john cena Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8IXhd2GbP8Thank me later.Isn't it amazing how easily the media just plainly lies about a story to distract people? It seems the more absurd the lie, the more people believe it.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I love that video. That mother shouting inane things like "mommy's right here" when a gorilla has her child and she's 50 feet away (and someone, maybe her again, yelled "No!".. I'm sure that was helpful) strikes me as managing her own anxiety and putting the child in even more danger.
rosencrantz Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 Now that you say it, I realize that the gorilla was clearly a crisis actor. When you pay close attention, you see it's the same gorilla who appears in King Kong and Congo.
A4E Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I heard about this today. And I immediately knew that the gorilla would not hurt the child, without knowing any details. More likely is that he was contemplating getting a reward or gain favours with the caretakers by protecting and returning the child. They are way too smart to even consider killing the child, just like we see in the other examples in history. 1 1
Mister Mister Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 I have been hearing about this story without knowing or caring very much about it. But when I saw that video on CNN, my heart jumped -- that's a really terrifying scenario, it's a wonder he wasn't hurt worse from just being dragged around, and I'm glad he's okay, even if it is a little sad about the dead gorilla - if anything the mother should owe the zoo for her negligence. And it's so fucking ridiculous how people chase the media's chosen moral cause of the day like 6 year olds chase a soccer ball. Stray bullets from gang warfare kill black kids in Chicago - meh. Bullet kills gorilla to protect a black kid - OUTRAGE!!! 1
wdiaz03 Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 I heard about this today. And I immediately knew that the gorilla would not hurt the child, without knowing any details. More likely is that he was contemplating getting a reward or gain favours with the caretakers by protecting and returning the child. They are way too smart to even consider killing the child, just like we see in the other examples in history. Well, Even before this incident happen I immediately knew that the gorilla saw this discarded child as his only change to bargain for his freedom from his life sentence. He was shot only when the negotiations broke down because he was unable to communicate his demands to his captors. My point is that we can't prove any of our stories. but I like mine better. #GorillaLivesMatter 2
brucethecollie Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 All I know is that if that were my kid, I'd want the gorilla shot. And I don't know that it is possible to not screw up at least once as a parent. I would not have thought this way before being a parent, so my perspective is very emotionally clouded and based on my experience with my own screw ups. 1
wdiaz03 Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 All I know is that if that were my kid, I'd want the gorilla shot. And I don't know that it is possible to not screw up at least once as a parent. I would not have thought this way before being a parent, so my perspective is very emotionally clouded and based on my experience with my own screw ups. Your thoughts are understandable. Should the parents of this child be financially responsible for the cost of the gorilla? is the Zoo partially responsible for not having a child proof enclosure? I think that there should have been some kind of barrier to at least make if difficult for a child to get inside. I also think that the parents should pay for some of the cost of the animal. What do you all think?
brucethecollie Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 If I was that parent and had the means I'd give money to the zoo, if not, what more could be done? Should a child's life become very difficult if parents need to pay for an accident and can't afford it? I don't know. Perhaps with cause and effect...parents everywhere will be more careful and zoos everywhere will check to child proof all enclosures. After all, children are probably their main source of income.
Troubador Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 Amongst all the opprobrium there is a tremendous amount of goodwill towards animals, and particularly the endangered gorillas. The wise course of action here is for the mother to admit she took her eyes off her child for long enough to result in this tragedy, the zoo needs to seriously reconsider the enclosure policies. Regardless rather than passing the buck there is an incredible opportunity for both the zoo and family to come together and use thier 5 minutes of fame to do some serious fundraising and awareness raising on the plight of this particular species. In addition the gorilla is in conservation terms an ambassador species. In that it is photogenic and popular, you save its environment you save the environment of other less glamorous species that share the same habitat. The guy that raised Harambe also agreed that there was no option but to shoot to kill, even if the gorilla was trying to act protectively he could still have inadvertently greviously injured or killed the child without meaning to. I'd say regrettable as it was there was no choice. Whilst undeniably there has been negligence in this case it pales in comparison to the havoc man has wrought on the gorilla's habitat. There is the possibility of greater reflection here.
thebeardslastcall Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 God damn zoos. Gorilla was in a bad situation before it got killed. Gorilla obviously didn't intend harm, as if it did it could very easily kill the child, since they're super strong, but being super strong is also what makes it dangerous even if the gorilla doesn't intend harm. The kid however was a sort of prisoner to their parent as well and the parent paid to go to the zoo where the zoo keeps caged animals. Ugly situation really. Once I became a bit more aware and conscience the idea of going to a zoo became increasingly unpalatable. I remember being at a state fair several years ago and I didn't want to go near the animal section and felt bad for indirectly supporting that part by buying a ticket to attend the other parts. Figured the least I could do was not add attention to the area as popularity of a section is how they would internally measure the value of the section. Makes me wonder if I should even ever have a pet again, like a dog, due to my mixed feelings about caging and controlling animals. May be the best life available to many dogs, but with gorillas we should be able to do better, like instead of visiting a zoo and entertaining ourselves with animal slaves, send money to support a natural habitat for gorillas.
ThomasTheIdealist Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 There are plenty of non-fatal way to incapacitate living beings. It's sad that people, primarily in the US, consider fatal weapons as first course of action when in danger. Of course, it doesn't help that such weapons research is trampled by the implausibility of getting new weapons passed through the government approval loops.
AccuTron Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 There are plenty of non-fatal way to incapacitate living beings. It's sad that people, primarily in the US, consider fatal weapons as first course of action when in danger. Of course, it doesn't help that such weapons research is trampled by the implausibility of getting new weapons passed through the government approval loops. If I'm in danger to begin with, I want to know the problem will be solved, not just delayed. Somebody psycho enough to threaten me once, if knocked down, may just plot more carefully next time. I don't carry weapons per se, don't need to, but if in danger, I'll look for the take down strike, the heck with what it breaks. The perp doesn't like that, don't be a perp to begin with.
ThomasTheIdealist Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 If I'm in danger to begin with, I want to know the problem will be solved, not just delayed. Somebody psycho enough to threaten me once, if knocked down, may just plot more carefully next time. I don't carry weapons per se, don't need to, but if in danger, I'll look for the take down strike, the heck with what it breaks. The perp doesn't like that, don't be a perp to begin with.So you're in favor of the death penalty for anyone who physically threatens someone? They could just carefully plot after a trial or prison sentence...
Recommended Posts