CDZ This is what happens when folks haven't a lick of common sense....Harambe gets shot dead

[Skull Pilot]

One more reason to get rid of zoos.

I will never patronize any zoo

 

[strollingbones]

the gorilla did not drug the child...he dragged the child....

and who lets a child down to run about at the zoo?

 

[FA_Q2]

Either way, one thing is certain. One less mouth to feed. Both, the Circus and the Zoo are past their time. Close them all! Next problem? Oh, Hi 320, how's things going? Still stirring the pot I see. I am on your side in this matter. The kid went to the ape, not the other way around. If blame is to be placed, that is my assessment and I stand by it. Hillary wrote a book about it, "It Takes a Village". What were the remainder of the people present doing to assure the welfare of the Village? Not a heck of a lot. Humans, a miserable lot!

Howdy. Nice to see you around again.

Red:
I don't think I would quite go that far...I'm all for "one less mouth to feed," but I'd never want to see it come about as it did with the gorilla, or as it might have were the boy to have perished. I don't think you would either.

Blue:
That's somewhat reasonable.

Zoos do, however, play an important role in furthering our knowledge of part of the natural world. I think the science they do is worth doing. I get that making the animals available for public viewing is a way to offset the cost of doing that science.

I'm not aware of circuses contributing in quite as palpable a way to the advancement of knowledge that zoos do, but I'm sure they play some part in it. IMO, at least right now, circuses' role is likely more about building anecdotal awareness and I'm not aware of there being much rigorous and scholarly thought development about the natural world coming out of animal acts in circuses. I am aware that Cirque du Soleil is thoroughly entertaining without non-human animals.

That ignores the most vital purpose a zoo serves though. The funding they directly provide is almost immaterial to the exposure that exists because of zoos. Little children go to the zoo and adore the animals. they grow up into adults who are aware and care about animals. When no one anywhere has ever seen a lion they tend not to give a shit about them. If you grew up reading about the lions and seeing them at the zoo that is an entirely different story. The exposure that a zoo or similar attraction provides to the general public is in and of itself hugely important.

As far as the OP goes though, it all comes down to a value statement - either you value human life (and in particular a child life) more than the animal's or you do not. Clearly you express that you value the animal more. I think that is rather narrow minded of you though considering that I am certain you would feel differently had that child been yous, a grandchild of yours or other close relative. In general, I value the life of a human more than that of an animal - to do otherwise is nonsensical in my mind. This is a poor case to argue against the animal being shot to protect a child who is utterly innocent in this context (a 3 year old cannot be held accountable for poor decisions and should not be paying the price for the parents poor decisions).

Now, had this been an ADULT I would have the reverse opinion and agree with you but that is primarily because the situation would have arisen from a conscious CHOICE that the person in question is responsible for making. I think this is a perfect example of a case that led to just that:

^note that they have removed anything that was graphic here and replaced it with digital reenactments.

Here is a case where I would have said that the life of the man is secondary to the life of the lions - he CHOSE to get in there as an adult and the lions do not deserve death for being lions.

 

[FA_Q2]

One more reason to get rid of zoos.

I will never patronize any zoo

Meh. My kids LOVE the zoo and aquariums. Both very fun for them and very good. They also would not climb into an enclosure nor would I allow such a thing to happen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One more reason to get rid of zoos.

I will never patronize any zoo

Meh. My kids LOVE the zoo and aquariums. Both very fun for them and very good. They also would not climb into an enclosure nor would I allow such a thing to happen.

I don't care about your kids I actually care about the animals and that's why I don't go

 

[strollingbones]

i dont even put the bestest toddler down when there is a dog off leash....how much common sense does that take.....kids are feral....they have to be controlled...there is a reason you carry them about like a sack of taters....

 

[320 Years of History]

As far as the OP goes though, it all comes down to a value statement - either you value human life (and in particular a child life) more than the animal's or you do not. Clearly you express that you value the animal more.

That is not what I sought to imply and definitely not what I said, though I understand how one might infer it to be just that.

• "Red" section here: CDZ - This is what happens when folks haven't a lick of common sense....Harambe gets shot dead
• Final "blue" section here: CDZ - This is what happens when folks haven't a lick of common sense....Harambe gets shot dead

For me, it's not a matter of valuing human life more or less than other animals' lives. It about my seeing them as equal, especially re: demonstratively fervid mammals.

My position on this matter would be quite different if, say:

• The mother had personally and directly acted to defend/recover her child from the gorilla. That's what any other creature would have done. I'm sure you've watched enough "critter TV," or perhaps even been on safari and seen it first hand, to know this is so. That child's mother, succinctly, woefully and pusillanimously risible.
  • Mothers In The Animal Kingdom Protecting Their Young - DavidWolfe.com
    
  • The Origins of Empathy and Altruism
• The similarly poltroon zoo personnel had taken some sort of similar action to what I suggest in the preceding bullet point.

But that's not what they did. That oblivious mother-malefactor allowed her child to escape her stewardship. Truly I had rather see the state, county, someone, charge her for "attempted murder by zoo gorilla." The zoo officials, though contemptible, IMO, could have been more assertive and innovative in trying to resolve the problem, particularly in light of the gorilla -- a highly intelligent vegetarian primate that could discern that it didn't have any need to exert the force it may have against, say, a rival male gorilla -- the gorilla's having not behaved aggressively with and toward the child. Were what strikes me as the last resort used not first (or near fist) but last, I would and could resign myself to and concur with destroying the gorilla; however, the events, at least as relayed in the news thus far, do not, AFAIC, militate for that.

This is a poor case to argue against the animal being shot to protect a child who is utterly innocent in this context

The only things I'm actually arguing or willing to argue are:

• The mother was grossly negligent.
• The zoo could have been more prepared to deal with the matter.
• The zoo could have tried more direct diversionary tactics than they did before shooting Harambe.
• People, individually and collectively, must bear the burden of their mistakes, even when the burden is extremely painful and disheartening.

I might interject and argue an ethical "tree hugger" point or two, but I think doing so goes well beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

They also would not climb into an enclosure nor would I allow such a thing to happen.

That is the key to my unvarnished lividity toward the boy's mother.

 

[FA_Q2]

As far as the OP goes though, it all comes down to a value statement - either you value human life (and in particular a child life) more than the animal's or you do not. Clearly you express that you value the animal more.

That is not what I sought to imply and definitely not what I said, though I understand how one might infer it to be just that.

• "Red" section here: CDZ - This is what happens when folks haven't a lick of common sense....Harambe gets shot dead
• Final "blue" section here: CDZ - This is what happens when folks haven't a lick of common sense....Harambe gets shot dead

For me, it's not a matter of valuing human life more or less than other animals' lives. It about my seeing them as equal, especially re: demonstratively fervid mammals.

My position on this matter would be quite different if, say:

• The mother had personally and directly acted to defend/recover her child from the gorilla. That's what any other creature would have done. I'm sure you've watched enough "critter TV," or perhaps even been on safari and seen it first hand, to know this is so. That child's mother, succinctly, woefully and pusillanimously risible.
  • Mothers In The Animal Kingdom Protecting Their Young - DavidWolfe.com
    
  • The Origins of Empathy and Altruism
• The similarly poltroon zoo personnel had taken some sort of similar action to what I suggest in the preceding bullet point.

But that's not what they did. That oblivious mother-malefactor allowed her child to escape her stewardship. Truly I had rather see the state, county, someone, charge her for "attempted murder by zoo gorilla." The zoo officials, though contemptible, IMO, could have been more assertive and innovative in trying to resolve the problem, particularly in light of the gorilla -- a highly intelligent vegetarian primate that could discern that it didn't have any need to exert the force it may have against, say, a rival male gorilla -- the gorilla's having not behaved aggressively with and toward the child. Were what strikes me as the last resort used not first (or near fist) but last, I would and could resign myself to and concur with destroying the gorilla; however, the events, at least as relayed in the news thus far, do not, AFAIC, militate for that.

Red - You may not have meant to imply such but you did. You call into question that the zoo took immediate action to save the child when such action caused the primates death. The supposition that they could have simply done something different is a nice thought but not only were we not there to make such a judgement but it is simple fact that the child's life was in immediate and serious danger from the second that they came into contact with the gorilla. At any moment in time within a split second that gorilla may have killed that child without any provocation. The is facilitated by the fact that intent is not even necessary - that gorilla may have killed the child entirely by accident through its sheer size and strength. Any other action would have placed that child in much grater danger.

This is a poor case to argue against the animal being shot to protect a child who is utterly innocent in this context

The only things I'm actually arguing or willing to argue are:

• The mother was grossly negligent.
• The zoo could have been more prepared to deal with the matter.
• The zoo could have tried more direct diversionary tactics than they did before shooting Harambe.
• People, individually and collectively, must bear the burden of their mistakes, even when the burden is extremely painful and disheartening.

I might interject and argue an ethical "tree hugger" point or two, but I think doing so goes well beyond the scope of this thread.

Blue - No they do not. You are taking the actions of one individual (the mother) and trying to justify the 3 year old paying the price for it. That is not 'collectively' bearing the burden. It is deciding that the child's life is not valuable enough to kill the gorilla in order to keep it from harm. Again, in this basic principal I disagree and think that immediate and decisive action is not only warranted but necessary.

It is also worthy of note that we all have passed harsh judgement on the mother (and that includes me) when we really do not have 100 percent of the picture. I am not sure how long the child was out of the mothers stewardship or the details surrounding how the child entered the enclosure. As a parent of three I can tell you that anyone claiming that they have 100 percent control all the time or that young children do not get away and do very dumb and/or dangerous things in the mere minutes that they look in another direction then they are blatantly lying or delusional. This is a rather extreme case and it clearly is the mothers responsibility to control and care for her children but it is always easier to judge from this side of the story.

 

[strollingbones]

ah hell what happen to the mother fucking dumb button? are do you just not get that option in the cdz allowing pos like miketx to post

 

[FA_Q2]

They also would not climb into an enclosure nor would I allow such a thing to happen.

That is the key to my unvarnished lividity toward the boy's mother.

Sure but that also has absolutely zero to do with the zoos actions. The zoo does not act in a different manner to protect the child if the mother threw it into the enclosure, turned around and they climbed in or if the mother jumped in to try and save them (which would more than likely cause more harm rather than help). Nor should the zoo act differently.

 

[strollingbones]

i think in my naive way they should have attempted to allow the handlers to deal with it more....distract the gorilla and allow someone to move in for the kidlet...with that said...had it been the bestest baby i would have shot the animal myself.....and yet i know bestest baby would never be allowed to be that feral.....the kid had to have been on the move to get into the enclosure..i just dont get what the mother was doing or for that matter the other adults...

 

[strollingbones]

first the zoo should have been more thoughtful in the moat system they used...apparently it allowed a child to pass right thru it...kids are amazing when you are arent looking they do the damndest things

most of the time its not on this level of dangerous....in a zoo etc

 

[OldLady]

I think we're back to the infant boy in the back seat and the teenage female in the front seat and which one do you save.

I don't see the "zoo matter" as being materially similar to the "Trolley Problem," but broadly speaking, yes, I can see why you or others may think it is. To my mind, the key difference is that in the "Trolley Problem" is there is no indication that anyone exhibited negligent behavior and there's no indication someone did something they should not have. The same cannot be said of the "zoo matter."

Your idea of distraction is a good one, and if the trainer who knew the gorilla well was right there and had something quickly available to try, it might have worked.

According to one report, they were there: "The zoo's response team includes full-time keepers, veterinarians, maintenance, zoo leadership and security staff."

If I'd been the kid's mother, I probably would have been in the enclosure, too, making matters worse.

As a parent, I am sure I'd have jumped in were I and my child in that situation....If to no other end than making myself the "shiny object" that takes the beast's attention away from my child.

Red:
It may be that the crowd doing what crowds do was what escalated the tension and risk factors in play. According to one witness, "It wasn't until the gorilla became agitated because of the nosey, dramatic, helpless crowd; that the gorilla violently ran with the child."

So what if the kid was climbing on the wall where he shouldn't have? What 3 year old boy doesn't? I'm sure when you were 3, you did as well. That's more a safety issue for the zoo, not something the child should die for.

Red:
FWIW, I just heard on CNN that bystanders claim to have head the child tell his mother that he wanted to go into the water and the mother told him not to and that it wasn't safe to do so. (It was during Brooke Baldwin's segment; I don't know if it's made it to print on the CNN site. I don't see it yet...)

Blue:
No question about it. Climbing on things, curiosity, and impulsiveness are typical toddler behaviors. That it is thoroughly predictable behavior is yet another reason why I hold the mother preeminently responsible for the whole matter.

• Fact: The woman has a three year old.
  • Assumption: She's had the child for three years, maybe even three months, but surely not "three or thirty minutes," or even "three hours or days."
• Premise: The woman has the obligation of anticipating her child's behavior and acting to prevent the child from harming itself or putting others at risk, and that includes the gorilla.
• Fact: The woman took her child to the zoo.
• Fact: The child articulated to the woman that he had an interest in entering the enclosure.
  • Inference: That should have cued the woman sufficiently that she secured her child to, for the child's own good, protect it from his own impulsive behavior.
• Fact: The woman did not do that.
• Fact: The barrier was insufficient for preventing a small child from entering the gorilla exhibit.
• Conclusions:
  • Neither the child nor the gorilla is guilty of anything.
  • The woman is minimally guilty of negligence. She should be charged/sued for at least five things:
    • Reckless endangerment (or something of that ilk..) of a child.
    • Child neglect.
    • Negligently causing the loss of zoo property.
    • Negligently contributing to the death of an endangered animal.
    • Negligently contributing to the demise of an animal species.
  • The zoo is minimally guilty of negligence, but as it was their property that was damaged, they should not be civilly or criminally charged.

Green:
The zoo's barrier should have been "toddler proof" at the very least. There's no question in my mind about that. To that end, I think the zoo is in part an unwitting cause of the tragedy. After all, the moat's design intent is to keep the animals from getting out. The barriers are for preventing zoo visitors from getting into the enclosures.

What could possibly justify this decision of yours? Are you serious that an endangered gorilla is worth more than a child? Any child?

Red:
I'm not so much trying to justify my stance as to explain it. I don't necessarily or optimistically expect others to espouse my position. As I've noted in other threads, I have a set of general principles that I try very hard to apply consistently, even though doing so may result in unfortunate outcomes for myself. I'm okay with having to accept the good and the bad that accompanies my views because I know there's almost never a perfect solution.

I don't think anyone, myself included, deserves to "have their cake and eat it too," and I think in all matters one has an obligation to "look before you leap." Among the implications of that principle is that one must strive equitably given the "rules of the game and the cards one has been dealt," to make the most of what one has to survive and thrive. Part of that includes doing what's fair to prevent misfortune from befalling oneself and one's family.

Now that's all well and good, but the flip side of that "coin" is that when "sh*t happens" to oneself, one must take whatever action one can to ameliorate the situation, but taking actions that make some other being pay for one's own failure (willful or negligent) to have been better prepared isn't among the actions one should take or want taken on one's behalf. Rather, it then becomes one's burden to accept responsibility for one's own shortcoming(s). In nearly all respects, my mistakes should never become the source of another's downfall, unless those others voluntarily agree to letting that be so, such as when you or I would have put our own safety at risk by jumping into the pen to distract the gorilla, or possibly put up whatever fight we could, to save our child.

Blue:
I don't see the matter as being one of which is worth more. I don't generally put value on life. I see it as one of responsibility. I espouse the "own your sh*t" ideal, not the "is X worth more or less than Y" ideal. It's not about worth to me; it's about worthiness. They're not the same.

Lowland gorillas --> "critically endangered."
Stupid and/or careless boys --> no shortage of them, not even close.
Negligent parents --> again, got plenty of them runnin' around too.

That is why I "inferred" you were willing to risk the boy's life to try other tactics with the gorilla. It is also what made me think of the question posed by PaintMyHouse, not the Trolley Problem: There has been a car accident and the car is about to explode. There is a teenage girl in the front seat, an infant male in the backseat. You can only save one. Which do you choose? You and PaintMyHouse said the teenage female, who could easily "replace" the infant, was the only rational choice. It seemed in this OP about the gorilla that you were choosing the gorilla, who is critically endangered, over the multitude of stupid kids and parents that are "easily replaced." Or not missed.

Your final comment "It's not about worth to me; it's about worthiness. They're not the same" seems to emphasize that. Harambe was a magnificent animal and this was a tragedy. I surely agree with you there.

 

[OldLady]

i think in my naive way they should have attempted to allow the handlers to deal with it more....distract the gorilla and allow someone to move in for the kidlet...with that said...had it been the bestest baby i would have shot the animal myself.....and yet i know bestest baby would never be allowed to be that feral.....the kid had to have been on the move to get into the enclosure..i just dont get what the mother was doing or for that matter the other adults...

Texting, I'd bet you a dollar. I heard in one of the interviews over the weekend that they initially tried to lure Harambe away from the moat, but he just got more agitated and confused.

 

[OldLady]

One more reason to get rid of zoos.

I will never patronize any zoo

They are sad. I haven't been to one in years, but I did dearly love the giraffes.

 

[Unkotare]

One more reason to get rid of zoos.

I will never patronize any zoo

Meh. My kids LOVE the zoo and aquariums. Both very fun for them and very good. They also would not climb into an enclosure nor would I allow such a thing to happen.

I don't care about your kids I actually care about the animals and that's why I don't go

You don't care enough to think about it instead of just emoting over it.

 

[320 Years of History]

You may not have meant to imply such but you did.

Actually, I didn't imply it. You and others inferred it.

You call into question that the zoo took immediate action to save the child when such action caused the primates death.

I do not. I call into question the immediate actions the zoo personnel failed to take in advance of shooting the gorilla. I also call into question the planning the zoo's management made in anticipation of this general category of calamity.

it is simple fact that the child's life was in immediate and serious danger from the second that they came into contact with the gorilla.

Actually, that's an assumption. At least for me, given that I'm not a gorilla behaviorist, it's an assumption because I have no evidence about gorillas that would elevate it to the level of a valid premise, let alone a proven fact, and thereby making it something upon which legit/valid inferences may be drawn. Have you any such information? I'll gladly read it.

At any moment in time within a split second that gorilla may have killed that child without any provocation. The is facilitated by the fact that intent is not even necessary - that gorilla may have killed the child entirely by accident through its sheer size and strength. Any other action would have placed that child in much greater danger.

Please don't offer "just in case" retorts to my comments below....I'm well aware the scenario under discussion can qualify, at least for those who see differing worths between a gorilla's life and a human's, as the exception that makes "just in case" a rational option for an actor as well as "armchair evaluator" to consider.

As I noted earlier, I see the lives as being of equal value. That I do makes "just in case" an irrational line of argument for me to make or accept. You/others can make that argument, but it rests on debatable moral foundations of the qualitative value of lives. We've already established that you and I have differing ethos in that regard. Debating the matter from that vantage point will get neither of us anywhere.

Red:
Purely speculative -- Hypothesis contrary to fact.

Blue:
That gorilla may have cared for the boy as gently as it would its own offspring.*

Like your "blue" text, my remark above -- illustratively offered; it's not part of my argument -- is just another example of pure speculation -- Hypothesis contrary to fact.

What is a fact is that the gorilla had not acted harshly toward the child. What is fact is that the child suffered only scratches in spite of the ostensibly violent treatment he experienced when Harambe grabbed him.

*Note:
The first sentence in this "blue" section seemed a fitting place to attach a link attesting to the intelligence level of great apes in a broad sense. That is done strictly to inject a bit of perspective as goes what may plausibly have been able to rationalize about the boy. Clearly, I'm not relying on what you'll find at the link for to do that would be to inject irrationality to my own line of thinking.

I'll toss in another such link toward the end of this post.

No they do not.

There's no question in my mind that most humans do not. On the contrary, humans go to great lengths to avoid "bearing the burden of their mistakes," even when the burden is extremely painful and disheartening. That people don't and that I think they should is at the heart of why I have the stance I do on this matter.

Individual & Collective:
I think based on your remarks that I was insufficiently clear.

• Accepting individual burden --> When something happens that one caused or failed to prevent and that has undesirable consequences, one must endure those consequences unless another willing agrees to endure them with one or in one's stead.
• Accepting collective burden --> Same idea, but applied at group levels...family, neighborhood, town, county, region, state, nation, continent, hemisphere, etc.

When the mistake is that of an individual, the burden must be born by that individual, not by some other being. When the mistake is that of a group, the group must bear the burden of the mistake, that is, the individuals in the group all bear the burden together.

You are taking the actions of one individual (the mother) and trying to justify the 3 year old paying the price for it. That is not 'collectively' bearing the burden.

I'm starting to think you didn't read post #10. (See final "red" section of post 10.)

Red:
You're correct, but there should not be any collective burden -- beyond the mother and the boy -- for the mother's negligence. Ideally the boy wouldn't suffer any consequence for his mother's neglect or insouciance, but as he is her child, his fate is tied to her actions or inaction. A child doesn't choose its parent(s), but it may yet suffer for who and what its parents are. This "gorilla matter" is a situation that heightens the risk that the child suffers for the mother's shortcomings.

we really do not have 100 percent of the picture.

I'm sure we don't. My remarks in this thread are based on the facts about the situation that have come my way and that I've gone looking for. I can only "work with" the information I've got access to.

I am not sure how long the child was out of the mothers stewardship or the details surrounding how the child entered the enclosure.

Quantitatively, like you, I have no idea. Qualitatively, I know how long: too long, or, put another way, long enough for the boy to get himself into trouble.

As a parent of three I can tell you that anyone claiming that they have 100 percent control all the time or that young children do not get away and do very dumb and/or dangerous things in the mere minutes that they look in another direction then they are blatantly lying or delusional.

Like you, I have three kids. Mine are all 18+ now. I agree with the theme you've noted above. I also know that when I was of a mind to have 100% control of my kids, I had it. I didn't 100% of the time exert that degree of control and guardianship. What I did was make informed judgement calls about when more control on my part was needed and when less was safe and I didn't allow myself or my kids to rest on false senses of security. How could I have in good conscience done otherwise? They are my kids; they relied on their mother and me not to f*ck up. They may not always have known that's what they were doing, but when they were toddlers, it definitely was what they were doing.

Putting the preceding in context, had I been at a zoo and any of my kids expressly told me they wanted to get into the water as that kid told his mother, I would have gone instantly from whatever less than 100% control that was heretofore in effect, to 100% control. "No! You are not going into the moat. Give me your hand right now!" Or, "Get on my shoulders so you can better see the gorillas." Or, "Where's your sister? I think it's time we go find Mother and your brother." Or, "Do you remember the baby giraffe from last time? Let's go see how much bigger he is now. Grab my hand." ("Shiny objects" work really well with toddlers too. LOL BTW, the preceding link is the second one I noted I'd include.)

it is always easier to judge from this side of the story.

Well, yes, it is.

It's also easier for organizations and individuals to have action plans for what they will do if the unexpected happens. That way, when "sh*t happens," they'll have thought about the various alternatives and bounce right into working their way up the scale of corrective actions instead of trying only the least and utmost options that exist.

 

[320 Years of History]

They also would not climb into an enclosure nor would I allow such a thing to happen.

That is the key to my unvarnished lividity toward the boy's mother.

Sure but that also has absolutely zero to do with the zoos actions. The zoo does not act in a different manner to protect the child if the mother threw it into the enclosure, turned around and they climbed in or if the mother jumped in to try and save them (which would more than likely cause more harm rather than help). Nor should the zoo act differently.

Right....I didn't think it did.

 

[miketx]

What I would have done, is pull out my .45 and shoot the gorilla dead. Problem solved. Boy saved. Liberals pissing themself.

Like they are now.