Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Protests & Riots' started by Cody Fousnaugh, Jan 11, 2021.
Your words speak louder than your opinion does. temper temper... (or worse!?)
Compare it to what other do when they put glue on sea mammals, LEGALLY, and rings around the necks of various animals (like bears) or around the legs of birds after manhandling them ....
Barring the language, @Peter Renfro does have a point though.
Creatures in the wild that are on the endangered species list cannot be approached in any manner. No matter what word is best suited isn’t really the issue but whatever it is and however humanitarian a person feels that he or she is, a creature that is on the list cannot even be fed by an every day John Doe. Legally that is.
Now, so far as people flushing out deer and such to prevent hunters from using up their tags is a dangerous issue. In North Idaho for instance, it is perfectly acceptable to shoot a dog if it is chasing deer.
Going back to the manatee thing, Divers are pretty famous for trying to get friendly with sea creatures and pet them but even so, technically that’s still illegal.
Uh, broken mind no. Careless, possibly. Foolish, probably.
As I wrote in my last post, many divers try to cozy up to many different types of sea creature and some get killed doing it. Uh....that crocodile guy, can’t remember his name got killed messing with a sting ray.
That “broken mind” made him millions but at the end, he died a horrible death and possibly deservedly so.
Let's check this statement. First, was the creature involved on the endangered species list at the time. (this is just for clarity, to be on the same page as far as given information).
Second, who decided they cannot be approached in any manner ?
Third, why call it harassment if it is not harrassment ?
(like why call a teacher a law breaker if the teacher in class openly hugs a child like they used to due without breaking any law?)
Why careless? (except for the liability of legal involvement).
Why foolish? (again, except for the possibility of legal involvement, and misdirected individuals complaining)
On what court do you sit Jeff? Must be quite a lofty position that allows you the right to decide which laws are to be obeyed or even exist.
Is there any way you can use fewer words to express yourself? You seem to believe in the concept if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!
Uh, may I inquire as to how many times you have dived under water and how many times you have camped or lived in the wild?
Or, do you like to pet stray dogs?
My avatar is Rocky my African Grey having these birds in captivity is a form of animal abuse he came into my life by accident as a rescue bird. At one point I considered releasing him back into the wild but after conferring with my veterinarian Rocky would not survive in the wild since he was born in captivity .
We are cruel beings.
Why? You did not answer my question, did you ?
So releasing the bird into the wild, where it would certainly die according to your own statement here,
would not be abuse(a political/social word not really applicable, btw) ? But keeping it safe alive IS ABUSE(a political/social opinion maybe not applicable, btw) ?! According to your own statement here ?
I think it was Ken who posted clearly a plain easy to read statement from long ago
that unjust laws that are not right, not good, not constitutional 'should not be accepted'/ must (or may be) disobeyed..
Also, social/community/legal standards are not known overall to be for the good nor for a true purpose, but usually for/because of money, power, social pressure(which is sinful), and greed(which is sinful).
The questions I proposed did not really have to be answered. They were merely points to ponder and nothing more.
If you are not familiar with a creature it is absolutely Foolish to approach said creature and even if you ARE familiar with a creature, each one, like humans, can be perfectly harmless one day and dangerous the next.
Whilst in the wild, the first rule there is to know is that he or she is someone else’s house and to be careless with that rule is not only foolish but sheer idiocy. Hence, there are laws put into place to not only protect the creature but the idiot human who decides that said creature is somehow cute and cuddly and needs to be hugged and petted.
What really grabs me is the word "IGORNANT".
I know that Lady Faye would never spell "ignorant" that way!
Well, Ken is king of the forum. Outside of these confines he has no power. While he may have stated his belief or opinion ,that does not denote correctness.
Please go ahead and break an "unjust law" then tell the authorities that Ken of SoF decreed that unjust laws are not to be obeyed.