OG Loc wrote:rman1201 wrote:
But I believe the flaw in your argument is an unwarrented assumption. You could be a farmer by profession and only produce enough food to feed your family.
No assumption really, just a practical definition of profession. If the farmer took a job as an accountant, but still grew his own food, would he still be a professional farmer? If he built his house, would he be a professional carpenter too? If he fools around with the neighboring farmer's daughter every Friday, does that make him a professional sex worker/prostitute?
However the aforementioned farmer was used in the context of farming as the sole means of providing a livelihood for his/her family with other activities serving only as hobbies. One would not call a subsistence farmer a farmer of hobby. Therefore the farmer is a farmer by profession yet not receiving direct compensation for his farming.