Backlash after Gorilla Shot in Cincinnati Zoo (Updated)
- Thread starter Parasondox
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think people are passing judgment because somewhere along the way, laying blame became more important than dealing with consequences. Yes, the parents and the zoo are significantly more to blame than the gorilla is, and so what? Does that blame stop the child from being mauled or killed by an agitated ape?Parasondox said:
That's why you pay attention to them so you don't fucking lose them.DudeistBelieve said:
Do you not understand the difference in potential consequences between a child wandering off at a zoo and at a store?
They're horrible parents because they let the kid wander off long enough to fall in the enclosure.
People are screaming because they are scared, that's not really my point. It is just, screaming while that happens is so selfish. You aren't helping anything, you are actively being a burden.mduncan50 said:
You will be shaken up at first, because your adrenaline will be kicking in, but then since we are such an "intelligent" animal, you know we should be able to see that screaming isn't gonna do shit.
Get a fucking grip, humans.
Also, why do the videos have a warning on them before viewing, you should know exactly what to expect. Lmao, this society is so coddled.
Sad as this is, these parents are just a scapegoat for a society that has caused the deaths of an untold number animals in the wild (including gorillas) due to our massive and unregulated amounts of consumption and proliferation.
I'm not claiming to be any better, but unless you're a vegetarian who only supports sustainable farming practices, uses almost entirely home made products, uses public transportation/bikes/etc., generates very little non-biodegradable waste and only uses mostly self-generated/minimal energy... well, you get it.
I know this isn't really news to anyone, but I can only hope that the sadness generated by this tragedy might be turned into something productive. I'm also not saying all of the things I mentioned are practical for everyone, but I'd imagine most people could at least achieve one or two of them if they put their mind to it.
I'm not claiming to be any better, but unless you're a vegetarian who only supports sustainable farming practices, uses almost entirely home made products, uses public transportation/bikes/etc., generates very little non-biodegradable waste and only uses mostly self-generated/minimal energy... well, you get it.
I know this isn't really news to anyone, but I can only hope that the sadness generated by this tragedy might be turned into something productive. I'm also not saying all of the things I mentioned are practical for everyone, but I'd imagine most people could at least achieve one or two of them if they put their mind to it.
And yet if they had waited and the kid got hurt or killed, everyone would still be kicking up a fuss.
They had to make a call. Props to them for putting the kid first.
They had to make a call. Props to them for putting the kid first.
Here's the thing. Human life is not precious, and, while individual opinions may vary, society as a whole does not treat it so. States, organisations, companies, etc. are perfectly willing to cause death and mayhem against their fellow man when it suits them, either by co-mission or omission. Hell, Obama has killed more kids with drone strikes than any Gorilla, and there are far worse out there. IIRC Madeline Albright responded to the claim that US sanctions against Iraq had resulted in the death of 500, 000 Iraqi children after the 1st Gulf War with some wishy washy rhetoric about American exceptionalism. Governments frequently decide to cut services or enact policies which they know will result in death and suicide. Corporations too, particularly mining companies in Latin America, are quite willing to displace indigenous people, even sending thugs to kill them, poison peoples water supplies and fresh air, and worse. Socially too, we deem some forms of human life as acceptable casualties. Things like alcohol and tobacco, event though we know they cause illness and death, are still legal and socially approved (more so alcohol), often defended under the banner of 'personal freedom'. And I am by no means criticising this view, and I essentially hold it myself. To go further, alcohol is so ingrained in many nations that not drinking is considered strange, even viewed as a sign of deviancy. It seems that human life is only precious when it is convenient.
Having said that, I'm not trying to say that the zoo made the wrong choice. To be honest, I don't know if there was a right choice. My problem is with the idea that human life is precious by default, which is not really how people actually treat other people. We don't have any categorical loyalty to our own kind. A potential friend is also a potential enemy. Not that I think this means humans are inherently cruel to each other, just that we come to understand other people via relationships, not categorical loyalty. For example, if an adult fell in, the answer would be obvious, because we expect an adult to both look after themselves and to know better. In fact, we rely on adults to do this, or society would have problems. But for a kid, especially a young one? The zoo also has a duty of care to its patrons, do it had to do something. Perhaps shooting the gorilla should have been the second option, rather than the first. Sure, this could have resulted in the kids death, but here's the really irony. Sure, many are upset over the gorilla's death, but in 6 months time I doubt anyone will remember. If the kid was killed the only difference is that the kids family would be in mourning for a long period. The rest of us, would forget about it just like we will about the gorilla. Personal tragedy is just not that important.
Having said that, I'm not trying to say that the zoo made the wrong choice. To be honest, I don't know if there was a right choice. My problem is with the idea that human life is precious by default, which is not really how people actually treat other people. We don't have any categorical loyalty to our own kind. A potential friend is also a potential enemy. Not that I think this means humans are inherently cruel to each other, just that we come to understand other people via relationships, not categorical loyalty. For example, if an adult fell in, the answer would be obvious, because we expect an adult to both look after themselves and to know better. In fact, we rely on adults to do this, or society would have problems. But for a kid, especially a young one? The zoo also has a duty of care to its patrons, do it had to do something. Perhaps shooting the gorilla should have been the second option, rather than the first. Sure, this could have resulted in the kids death, but here's the really irony. Sure, many are upset over the gorilla's death, but in 6 months time I doubt anyone will remember. If the kid was killed the only difference is that the kids family would be in mourning for a long period. The rest of us, would forget about it just like we will about the gorilla. Personal tragedy is just not that important.
Eh, the zoo staff and the staff of other zoos support the decision made by the Cincinnati Zoo. It sucks that it happened that way. But people want someone to suffer for this it just doesn't feel like a rational decision that someone suffers for this. It's not how anyone wanted it to turn out that way. Having the parents arrested and the child thrown into the woefully inadequate foster care system is not going to help the situation or bring that gorilla back to life.
It's also extremely easy for people who weren't there to say what should have or could have happened. You weren't there, you don't know. The internet has convinced you that you do, but you don't. A bunch of kids filling out a petition ordering essentially the destruction of a family and to condemn the kid to a life of want and inadequacy. But you know, they'll feel better because the gorilla will have been avenged, that is what matters.
I'll do you one better, I'll take your kid, drop them in a cage with a gorilla and you tell me whether you want the zoo to take the chance with tranquilizers or not. Then you can sit there and dictate what should happen. I'll guarantee you that you'll shoot that gorilla yourself if you have to.
It's also extremely easy for people who weren't there to say what should have or could have happened. You weren't there, you don't know. The internet has convinced you that you do, but you don't. A bunch of kids filling out a petition ordering essentially the destruction of a family and to condemn the kid to a life of want and inadequacy. But you know, they'll feel better because the gorilla will have been avenged, that is what matters.
I'll do you one better, I'll take your kid, drop them in a cage with a gorilla and you tell me whether you want the zoo to take the chance with tranquilizers or not. Then you can sit there and dictate what should happen. I'll guarantee you that you'll shoot that gorilla yourself if you have to.
Honestly, I think the problem here is that a four year old child cost the zoo a gorilla. I don't necessarily blame the parents- there's a huge problem if a kid can get into that enclosure. It feels like something went terribly wrong with security. Only after a thorough investigation to clear the zoo of negligence would I consider levying any sort of legal punishment on the parents.Baresark said:
And if someone dropped my kid in an enclosure with an animal, I might shoot the gorilla, but I know who'd be getting the next bullet.
Well i heard on the grapevine that the gorilla had suspected ties to ISIS. Endangered or not, the zoo's decision was purely in the interest of national security. I hope you can understand the gravity of the situation. It appears even walls can't stop terrorists these days. Poor Trump has no idea. Has anybody interrogated the kid yet? He could be an informant, passing state secrets to the gorilla.
Bad joking aside, this was a terrible situation to be in. The zoo were only covering their backs the best they could at short notice. Now, the discussion has been kickstarted through this. A discussion we must all have. Take a step back from the incident and look at this from a wider perspective outside of species bias; us humans basically capture and trap these animals so endless other humans and their spawn can oogle them for money. These animals have no choice in the matter, we do it because we can and we love to survive and reproduce without thinking of long term consequences. These animals just have to live with the cages we put them in. Then, through our own negligence and incompetence, we drop one of our little cumsprouts in one of their cages. Oh noo! People start screaming and getting the caged animal a little upset as he doesn't understand the commotion, is it anger? fear? What? He picks up the dropped sprout to move away from the noise and bam...shot dead. Humans win again! Fuck yeah! Sprout returned to human. We can continue overpopulating once more without fear. Or repercussions.
Now i am not saying anything should've been different, more like the circumstances leading up to this are layers upon layers of not good shit. We need to think about how far we are willing to go to protect every one of our own species. The planet is being mined and smothered by our boundless needs and growing population. This one action speaks volumes about how unwilling we are to accept anything other than our own wellbeing and continual expansion. Other species be damned. All that conservation...it's all for what in the end? Image? To feel slightly less guilty so we can continue consuming and not think of the future or the suffering our existence puts upon not only Earth's creatures, but ourselves too! Our collective greed is ugly and boundless.
Bad joking aside, this was a terrible situation to be in. The zoo were only covering their backs the best they could at short notice. Now, the discussion has been kickstarted through this. A discussion we must all have. Take a step back from the incident and look at this from a wider perspective outside of species bias; us humans basically capture and trap these animals so endless other humans and their spawn can oogle them for money. These animals have no choice in the matter, we do it because we can and we love to survive and reproduce without thinking of long term consequences. These animals just have to live with the cages we put them in. Then, through our own negligence and incompetence, we drop one of our little cumsprouts in one of their cages. Oh noo! People start screaming and getting the caged animal a little upset as he doesn't understand the commotion, is it anger? fear? What? He picks up the dropped sprout to move away from the noise and bam...shot dead. Humans win again! Fuck yeah! Sprout returned to human. We can continue overpopulating once more without fear. Or repercussions.
Now i am not saying anything should've been different, more like the circumstances leading up to this are layers upon layers of not good shit. We need to think about how far we are willing to go to protect every one of our own species. The planet is being mined and smothered by our boundless needs and growing population. This one action speaks volumes about how unwilling we are to accept anything other than our own wellbeing and continual expansion. Other species be damned. All that conservation...it's all for what in the end? Image? To feel slightly less guilty so we can continue consuming and not think of the future or the suffering our existence puts upon not only Earth's creatures, but ourselves too! Our collective greed is ugly and boundless.
'Hah, little bastard can finally see how we really celebrate birthdays! Now find your own way out or you don't get to eat today!'Baresark said:
...what? Adversity builds character. I survived 6 hours in the Gorilla cage, he can too!
As someone who works with animals and sedation/anesthesia as a career, here are some quick tidbits about this decision to shoot rather than tranq.
1. With a quick google search, often the darts include drugs like benzodiazapines, dissociatives, opioids, and alpha-2 agonists. They would typically aim for a muscle source, meaning uptake into the brain would be quick, but not instant. In times when I've had to give intramuscular injections of dexdormitor (an alpha-2 agonist) to an angry cat, it would take maybe 5-10 minutes to safely handle (5 being very generous).
2. Intramuscular injections hurt like a ************. It's not unusual for animals to redirect aggression when given an injection. I know bullets hurt too, but as mentioned before, it would be faster.
3. "Excitement" is a term given to unusual, involuntary behaviour during sedation/anesthesia caused by the brain not being completely "on". Because they aren't in full control of their body, thrashing and biting (even in a normally peaceful animal) is possible. Although it may sound contradictory, some drugs meant to sedate or anesthetize patients may instead cause them to be even worse to handle (as they no longer have conscious inhibitions).
Tranqs don't work in the same way you see in movies or cartoons. It's not an instant, peaceful slump in seconds. Even if we can understand how these drugs work, it doesn't always go the way we want. I've had animals totally doped up on a table flip out and try to bite or nearly fly off the table (of course it's not on purpose, but should be kept in one's mind). If Harambe was a fair distance away and not directly interacting with the boy, it may have been a decent tactic. But in this situation, this is the unfortunate "right answer", and it does suck. If Harambe was tranq'd and harmed the kid (on purpose or not), then he would've likely been killed anyways and the zoo (and by association the animals) would've suffered more.
But ya, zoos aren't babysitters. You can't stop every stupid thing from happening, especially if a kid manages to cross SEVERAL barriers without being contested. From my understanding, there are 3 barriers before the drop, and not a single incident has happened in the 30+ years the exhibit has been around. If parents and school groups could keep themselves safe for that long, how does something like this end up being the zoo's fault? I've seen people stick their hands into the pens of carnivores or sneak into exhibits at night and try to blame it on the zoo. How do you protect people from having a death wish?
1. With a quick google search, often the darts include drugs like benzodiazapines, dissociatives, opioids, and alpha-2 agonists. They would typically aim for a muscle source, meaning uptake into the brain would be quick, but not instant. In times when I've had to give intramuscular injections of dexdormitor (an alpha-2 agonist) to an angry cat, it would take maybe 5-10 minutes to safely handle (5 being very generous).
2. Intramuscular injections hurt like a ************. It's not unusual for animals to redirect aggression when given an injection. I know bullets hurt too, but as mentioned before, it would be faster.
3. "Excitement" is a term given to unusual, involuntary behaviour during sedation/anesthesia caused by the brain not being completely "on". Because they aren't in full control of their body, thrashing and biting (even in a normally peaceful animal) is possible. Although it may sound contradictory, some drugs meant to sedate or anesthetize patients may instead cause them to be even worse to handle (as they no longer have conscious inhibitions).
Tranqs don't work in the same way you see in movies or cartoons. It's not an instant, peaceful slump in seconds. Even if we can understand how these drugs work, it doesn't always go the way we want. I've had animals totally doped up on a table flip out and try to bite or nearly fly off the table (of course it's not on purpose, but should be kept in one's mind). If Harambe was a fair distance away and not directly interacting with the boy, it may have been a decent tactic. But in this situation, this is the unfortunate "right answer", and it does suck. If Harambe was tranq'd and harmed the kid (on purpose or not), then he would've likely been killed anyways and the zoo (and by association the animals) would've suffered more.
But ya, zoos aren't babysitters. You can't stop every stupid thing from happening, especially if a kid manages to cross SEVERAL barriers without being contested. From my understanding, there are 3 barriers before the drop, and not a single incident has happened in the 30+ years the exhibit has been around. If parents and school groups could keep themselves safe for that long, how does something like this end up being the zoo's fault? I've seen people stick their hands into the pens of carnivores or sneak into exhibits at night and try to blame it on the zoo. How do you protect people from having a death wish?
This has actually been my thought, as well. Since removing the crowd wasn't that much of an option, I think one of the smartest things to do would be to go person to person and ask them very nicely to shut the fuck up or get the fuck away, because making noises is literally putting the child at risk.Glongpre said:
"Can you guarantee that you'll stay quiet even if the child is torn limb by limb? No? Then step away from the barrier; you're agitating the 400 lb gorilla with a human child within arm's reach."
Yeah cause it's not like anything terrible could happen to an unattended child in a department story.Secondhand Revenant said:
Hey, John Walsh, how ya doing. Ya know, John this guy here thinks you're a horrible parent cause you let you kid play at the Nintendo Kiosk at Caldoor? I know, right?
It's a 'store'.DudeistBelieve said:
And bad things could happen, yes. You do understand the notion of things not being equally likely and why that matters, right? Because I'm not seeing it here. Or any ability of parents to be more alert if they see other people coming by. Or the difference in responsibility for what your kid can fuck up, though I'm not sure you care much about responsibility for what your child does.
What is this even? It explicitly contradicts everything I've said.
I mean it's bad enough that you try to hide from most of my reply and the problems it points out but surely you can at least try to be accurate to the parts you read? Or is that more of me expecting too much?
I also find it pretty incredible that you think it's reasonable to take your attention from a child that professes a desire to enter the enclosure while you're still near the enclosure.