rent any accommodation to prove they are not illegal immigrants, harsher punishments for petty crimes as they steal a loaf of bread from corner shop to feed themselves, and provide no funding for any socioeconomic programs to help people get off the streets and back within society.
This costs money, money that then can't be spent on hospitals or roads unless you raise taxes. Homeless people don't pay taxes, but everyone else does and they now lose out one way or another, they might even go broke themselves from higher taxes, either requiring benefits to keep their homes or becoming homeless themselves. The whole thing then becomes a vicious cycle with the government having less money to provide services and a shrinking tax base.
Now, you might argue that the risk of this is worth it against giving people with no fixed abode the opportunity to work and save and eventually get back on their feet. This calculation is where Right and Left differ, a case of priorities rather than values or feelings. The same basic argument applies to benefits, with the additional point that if you don't know where someone lives it's hard to guarantee the benefits are going to the person they are meant for.
Recent changes to renting regulations are there to protect legitimate renters, you can actually use an expired passport you know (I did, but the point is it's targeting slum landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and maintain dangerous properties.
There are also people who make a career out of being unemployed and having lots of babies, over multiple generations - they all vote Labour. What, you thought Shameless was just fiction?Quote:
It is like the example of the person who was moaning about eastern europeans flooding the UK and driving down wages, and the threat of Turkey doing similar if they joined the EU. He moans about this despite the fact he actually owns and runs a business who employs staff at minimum wage on zero hour contracts! He even moans about the fact minimum wage goes up as it is costing his business profit to pay for increases in salaries. How can someone who employs people on the bare minimum also complain about immigration driving down wages? There has to be a clear cognitive disconnect going on. You would think someone expressing values about immigration driving down wages would employ staff on a living wage with secure contracts... but nope. Voting Conservative because it suits his pocket better. Also an argent Brexit supporter, he is rubbing his hands at scrapping the working time directive. In some ways, would be great if the Europeans returned home, he would probably go out of business because there will be no one working for him or want to work for him, in exchange for a terrible contract and pay. Will be forced to actually offer good job opportunities to people.
There are selfish arseholes on both sides.
I haven't gone that far. It is more that their prioritise themselves rather than others (in general). Being selfish isn't a seventh sin... it can get close with greed, but it depends on how it manifests itself. Is it selfish in the form of forcing people to be more independent, or is it selfish in form of getting tax breaks at the expense of working people as they pay for it (which does come under greed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Unfortunately, I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between protecting your farm and dressing up in your red-coats, mounting a horse, having a pack of dogs, going over to a fox's den, digging them out, and lets loose the dogs of war to rip apart animals for sport. This is still going on despite the fact is illegal, there was even a recent case. To respond to your claim, I post this biased sourced article from an anti-hunting website.Quote:
As to the Fox Hunting ban, please allow me to explain the rural perspective to you, which you are missing. Foxes do not come under the catagory of "defenceless animals". Foxes are mercilous, and wasteful, killers, the defenceless animals are the small lambs, chickens, rabbits and occasional babies that they savage and kill. The worst thing about a fox is that it kills many but takes few. If a fox is disturbed in a hen house it kills all the hens to stop the squarking but takes only one. A Fox is more wasteful, by far, than any human thief and more violent and this is why we hunt and kill them. There is no cognitive difference here.
"Early fox hunting with packs of hounds first emerged in the UK in the late 1600s. While in some cases foxes were hunted to stop them from killing livestock, the ‘thrill of the chase’ became a sport in its own right. The excitement of the ride plus the social and apparently glamourous aspects of hunt gatherings established hunting as a fixture of the countryside. But these were the reasons why it flourished, no other. The suggestion that fox hunting is about ‘pest control’ can be dismissed very quickly by the fact that hunts have been caught capturing and raising foxes purely so they can then be hunted."
"Autopsies reveal hunted foxes are not killed quickly, but endure numerous bites and tears to their flanks and hindquarters - causing enormous suffering before death. Foxes forced to face terriers underground can suffer injuries to the face, head and neck, as can the terriers."
"While foxes are of course predators – they kill other animals for food – their impact on livestock is exaggerated, and can be reduced with good farming practices. The threat of the ‘fox in the chicken coop’ can be remedied with a secure electric fence. While sheep farmers may curse foxes for the loss of their lambs, in reality studies have shown that poor farming practices, disease and bad weather are far more likely to lead to lamb deaths. A 2000 study in Scotland found that around just 1% of lamb losses could be directly attributed to foxes. On the other hand, by feeding on rabbits, a 2003 study estimated that rural foxes save British crop farmers around £7m per year."
I pulled up a few quotes to address your points. Any farm issues can be solved with secure fencing... not perfect but statistically more likely for the animal to die in other ways.
Kick them when they're down is an expression which means to give someone unfortunate a bad time. I qualified this in my post that whilst no sane conservative would actually enjoy inflicting pain, it is sometimes an unfortunate consequence of their policies that this happens.Quote:
Here, again, there is an implication of moral degeneracy on the part of Conservatives, Conservatives might be psychopaths who enjoy inflicting pain. To even suggest that is stupid.
I worked with many who were homeless. Even people who were alcoholics and took drugs on the streets. They mostly took the substances because their life was so terrible, it was the only thing they could do to make their situation bearable. There is a clear sense of hopelessness, a feeling that society has deserted them and doesn't give a single care about their welfare. To some people, homelessness is nothing more than vermin on the street, yet when these individuals are given the proper support, willing to push for a change in their lives, they can pick themselves up and make real differences. I even came across colleagues who were on in their life, homeless, and it was through these efforts and investment of others they can really changed things around. One guy was even now earning £32,000! If you think he was at one time a homeless alcoholic, the fact he is changed everything around with support and is even now on a good income, just shows that these are people who can shine and make something of themselves. These are not vermin in the street but potential diamonds in the rough. There was even this guy.Quote:
Now, you might argue that the risk of this is worth it against giving people with no fixed abode the opportunity to work and save and eventually get back on their feet. This calculation is where Right and Left differ, a case of priorities rather than values or feelings. The same basic argument applies to benefits, with the additional point that if you don't know where someone lives it's hard to guarantee the benefits are going to the person they are meant for.
I assume PVC was talking about farmers maintaining their immediate property with permission to harm or kill foxes and some other creatures under select circumstances, likely with shotgun.
This funny fox does not enjoy the situation. ~:)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As the case of celebrities shows, they take substances because their life is so beautiful. Conclusion: it is not so much the life that makes people take substances, but more something inside people which makes them prone to taking substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
That is really just a restatement of your beliefs, and doesn't really address the core of Haidt's argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I start from a belief that collective benefit is not so important that we should invest the state with enormous moral authority, a majority of the wealth in the economy, and the power to regulate private activity at a micro level.Quote:
Haidt suggests that human beings have six moral foundations, a desire for care over harm, fairness, liberty over oppression, loyalty, authority, and sanctity, and that these govern our politics and religions. Surveying tens of thousands of self-identified liberals and conservatives with a series of ethical questions, he concluded that those on the Left were only really motivated by the first three, but (social) conservatives care about all six, roughly equally.
Haidt grew interested in the subject because, as a card-carrying Democrat, he became frustrated at the way that John Kerry was unable to connect with the American public during the 2004 elections; how could Democrats understand people’s desire to fight injustice and protect the weak on the one hand, and yet be completely blind to their desire for patriotism or faith or genuine concerns about free riders? The Left has traditionally dismissed these beliefs with various explanations based on Marx’s idea of false consciousness, but they are genuine human instincts.
This means i don't want public spending at more than 40% of GDP.
I also demand that at least 2% is spent on Defence, leaving only 38% for other essential government duties, and public welfare.
Do I want essential government duties performed, and public welfare distributed? Of course. Not as much as you apparently, but c'est la vie!
This means I reject the principle that the gov't gives me my rights.
English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law.
This means that some people will suffer from the lack of protection a more legal-possitivist interpretation of law could provide. I'm fine with this.
This means I prefer a regulatory regime based on demonstrable harm, rather than the precautionary principle.
Yes, I'm willing to tolerate it for existential threats to the nation that have a horizon well beyond the ability of the 5 year electoral cycle to manage.
But in all walks of life i'm willing to tolerate a greater incidence and severity of harm in order to protect our freedom from interference.
In all these broad themes I take a position that will directly help individual people less from the major inequities they face in their life.
I do so because i perceive indirect benefits that ill accrue to the collective 'all', which 'they' may or may not choose to exercise.
But in none of these areas do I not want welfare to exist, gov't to shelter, and regulation to protect. I just want other things too.
PVC - The problem with Tories is not that they are inhuman. It's that they don't seem to step outside of their privileged situation and see those who need help as being in any way deserving.
We humans have a tendency to see our own good luck as skill, hard work and worthiness. And others bad luck as an expression of their flaws and failings. Tories take this heuristic to the ultimate level and make societal decisions on it.
Not really. There are different reasons for drug addiction, but majority of it comes from terrible life circumstances. This clip explains it really well:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
No, we do not prioritise only ourselves. Selfishness is, in fact, an aspect of Greed, and I think you meant "Eighth Deadly Sin" as there are already seven. Again, you are attributing vice to others because you do not understand their position. I cannot see how "forcing people to be independent" can be selfish when what youa re "forcing" is independence from the State. I am not independent, I rely on my family, and we are not especially wealthy. Still, I know I shall never be homeless because I have kith and kin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
There may be a blind spot here, which Idaho has hit upon, but that doesn't mean there's any selfishness.
That recent case is an excellent example of what happens when you do not regulate a necessary activity. It is "bad form" to dig the fox out and set the dogs on him.Quote:
Unfortunately, I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between protecting your farm and dressing up in your red-coats, mounting a horse, having a pack of dogs, going over to a fox's den, digging them out, and lets loose the dogs of war to rip apart animals for sport. This is still going on despite the fact is illegal, there was even a recent case. To respond to your claim, I post this biased sourced article from an anti-hunting website.
Have you ever had to kill anything? It's always horrible. Hunts vary in their conduct, some are cruel, some are not. Variance has become greater since the ban, killing of foxes has if anything become more earnist and more sadistic as the ban protecting them is resented.
I've never heard of hunts capturing and raising foxes, but it's not outside the realms of possibility. Mind you, if I've never heard of it I think it unlikely to be in any way a pervasive practice. The person who wrote that, of course, pretends to know the minds of a segment of society to which he does not belong. He also demonstrates ignorance as to why fox hunting arose, principally due to a lack of dear for the Aristocracy to hunt.Quote:
"Early fox hunting with packs of hounds first emerged in the UK in the late 1600s. While in some cases foxes were hunted to stop them from killing livestock, the ‘thrill of the chase’ became a sport in its own right. The excitement of the ride plus the social and apparently glamourous aspects of hunt gatherings established hunting as a fixture of the countryside. But these were the reasons why it flourished, no other. The suggestion that fox hunting is about ‘pest control’ can be dismissed very quickly by the fact that hunts have been caught capturing and raising foxes purely so they can then be hunted."
That applies to "aristocratic" fox hunting, though. Farmers have always hunted vermin with dogs and they followed the dogs on horseback, but without the pageantry.
I'm sure this is true - on the other hand it should be noted that handguns are illegal and shotguns are sometimes prohibitively difficult to obtain and keep.Quote:
"Autopsies reveal hunted foxes are not killed quickly, but endure numerous bites and tears to their flanks and hindquarters - causing enormous suffering before death. Foxes forced to face terriers underground can suffer injuries to the face, head and neck, as can the terriers."
The extent to which you can mitigate the danger of foxes is debatable, because they are cunning, and patient, and you only have to slip up once.Quote:
"While foxes are of course predators – they kill other animals for food – their impact on livestock is exaggerated, and can be reduced with good farming practices. The threat of the ‘fox in the chicken coop’ can be remedied with a secure electric fence. While sheep farmers may curse foxes for the loss of their lambs, in reality studies have shown that poor farming practices, disease and bad weather are far more likely to lead to lamb deaths. A 2000 study in Scotland found that around just 1% of lamb losses could be directly attributed to foxes. On the other hand, by feeding on rabbits, a 2003 study estimated that rural foxes save British crop farmers around £7m per year."
No, not "any farm issues". Some farming issues can be helped by fencing, they are helped more by fencing and killing foxes. We actually gave up keeping chickens when I was young because no matter what we did the foxes always got them in the end. Electric fences also only work so long as the animal is afraid. Even with mains electric fences (which are expensive) suffer from this problem, and any animal that lives long enough learns that they aren't really harmful and can ignore them. I've seen this from horses and sheep, I imagine foxes are clever enough to work this out against.Quote:
I pulled up a few quotes to address your points. Any farm issues can be solved with secure fencing... not perfect but statistically more likely for the animal to die in other ways.
Who's going to foot the cost of turning these farms into Fort Knox? How are you going to set this up for Hill Farms and crofters where there's no mains electric near the fields?
Yes, I know what it means. My point is to even suggest that it's a question with the Right (but not the Left) speaks to your view and your lack of empathy for people on a different part of the political spectrum. I'd also point out that rarely is this an "unfortunate consequence" so much as a foreseen consequence.Quote:
Kick them when they're down is an expression which means to give someone unfortunate a bad time. I qualified this in my post that whilst no sane conservative would actually enjoy inflicting pain, it is sometimes an unfortunate consequence of their policies that this happens.
Let me give you a real-world example. Exeter City Council has a "no second night" policy so that no homeless person in the city should ever spend a second night out of doors. This is laudable, certainly, but it has not solved the homelessness problem in the city, the problem has got worse. Exeter is drawing homeless people in from the surrounding towns, and not all of them the City trie to re-house actually stay put, some of them end up back on the streets. So our homelessness problem is worse than it was five years ago, and some of these people are mentally unstable, or aggressive when begging, and we're a University city with lots of young girls walking down the High Street (drunk) of an evening.
So, the city suffers for its charity, at a time when we're also dealing with an uptick in violent crime. One young lad I know told me a lot of the kids in the Saint Thomas area carry knives now, then there was the man found stuffed in a bin last year:
http://www.devonlive.com/second-man-...ail/story.html
So - choices - keep the streetlights on at night or try to house an increasing homeless population.
People become homeless for a number of reasons, one reason is abuse (particularly childhood abuse) but drug and alcohol addictions are another reason, as is isolationism. If you think that a lot of homeless people have families, parents, grandparents, children etc. that they walked out on or broke contact with for one reason or another. It's a story you frequently hear, after they're murdered, that this homeless person had someone looking for them but they dropped off the map.Quote:
I worked with many who were homeless. Even people who were alcoholics and took drugs on the streets. They mostly took the substances because their life was so terrible, it was the only thing they could do to make their situation bearable. There is a clear sense of hopelessness, a feeling that society has deserted them and doesn't give a single care about their welfare. To some people, homelessness is nothing more than vermin on the street, yet when these individuals are given the proper support, willing to push for a change in their lives, they can pick themselves up and make real differences. I even came across colleagues who were on in their life, homeless, and it was through these efforts and investment of others they can really changed things around. One guy was even now earning £32,000! If you think he was at one time a homeless alcoholic, the fact he is changed everything around with support and is even now on a good income, just shows that these are people who can shine and make something of themselves. These are not vermin in the street but potential diamonds in the rough. There was even this guy.
I agree that once you're homeless it's incredibly difficult to get back on your feet unless someone gives you a lot of support but at the same time we need to address how people become homeless, and we need to acknowledge that in some cases it is because of choices they made, and they had other options.
This is particularly true of young people.
Things my terrier has gotten stuck in:
prairie dog hole
fence(s)
mattress(es)
trash can(s)
beer box
pool
crate
tub
the backseat
little monsters man
I honestly couldn't care less about fox hunting. If people really want to go out in a big group and torment wildlife - bully for them.