Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 12:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 11/18/14 11:15 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

When I kill an animal or bird, TOAD, I eat it for dinner that night or
the next. If I didn't eat it for dinner, I'd be hungry that night.
Therefore I'm a subsistence hunter.


Or, you could hop on the 'guzi and run down to the supermarket to buy a
nice, thick steak.




Yeah, but nobody has to kill that.. it's born in the nice styropac
containers and cellophane.. right?

Well ....
 

On 11/18/14 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 06:50:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:22:10 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:




If you mean the palins, they are not subsistence hunters. I have no idea
who the "motor city mad man" is. I have no objection to, for example,
tribesmen who hunt because it is the only way they can feed themselves
and their families. You really should stop coming to conclusions based
upon your wild-assed guesses.

So someone who just hunts to supplement their income is evil?
Do you feel the same about gardening?

Personally I do not see much difference between shooting a deer and
paying Giant food to kill a steer, butcher and wrap it for me.
Both are going to be a dead mammal that we cook and eat.




*My* point was that there is no morality in non-subsistence hunting. If
a family with very little money can put food on the table or have
something to sell or trade by hunting, then *that* is subsistence hunting.

You don't seem to understand the point.

Maybe I do.

If the hunter is eating the game, it is subsistence hunting.

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.


--
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 ....
 

http://i.imgur.com/aDfYtTA.jpg

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:51:25 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 06:50:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:22:10 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:




If you mean the palins, they are not subsistence hunters. I have no idea
who the "motor city mad man" is. I have no objection to, for example,
tribesmen who hunt because it is the only way they can feed themselves
and their families. You really should stop coming to conclusions based
upon your wild-assed guesses.

So someone who just hunts to supplement their income is evil?
Do you feel the same about gardening?

Personally I do not see much difference between shooting a deer and
paying Giant food to kill a steer, butcher and wrap it for me.
Both are going to be a dead mammal that we cook and eat.




*My* point was that there is no morality in non-subsistence hunting. If
a family with very little money can put food on the table or have
something to sell or trade by hunting, then *that* is subsistence hunting.

You don't seem to understand the point.

Maybe I do.

If the hunter is eating the game, it is subsistence hunting. If he is
just collecting trophies I agree with you.

The other side of this is controlling invasive species. I assume you
are OK with shooting wild hogs and pythons. You certainly should be if
protecting native species and habitat are important to you.




Does that mean we should be shooting illegal immigrants?

(just a joke, relax)

If we did that, who would do all of the hard work?

We would starve, nothing would be built and the grass would be over
the house.

And the Democrats would lose lots of votes!

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 06:50:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:22:10 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:




If you mean the palins, they are not subsistence hunters. I have no idea
who the "motor city mad man" is. I have no objection to, for example,
tribesmen who hunt because it is the only way they can feed themselves
and their families. You really should stop coming to conclusions based
upon your wild-assed guesses.

So someone who just hunts to supplement their income is evil?
Do you feel the same about gardening?

Personally I do not see much difference between shooting a deer and
paying Giant food to kill a steer, butcher and wrap it for me.
Both are going to be a dead mammal that we cook and eat.




*My* point was that there is no morality in non-subsistence hunting. If
a family with very little money can put food on the table or have
something to sell or trade by hunting, then *that* is subsistence hunting.

You don't seem to understand the point.

Maybe I do.

If the hunter is eating the game, it is subsistence hunting.

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.


TOAD, you don't hunt. What makes you think you know so much about the
subject?

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life,
but it does make you against baby killing.

Other bull**** snipped.

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:46:36 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/aDfYtTA.jpg

Another great picture from Tim.

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 5:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 1:12 PM, wrote:

You don't seem to understand the point.

Maybe I do.

If the hunter is eating the game, it is subsistence hunting.

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

A pound of meat taken home from a hunt is a pound of meat that didn't
come off a factory farm. That should be worth something to all of you
global warming and pollution folks.


That makes too much sense for them.

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:09:02 -0500, 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.

If he agreed with it, he'd have to agree to shooting mute swans.
They're raising hell with the Chesapeake.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._muteswan.html

Perhaps a few relocated pythons could help with our problem? I hear
they're getting more and more used to cold weather.

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 5:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:09:02 -0500, 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.

If he agreed with it, he'd have to agree to shooting mute swans.
They're raising hell with the Chesapeake.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._muteswan.html

Perhaps a few relocated pythons could help with our problem? I hear
they're getting more and more used to cold weather.


cough**** CANADA GEESEcough Just sayin'...

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:29:22 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/18/2014 5:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:09:02 -0500, 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.

If he agreed with it, he'd have to agree to shooting mute swans.
They're raising hell with the Chesapeake.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._muteswan.html

Perhaps a few relocated pythons could help with our problem? I hear
they're getting more and more used to cold weather.


cough**** CANADA GEESEcough Just sayin'...

....yeah, those too.