![]() |
Well ....
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:00:30 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote: On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to subsistence hunting as it is generally described. It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a fawn in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that would be OK if they were hungry enough. You are trying much too hard. I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you. Is it only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing something you don't do? You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a deer for food be subsistence? Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer? I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too? I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I am curious about the rules. I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called "sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer to eat because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting. Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult concept to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers here. Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with homeless encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered salmon going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless? You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were morally wrong. I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality of it is an entirely separate issue. If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no reason for them to poach, is there... Moral issues with fishing, Toad? |
Well ....
On 11/19/14 1:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: 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 ch ange 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. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the "positivity" you want. Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the same and we don't need so many regulations. Fun times in rec.boats, for sure. The bitter Toad. Yeah, because I didn't have to eat rodents for dinner when I was a kid. Right. -- 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. |
Well ....
|
Well ....
|
Well ....
|
Well ....
|
Well ....
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:29:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 1:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: 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 ch ange 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. Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours. In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring. Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration. If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the "positivity" you want. Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the same and we don't need so many regulations. Fun times in rec.boats, for sure. The bitter Toad. Yeah, because I didn't have to eat rodents for dinner when I was a kid. Right. A lack of rodents made you this bitter, Toad? |
Well ....
|
Well ....
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:58:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 2:51 PM, wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and bunnies Tell us more about the deadly water bottles again you big brave man you. I don't pretend to be a great white hunter engaged in the non-sport of shooting animals with a gun. Refilled one and two liter plastic bottles at 50 and 100 yards are colorful targets. Just bought a steel "gong" to take out to the range and hang on chains. There's a slight chance we might be able to extend the range out from 100 to 200 yards, depending on interest and how many guys want to chip in for the grading and planting. If it happens, it'll be done in the spring. Do you tell all those who hunt how immoral they are, Toad? You've never answered the fishing question. Immoral or not, Toad? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com