On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.
BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.
No, just not playing your change the subject game.
You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.
For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..
I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.
Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.
Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.
No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.
Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.
--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.