About Us

F*O*A*D

On 11/19/14 11:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
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...

With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks.
Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.

Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/

Have fun...

The "fun" part is the crap you believe.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesnâ€™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. Thatâ€™s not pro-lifeâ€¦thatâ€™s
pro-birth.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us