http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/news/Inside...&cid=4&

Why don't those herdsmmen just go to the supermarkets, like everyone else in the world?

Still banging on this old brum? Go live in Africa then come back to the point, as it stands you live in America part of the DEVELOPPED world mentioned by myself. Poor iowanker.

You just keep making my point, X-black.

Please keep it up.

What was XBLack's original claim? Can you point me to it?

What I'm seeing is that you say he claimed "most of the world", and have moved on to saying he claimed "all of the world". Given these two conflicting claims on your part, I'm sure you can understand that a reading of the original claim is the only way to make an objective determination.

My god, you're right! X-black's wuss-out about how large numbers of people still hunt for their meat is completely correct!
Thanx for clearing that up; I can see the error of my view. There are no large numbers of people in africa who have to hunt for the meat on their table. Supermarkets rule. No one needs to hunt for meat anymore.

I note that you failed to point me to his original claim. I'm left with the fact that you made at least two conflicting claims about what he claimed. A facetious answer doesn't alter that.

Iowanic writes:


I guess it's fine to question his statement (though I don't find it particularly unbelievable and am inclined to accept it as true).

However, an example doesn't falsify his statement. Because if his statement is as you claim here, he didn't say that nobody needed to hunt for their meat. Since Africa doesn't constitute "most of the world", even if everyone in Africa is out killing and eating elephants and chimpanzees and shit his statement could still be true.

Did you feel compelled to change what he said because it was easier to refute that way? Or did he in fact say that nobody in the world needs to hunt for their meat? I'm asking.

The thread----"The bigger threat'

Post #34----"The vast majority....do not hunt for food'

(What's a vast majority? Anyone? 51%?)

same thread, post #92----- 'Africa is in much the same position as the rest of the modern world'.......

X-black insisted that most hunters were now 'hobbists'....(Though of course, at least the legal hunters are also eatting their take)

I asked if he considered people who hunted for meat on their table in Africa were hobbists. He evaded a direct answer.
I don't believe he ever cleared up whether such hunters were 'hobbists' hunters.

Iowanic wrote:

So his claim wasn't what you have been lately characterizing it as. That's your...embellishment.



That wouldn't make them any less hobbyists.



What if they aren't hobbyists? Perhaps he is more opposed to killing animals as a hobby than to killing them as a means of stark survival.

What would your point have been, if he hadn't evaded and you hadn't felt compelled to change what he did say?

Dunno. Didn't happen, as I expected.
Which may have been the point, of course......

And since it didn't happen, you changed what he said in an effort to make things happen?

Regardless, I don't think people in Africa who hunt as a means of survival are hobbyists. I doubt XBlack would try to make that case...though he did note that not all bushmeat is consumed because of matters of survival. The context of XBlack's remarks made it clear to me that the object of his greatest ire are those people who kill animals as a diversion. Hobbyists. Which like it or not probably does constitute a large portion of the hunting that goes on in the world.

So anyway, how does your noting that some people in Africa kill animals for subsistence excuse the notion of killing animals as an idle diversion?

My belief is if the meat is used to feed people; it's not a idle endeavor. If a problem predator is a legitimate threat to people, it's killing I don't consider a idle endeavor.

But that's just me....

Then you disagree that many hunters are hobbyists?

If the meat is being utalized; I don't see how it's a hobby.
Maybe we have different views of what a hobby is...

And if X-black can clarified therein it might have been useful in understanding how others view the same thing, differently.

I don't think that finding some measure of utility in a hobby means it is suddenly not a hobby. After all, hobbyist gardeners often eat the beans or what-not that they grow...or decorate their table with the flowers. I sometimes kill and eat the fish I catch, but my fishing is still a recreational hobby.

You're welcome to explain how your "view" is different, but I'm afraid it isn't going to make any sense to a rational person. I mean...it's going to sound like a Harley enthusiast saying that a ricer isn't a real motorcycle.

Maybe x-black can explain what he considers a hobbyist-hunter.

Since you couldn't do anything but fuck it up, you mean?

It is a unappreciated skill. With good reason.

Whatever.

I'm an eternal optimist Nic...believe it or not. I still hold onto the hope that I'm not overestimating your perception and ability.