Thus you have not even found out about nor looked into the nature or history of humans with manatees, and other animals ? Nor about the unjust laws of the land and the horrendous legal nature of the company that made the outrageous false claims in the case of the manatee ? Just assumed, I guess, that somehow 'they' (the legalists for profit or to be in the news for popular approval legally and otherwise) were right because 'they' were what? a legal group? a so-called 'concerned'(though uninformed) citizen or participant ?
This bird has an 18'' wing span keeping it in a cage is ABUSE they only bond once in their life span Rocky still mimics his original owner voice they can live 80 years they usually have 12 owners in that time I may be keeping him physically safe but not mentally . You can twist the words anyway you want it's ABUSE you try living in a cage waiting for someone to pay attention to you or let you walk around for a awhile. Herb
He did not post his opinion nor his belief in the post I referred to. It was a document of some sort published before any of us were alive, and it denoted not only correctness of opposing an illegal or unjust law, but also the wickedness / wrongness of supporting unjust, unconstitutional or just wrong laws.
I am really struggling to find any logic in whatever it is you are posting Does the source of the news, whether scientific or legal change the nature of the crime? No it does not. Are you by any chance trying to get around to the "god giving humans dominion over animals? Does having dominion grant us a pass to commit any heinous act that we may desire?
You are right - humans are cruel (sinfull) beings, and that has to be realized before anything can be corrected or understood. I did not twist any of your words here though - YOU called it ABUSE(a political social definition not usually accurate) to keep it alive, and gave the impression that to let it go would be better even though it would be killed doing so. I don't remember if you mentioned it was in a small cage or not. In the huge bird habitat in St. Louis and in other places, they can be in a place where they can life not die, and fly freely over a safe area with other birds, animals present, and natural trees etc. .... either way do you prefer putting it where it will soon die as your 'professional' told you likely, or preserving its life one way or another. SHould old people be put in cages called nursing homes and kept alive there ? (just a thought) Is that something YOU call "abuse" too ?
All start with the old people we have a big investigation going about the care of seniors we had to call the military in to help in the care homes seniors were laying in their feces dying alone this not only abuse it's criminal As far as Rocky goes I do let him out with supervision our parrot shelter is full we only have one in our area people get these birds and don't realize the care they require or how long they live they are not a cat you cant fill a bowl with food and take off for the weekend . On a personal note I'm worried sick about him he's obviously going to outlive me so far I haven't been able to find him a home for after I'm gone.
Uh, me thinks thou dost protest too much. If you read his post in the light that it was intended (again) you’ll see that he was employing a bit of sarcastic humor.
I could not find again @Ken Anderson post/photodocumenthistorical about opposing unjust or unconstitutional laws, but a short quick search of historical documents "not obey unjust laws" revealed this >> ====================================================================== https://ryoc.us/us-supreme-court-says-you-do-not-need-to-obey-un-constitutional-laws/ U.S. Supreme Court: You Do NOT Need To Obey Un-Constitutional Laws patriot October 14, 2014 Uncategorized With the increasing distance between the patriot movement (those who adhere to the Constitution) and both liberal and conservative elements in government who see increasingly inclined to make it up as they go along, a question grows in the minds of many Americans: “Must I obey un-Constitutional laws?” The short answer is “No.” To understand why this is true, however, we need to examine both the history and current status of U.S. law. The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people. D.C. has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this ten square mile district. We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss. As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it, doesn’t make it so. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail." =================================================================
and this: "Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.""
So? Using those means to try to defend lawyers who mis-represented the facts and often try to use legal measure to get money unjustly is wrong itself. Letting those lawyers get away with it openly is not good for anyone, is it ?
Correct. Totally. Ideally, One phone call "should" have been enough, like to the mayor or governor or even a tv station, to get that kind of cruelty / abuse of people and of power and of position immediately changed. Instead, what is happening ? Too many things are swept under the rug... for whatever reason...
http://www.seniorsonly.club/attachments/rocky-jpg.43415/ Just from the looks of the picture, there's no abuse happening, fwiw. Yes, it would be ideal if the bird could be set free, or let to a zoo with huge bird habitat, but since the bird could not survive in the wild, keeping it as you have pictured is wonderful for you and others and for the bird. It is totally wrong for corporations/companies/poachers , and illegal, I think, for them to capture dozens, hundreds or thousands of the birds out of the wild and sell them privately in cages/etc .... and I think many of the wildlife captured involves many of them dying after captured as well - i.e. NOT for their well being nor to keep them alive.
Huh? What the......? What does your post have to do with what you quoted? Seriously, you need to slow down and breath.......good air in, bad air out, good air in, bad air out. Clear your clouded head, re-read what you write and then re-read it again before you post. The constant redundancy and over eager attacks rather than conversation is almost unbearable. Slow down. Think.
Sorry if it seems at all like an attack - it is exposure of the legal wickednesses/ greedy ones. I thought that was identified earlier in the legal shenanigans of the ones who made a mountain out of a molehill (which was seen right away before looking them up, btw), then identified abundantly in the posted quote/link about the known history of those legal whatchawantacallem? The little people, us at the 'bottom' of the totem pole so to speak, the poor in general, are frequently 'abused'(I hate using that word, and persecuted or attacked is probably a better choice) by the legal, political, social, medical, and other so-called 'professions' and 'authorities' ... often using the mis-appropriated words "abuse", "harassed/harrassment", and others for legal purposes and not in reality caring for either the persons involved nor what actually happened - it is all about the "spin" (term used before "fake news" was admitted a few years ago) and the power or money motive in the purpose of dredging up something (like in poliitcs all year) or making a case out of something that would never have been known about in a 'normal' /'healthy' society. i.e. and making as if a serious crime happened when it was in fact a minor incident, perhaps unfortunate, perhaps a violation of a law, but could have and should have been handled without making it a spectacle.... In the Navy the same thing(s) happened/happen A LOT.... (it seemed/seems) .... used to be when two crewman (enlisted) had a fight, it was done and over in 5 minutes or less, and that was that - no harm no foul... then the lawyers and legalists made it a lifetime crime on paper, the officers (and others) sometimes against their own better conscience and judgment (they would have let it go) pursued or proffered proceedings, charges, even court-martials against crewman involved in any fight, even just two or a few who were actually friends having fun or otherwise 'settling' an argument or disagreement with a few fists thrown or such... (worked for hundreds of years just letting it be, not making bigger worse wounds and harm by legal shenanigans) ... oy, not to drag this out any further... but the deeper purposes and motives and such of the corrupt legal users are more important, longer lasting, and more harmful over all than the very short events they tackled for whatever reason. =============== just noticed the title of the thread ... "more trouble" ..... how fitting (although I don't know if all this followed from the op topic directly) "more trouble" every time lawyers or politicians or posters are involved when seeking power or control of money over others, or just taking jabs at someone even when they are unknown and what they did was innocuous by all investigations possible....