Further Royal discussion

A

Anonymous

Guest
so if youre going to eat meat at all, you might as well adopt the chinese approach and eat anything that moves, is that what you're saying?
I’m not sure that approach is a common place Chinese approach. The Chinese I know who live and work in China don’t eat any meat that is any different from the meat western diets are accustomed to.

I didn’t make my point as a green light for everyone to eat everything and anything.

It was a point that is more geared toward saying that no animal should be killed for any unnecessary use, and food consumption of animals is as unnecessary as the killing of a tiger on a game reserve by wealthy clients.

There are people who sit back condemning the shooting of a tiger whilst tucking into their chicken curry. Both involve the unnecessary killing of an animal for pleasure.

This always comes up when people are outraged because the French eat horse as though that is any different than eating cow.
 
J

Jeremiah Lime

Guest
This idea that involves speciesism is to the veganism that Morrissey favours hypocrisy.

Whether it is the hunting of a tiger or buffalo for some perverse pastime or the shooting of a grouse for food or the farming and abattoire food production of chickens, cows or pigs, or the killing of male calves in the dairy industry or the fishing of our sea and river based fish products it is all completely unnecessary.

Trying to state one is worse than another doesn’t wash in todays age when no human needs to consume an animal product.

Any animal death for consumption or otherwise is purely for pleasure.

It may be completely unnecessary where you live, but there are still people in the world who cannot survive without animal products. Even in the inner city in America it's hard to get fresh produce, much less anything that can be called vegan. There are vast areas that have been abandoned by major grocery stores. Try going for a road trip across country where even the french fries are not vegan and a side of green beans is cooked with bacon. There's still a ways to go before a vegan lifestyle is going to be cheap and easy for a lot of people, it's still mainly for people who have time and/or money.
 

rifke

26% descended from the great teutonic tribes
I’m not sure that approach is a common place Chinese approach. The Chinese I know who live and work in China don’t eat any meat that is any different from the meat western diets are accustomed to.

I didn’t make my point as a green light for everyone to eat everything and anything.

It was a point that is more geared toward saying that no animal should be killed for any unnecessary use, and food consumption of animals is as unnecessary as the killing of a tiger on a game reserve by wealthy clients.

There are people who sit back condemning the shooting of a tiger whilst tucking into their chicken curry. Both involve the unnecessary killing of an animal for pleasure.

This always comes up when people are outraged because the French eat horse as though that is any different than eating cow.
uh no there are many MANY more moral distinctions than whether a thing is necessary or unnecessary.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
uh no there are many MANY more moral distinctions than whether a thing is necessary or unnecessary.
Well the argument that has been put forward in this discussion is that the hunting of big game is wrong because it is killing an animal only for pleasure.

My argument is that the killing of any animal for hunting or consumption is for pleasure and unnecessary.

I don’t think it needs to be any more complex than that.
 

Ketamine Sun

Now, today, tomorrow and always
It may be completely unnecessary where you live, but there are still people in the world who cannot survive without animal products. Even in the inner city in America it's hard to get fresh produce, much less anything that can be called vegan. There are vast areas that have been abandoned by major grocery stores. Try going for a road trip across country where even the french fries are not vegan and a side of green beans is cooked with bacon. There's still a ways to go before a vegan lifestyle is going to be cheap and easy for a lot of people, it's still mainly for people who have time and/or money.

Yes, it almost seems as if government are keeping people sick, on purpose. Bad city planning, bad education, bad media, bad diets. Ways of control. And not just in the inner city.

It takes effort to self educate and resensitize oneself in order to think and see clearly and to benefit from these emotional states of being that will propel one to go out of their way to make the correct decisions and changes.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
well that may be so, but killing is wrong when it is novel. the fact of hunting being a tradition of ones culture takes away the novelty of it. if you were to go to great expense and trouble to fly to africa to kill a giraffe on the other hand, that's an incredibly novel thing, and so to me thats quite twisted. (whereas if maasai people were to kill a giraffe with a spear, i would just say "oh well!"). but to do something that has been sanctioned in your culture for centuries, that you've been brought up with, well, it may still be wrong, but it doesnt have the implications of anything untoward that you wouldnt want in a monarch or leader that spent is trying to say it has.
Monarchs and leaders have to legitimize the power they have been bestowed with. Unlike democratically elected leaders, the monarch's power is based on the doctrine of divine rights. Having been chosen by god and sanctified by the church to fullfill their duty here on earth as a representative of the divine, we assume the monarch is setting a shining example of commendable behaviour as a role model to the people, which, especially in the 21st century, is in accord with god's creation.
Going hunting was originally a symbolic display of privilege of landlords to assert power over their land and everything and -body who lived on it. Not necessarily a desirable behaviour of a role model in the 21st century, i think.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It may be completely unnecessary where you live, but there are still people in the world who cannot survive without animal products. Even in the inner city in America it's hard to get fresh produce, much less anything that can be called vegan. There are vast areas that have been abandoned by major grocery stores. Try going for a road trip across country where even the french fries are not vegan and a side of green beans is cooked with bacon. There's still a ways to go before a vegan lifestyle is going to be cheap and easy for a lot of people, it's still mainly for people who have time and/or money.
Nonsense. There are places where it is harder than others but that doesn’t excuse people living in the centre of London, Manchester and Manhattan. If it isn’t possible then fine but that wasn’t the point I was making.

I live for a large part of the year in a part of the world that is mostly meat or fish eating and has very little in the way of a supermarket but I still manage to eat an animal free diet.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Monarchs and leaders have to legitimize the power they have been bestowed with. Unlike democratically elected leaders, the monarch's power is based on the doctrine of divine rights. Having been chosen by god and sanctified by the church to fullfill their duty here on earth as a representative of the divine, we assume the monarch is setting a shining example of commendable behaviour as a role model to the people, which, especially in the 21st century, is in accord with god's creation.
Going hunting was originally a symbolic display of privilege of landlords to assert power over their land and everything and -body who lived on it. Not necessarily a desirable behaviour of a role model in the 21st century, i think.
I don’t think many people believe at all in the divine right nonsense or god for that matter.

You keep talking about hunting as though current royalty go hunting. Please explain
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Monarchs and leaders have to legitimize the power they have been bestowed with. Unlike democratically elected leaders, the monarch's power is based on the doctrine of divine rights. Having been chosen by god and sanctified by the church to fullfill their duty here on earth as a representative of the divine, we assume the monarch is setting a shining example of commendable behaviour as a role model to the people, which, especially in the 21st century, is in accord with god's creation.
Going hunting was originally a symbolic display of privilege of landlords to assert power over their land and everything and -body who lived on it. Not necessarily a desirable behaviour of a role model in the 21st century, i think.
The monarch doesn’t have any power and the divine angle may have been ok in medieval times but not many people believe in mythical super beings any more.
 

spent

Well-Known Member

Seems to be a human constant to try to find cracks and fissures in displays of unity. Makes others look weaker and more accessible.
I always thought the British royals stood out among the European royal families. The swedish royals for example are so mundane in comparison. But Kate and William are not really interesting people as well. Do they have any interests besides wearing nice clothes and going hunting? Anything that makes them unique? Charles still seems to be kind of an eccentric in a way.
 
Last edited:

spent

Well-Known Member
The monarch doesn’t have any power and the divine angle may have been ok in medieval times but not many people believe in mythical super beings any more.
Just like the pope, the royals have a lot of symbolic power, and financial power too, and many people want to believe in this power as it also symbolically promises protection.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just like the pope, the royals have a lot of symbolic power, and financial power too, and many people want to believe in this power as it also symbolically promises protection.
What financial and symbolic power do they gave? Please explain
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just like the pope, the royals have a lot of symbolic power, and financial power too, and many people want to believe in this power as it also symbolically promises protection.
Does that symbolic protection get marred for you if they eat meat?
 

spent

Well-Known Member
One reason why the display of military pageantry is generally so appealing to so many people, is not just the possibility of watching the beauty of "ancient history rolled out" and being proud of it, but also, i would say, the feeling that there is a power that is able to protect not just its queen but also her subjects in a very professional and competent way. This is especially appealing in times of insecurity when the general feeling is that your government or state is no longer able to fulfill that duty of protecting its citizens properly, but rather seems to be disinterested or incompetent to do so, which means that people look for alternatives. It's the "Ganglord" effect.
 
Last edited:

Ketamine Sun

Now, today, tomorrow and always
Just like the pope, the royals have a lot of symbolic power, and financial power too, and many people want to believe in this power as it also symbolically promises protection.

Obviously anyone with that much wealth and proximity to politics or government has influence which equals power.
 

rifke

26% descended from the great teutonic tribes
One reason why the display of military pageant is generally so appealing to so many people, is not just the possibility of watching the beauty of "ancient history rolled out" and being proud of it, but also, i would say, the feeling that there is a power that is able to protect not just its queen but also her subjects in a very professional and competent way. This is especially appealing in times of insecurity when the general feeling is that your government or state is no longer able to fulfill that duty of protecting its citizens properly, but rather seems to be disinterested or incompetent to do so, which means that people look for alternatives. It's the "Ganglord" effect.
i have no idea what that has to do with a royal having engaged in hunting once upon a time. it does take competence to hunt, after all. you proposed a silly argument and now you're grasping at straws.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
Obviously anyone with that much wealth and proximity to politics or government has influence which equals power.
Self-evidently. No need to explain it any further, unless one doesn't know what symbolism means and the effects it can have on an audience.
 
Last edited:

spent

Well-Known Member
i have no idea what that has to do with a royal having engaged in hunting once upon a time. it does take competence to hunt, after all. you proposed a silly argument and now you're grasping at straws.
Just a change of topic, as we have the "Irish hare" thread now, thanks to Mozzy's brilliant letter to the Taoiseach, whatever his reasons were for coming up with it now. I proposed an opinion, btw.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
I might as well apply to the Prince's Trust and move to GB, preferably Scotland, for a few years.

In my younger years, I climbed a few Munros on my own but also with a crazy Scottish hiking club during a 7-Munros-a-day tour, and also had a serious epiphany while hiking through Glencoe. It was a life-changing experience, especially when this majestic stag was materializing in the foggy air of the glen, and we looked each other into the eyes, just me and this animal, with respect and total acknowledgement. He led me to the entry of the Lost Valley, and since then, my life hasn't been the same old life again.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom