In Gorilla's Death, Critics Blame Mother, Cincinnati Zoo

[Purveyor]

(CNN)Devastated. Heartbroken. In mourning.
Those are some of the words the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden used Sunday in a contrite explanation for the death of Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla killed on Saturday to save a boy who slipped into the zoo's habitat.

The boy was in "imminent danger," leaving the zoo's Dangerous Animal Response Team with no option but to shoot the 450-pound gorilla, zoo director Thane Maynard said in a statement on Facebook. Tranquilizers may not have taken effect in time to save the boy while the dart might have agitated the animal, worsening the situation, Maynard said.

"We are heartbroken about losing Harambe, but a child's life was in danger and a quick decision had to be made," he said.

The words did little to assuage an angry chorus of critics who believed the gorilla's death was unnecessary. Many blamed the boy's mother for failing to look after her son. Neither the boy nor his family have been identified.

Some even suggested the boy's parents should be held criminally responsible for the incident. An online petition seeking "justice for Harambe" through criminal charges earned more than 8,000 signatures in less than 24 hours.

Others criticized the zoo for responding with what they felt was excessive force. Demonstrators gathered outside the zoo on Sunday calling for a boycott.


more...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/us/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot/

[Silver_Witch]

1. Humans react to quickly to anything that is scary.

They shoot a rare Gorilla because they are afraid. I saw the video and the gorilla was trying help the child not hurt him. People were going crazy and panicking rather than calming down to try to diffuse the situation.

The mother is completely responsible.....for this murder. And the Zoo should close down the exhibit to protect the Gorillas from future harm by the insane "Dangerous Animal Response Team".

Fearmongering is the most destructive force on this planet.

I am so beyond ANGRY about this. And sad very very sad.

[LisaL]

3. I agree that gorilla wasn't trying to hurt the child.

If gorilla tried to hurt the child it could have done so in seconds. All the people screaming weren't helping the situation at all.

[No Vested Interest]

4. Because of its size - 450 lbs- the gorilla could have easily harmed the child, likely ca 40 lbs,

inadvertently, breaking the child's limbs, back, or neck. A tranquilizing gun would cause the animal to be agitated initially, again with possibility of harm to the child.
The child was between the gorilla's legs when it was killed.
The zoo, with a long reputation for breeding endangered species, including gorillas, acted according to national zoological standards for such a situation.

[magical thyme]

26. the video clips of the gorilla dragging the boy around weren't posted

While the gorilla was not trying to hurt the boy, the situation with an animal that large in control of a small child was extremely dangerous. After the initial interaction on the video, apparently the gorilla did start dragging the boy around. He apparently was trying to protect him; from what I've read, if a baby gorilla gets in trouble the male will usually drag him off and hand him over to a female to take care of. But, again, he could have hurt or killed the boy totally by accident the way the situation was unfolding.

My horse wasn't trying to hurt me yesterday when she shook some flies away from her head. But had I not been an experienced handler, I could have had my skull fractured. Actually, I know a 3rd generation horsewoman who was knocked out cold by a horse going for a fly.

That said, I think the parents should be held responsible (I've read that both parents were there, if just the mother, then yes, she is responsible).

The boy repeatedly said he was going to get into the pond. She should have put a stop to it right there. Don't know how many small children she was trying to attend to, but once he started insisting, that should have ended the visit to the zoo.

[Silver_Witch]

55. The videos are everywhere. There was no dragging!

Killimngthe gorilla was wrong!!!

[No Vested Interest]

74. The initial videos released by the media cut out the dragging part,

to protect the sensibilities of viewers.
Too bad, because by censoring part of the action, they gave out misinformation to which many are reacting.

[Ms. Yertle]

42. One of the first 911 calls

stated that the gorilla was slamming the kid into a wall. It was a dangerous situation, and the professionals made what they judged to be the appropriate response. I won't second-guess them.

It's really tragic, all the way around. Loss of an endangered animal, kid probably traumatized for the rest of his life, the repercussions for the family (think of the dentist who had to go into hiding for months after killing Cecil the lion) and the zoo.

I don't know what to think about zoos. They serve a purpose: Their breeding programs are saving endangered species, and they do educate the public. But--caging a majestic wild animal is about as cruel a thing as I can think of.

[yeoman6987]

45. I'd like the mother charged with involuntary manslaughter

Animal cruelty charge is not enough.

[Orrex]

72. Why? Did she kill someone?

Obviously not. No jurisdiction in the land equates the death of a non-human animal with the death of a human.

And she sure as hell won't be charged with animal cruelty, nor will the handlers who had to shoot the gorilla.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

50. "People were going crazy and panicking...."

Including the first responders? The zoo personnel who have trained for years for this situation? The people who have memorized the manual and do not need to find it and read it when it's time to act?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

I saw the video and the gorilla was trying help the child not hurt him.

You saw one view. Was it the whole ball of wax, or could there be others?

Rashomon

[RKP5637]

76. I saw part of the film and the gorilla did not look like there was any intent of direct

harm, and seemed to be inspecting the child, like is this one of us, or WTF is it. I think what could be have happened was handling harm or death to the child who was really very fragile. I'm sure it was an extremely difficult call. As the director said, it was not like apparently a polar bear, the gorilla did not intend to eat the child.

[Matrosov]

86. The gorilla's intent was irrelevant

The problem was that even if the gorilla had tried to protect the child, it could've easily crushed the child to death by hugging it too hard.

There was no way to get the child back without incapacitating the gorilla somehow, and tranquilizer darts can take minutes to work, not to mention agitate the gorilla initially.

[gwheezie]

2. I don't blame anyone.

Terrible the gorilla was killed. Glad the kid lived. I assume nothing like this happened at this exhibit before. The mom had to have been terrified. It's not like she left a loaded gun on the coffee table or left in a hot car to go shopping.

[Quixote1818]

12. I agree, no parent is capable of watching their child 100% of the time

I don't have kids but have watched my nieces and nephews from time to time and as much as I tried, sometimes they were out of my view. The authorities had to make a decision, make the wrong one and the kid dies and they would have never forgiven themselves. Tough for everyone all the way around.

[magical thyme]

28. when you're at the zoo and your child tells you he intends to go into the pool

you do not let go of his hand. Period. If you have more children to watch over than you can handle, if two of them start acting up, it's time to go home.

And if one is acting up, insisting repeatedly that he's going into the pool, but you cannot hang on to his hand and keep your eyes on him because you have other small children to watch, it's time to take them all home.

Nobody is capable of watching a child 100% of the time, but there are time periods when you do not take your eyes off of them or let go of their hands. Crossing a busy street is one of those times.

And visiting a zoo with large, potentially dangerous animals and a kid that insists he's getting in to their enclosure, is another one of those times.

He told her what he intended to do. And when she told him "no" he insisted that was what he intended. She is 100% responsible for failing to control her child, not 100% of the time, but for the few minutes when he made his way into the pool that he had told her he intended to get to.

[Ms. Yertle]

38. Child leashes

If the kid was that unruly (and she would have known that he was) keeping him on a leash is a fine solution. Many people think it's cruel, but if he had been on a leash this whole situation would have been prevented.

[magical thyme]

49. agreed. nt

[trueblue2007]

79. the kid SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON A LEASH.

they have kid leashes..... they can save lives.

[still_one]

13. Agreed blame is perhaps not the right word, however, the child should not have been

able to slip into the Gorilla area, and the Zoo has some responsibility insuring that shouldn't have happened, whether it was putting in narrower enclosures or something else, so a child or adult couldn't get into the area

[magical thyme]

31. the boy told his mother he was going into the pool. More than once.

He stated his intention repeatedly. The parents were warned and didn't prevent him from following through. So yeah, it is sort of like they left a loaded gun on the coffee table.

[No Vested Interest]

5. Though the family's identities have not been officially released,

The mother called the child "Isaiah" on video recordings, and the mother's name has been given in comments, and she mentioned the incident on a Facebook posting, apparently now taken down.

[Feeling the Bern]

6. Yes, because Gorillas are just dangerous animals

Couldn't tranquilize the animal. No. blam, blam, blam, blam.

And when mother nature kicks humanity in the nuts people wonder why I cheer mother nature every time.

Human beings are locusts.

[Cly]

17. Fuckin' A!

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 06:42 AM - Edit history (2)

We are a disease.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I suspect if it was your four year old down there, you would feel differently.

[Feeling the Bern]

30. MY four year old kid wouldn't have been down there because my wife doesn't like going to zoos

and I have no desire to go to the zoo.

So I guess it's moot if it were my four year old.

[Orrex]

43. Your inability to imagine situations outside of your limited experience speaks volumes

[magical thyme]

81. I can imagine having a 4 year old. What I cannot imagine

is even *thinking* of attempting to control 4 little kids at once by myself in a public place. Especially with one of them a baby in my arms. Which is apparently what she was doing at the time. A baby not in a stroller, but in her arms, with 3 more little kids ambulatory and on the loose.

She had no control over any of them except the baby in her arms, and by going to the zoo with 4 little kids in her sole charge, she clearly made no serious attempt up front to ensure they'd be under control at all times.

Sorry, but she was begging for trouble.

I once ran in front of an oncoming car to save a tiny escaped runner from being run over. I had great empathy for that mother, even though her arms were full of shopping bags, but frankly if she knew her toddler was a runner, she should have had her leashed. Strangers should not have to risk their lives because of over-indulgent or unthinking parents who confuse their special little snowflakes with angels.

[Orrex]

27. Tranquilizers aren't instantaneous

Meanwhile, you have a pissed off 450 pound gorilla with a dart in its ass, and in its anger it's probably not going to draft a letter to its congressman. Do you really suppose that the handlers were eager to kill this animal? If there'd been another viable option, don't you think they'd have gone with it?

And when mother nature kicks humanity in the nuts people wonder why I cheer mother nature every time.

Meh. Humans, with our plastics and our smartphones and our GMOs are every bit as much a part of nature as any other animal, and it's absurd to imagine otherwise.

Human beings are locusts.

Meh. Human beings, as a species, behave exactly as "mother nature" has selected us to behave.

[Feeling the Bern]

29. Glad you support the murder of an animal. All animals in nature are equal, but some are more

equal than others.

[Orrex]

36. Oh, get the over yourself.

So you've read Orwell? So did everyone else. Your ability to make a silly, irrelevant allusion doesn't impress anybody.

You've convinced yourself that humans are some kind of corrupting force that's somehow magically separate from nature, which is the very height of silly anthropocentrism.

You've also imagined that the keepers were eager to kill this animal, which is a ridiculous and baseless accusation.

And you've fantasized some kind of imaginary instant-knockout tranquilizer that doesn't exist, while I'm discussing reality.

[Feeling the Bern]

37. Keep supporting the murder of animals.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. I'll take the killing of an animal

to save the life of a human any day of the week.

The mother is the responsible party here, and I'm in favor of looking at any and all criminal charges that might be brought against her, including child endangerment.

But first and foremost, the child had to be protected, period. It's heartbreaking that this meant the death of a completely innocent animal, but it's a no-brainer, IMO.

[Jester Messiah]

58. Disagree.

We aren't going to run out of humans anytime soon and it's easy to make more. If you're too crappy of a parent to keep your kid out of the gorilla pen, then tough shit for you.

[Orrex]

61. Careful--someone might mistake your over-the-top hyperbole for an actual argument

If you're too crappy of a parent to keep your kid out of the gorilla pen, then tough shit for you.

Sure. And if a gorilla is too stupid to keep its offspring from getting captured in the wild, then tough shit for them.

Do you see how foolish that is? And do you see how someone might mistake your post for a serious statement?

[Orrex]

41. That's a lie, and you've posted it twice, so I guess that makes you a liar.

A liar with a greatly over-inflated sense of smug self-importance, no less.

Since you've made that fucked up accusation, let's see how you back it up. Find me the jurisdiction anywhere in the country where killing a non-human animal to protect a human child is considered murder. Absent that law, you need to recognize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, since the rest of us have already recognized it.

Otherwise you can stuff your righteous bullshit into whatever gorilla-friendly receptacle you have at hand.


Maybe you're just sour about your screen name rapidly becoming irrelevant.

[nolabear]

47. Oh, honey. Let me speak from some experience.

I get that you don't like the whole idea of how we humans have interacted with animals. I respect that. But as someone who long ago worked in an animal sanctuary with some animals who by their nature were dangerous for us to interact with without real care and a whole lot of rules and equipment, I can tell you there is no perfect way out of that. Like it or not, that situation was what it was, the child was in a great deal of danger not because that wonderful animal had any evil intent but because it was a young male gorilla and not a single one of us knew what he was thinking. He was clearly curious and responding to the boy in a way we could easily interpret as protective or non-threatening, but even that behavior could result in the boy's death as he "carried" the boy or maneuvered him in a way a human child's body cannot deal with. Tranquilizers take time to work and the effect leading up to the gorilla becoming passive could easily result in behavior that is even for an animal "irrational" and dangerous.

I'm deeply, deeply sorry that this magnificent creature lost his life. I wish it had been otherwise. I wish that enclosure had been child-proof in a way it wasn't. But it wasn't murder. It was a tragedy and no one wanted it. They are mourning. You are mourning. As am I.

[Orrex]

48. ^^Thread win.

Very well stated.

[CincyDem]

53. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Good to hear a little more about your experience and how it informs your perspective on this one. Surprising amount of emotion bubbling up on this topic across a number of threads.

Thanks.

[nolabear]

56. Thanks. I still have a scar from having a hole punched in my hand by a "tame" mountain lion.

She was a beauty, and we loved her very much. She was raised by an idiot who thought you could have a pet mountain lion and then he found he had a MOUNTAIN LION. Of course her chance at normal was shot, so we got her. She wanted affection so much. She'd rub against the steel mesh of her enclosure and plead for attention. She could neither be with her kind nor ours.

One day when I was feeding her (we had little mini-cages where you could close it off, put the food in and then open the animal's side) I just didn't do it quite right. She swiped that giant paw in to grab the food and grabbed me instead. Nasty hole, blew up like crazy because it was full of bacteria, but it all worked out fine eventually. She did nothing wrong. I really wasn't negligent; I was just human and made a mistake. Thank goodness it wasn't worse. But you can't always see it coming.

FYI the most dangerous animals we rescued were deer. Being attacked by a deer is the most shocking thing in the world, and it happened to most of us at one time or another. Those hooves are incredibly dangerous.

[brett_jv]

80. Very well said ...

Bottom-line there really was no other option once the child was in the enclosure. It sucks, horribly ... but it's so very true.

[Travis_0004]

39. I see nothing wrong with prioritizing a human life over an animal

Its a sad situation but I think the zookeepers had to act quickly and made the right choice.

[Ms. Yertle]

44. "Murder" is a legal term.

This wasn't murder. It was a tragedy, avoidable in about a hundred ways, but it happened and the pros made a decision, in accordance with their experience and training.

And, YES, human life is more valuable than animal life.

[X_Digger]

51. Free clue: Tranq darts don't work like on TV.

Any dose that could immediately incapacitate an animal will kill the animal.

No, what you get is three or four minutes of thrashing around because, hello, you shot it in the ass. Then three or four minutes of stumbling around like a drunk-- still agitated mind you, but slowly going down.

Fucking duh.

[Orrex]

73. That should be the reply to about half of the posts in this thread.

[Silver_Witch]

54. I cheer her as well!!!

Humans are too blame for the destruction of this planet no care for the other sentiment beings who live with us never! Such selfishness!!!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

85. "Humans are too blame for the destruction of this planet...."

Humans are too blame for the destruction of this planet no care for the other sentiment beings who live with us never! Such selfishness!!!

Right on, sister!

The four destructive things done by humans I detest beyond all others are electric power distribution, central heating and air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and microprocessors. I am swearing from this day forward to do without those for as long as I

[Bad Dog]

7. There's no way the kid should have been able to get into the moat in the first place.

The only person not at fault is the gorilla.

[still_one]

14. That is the correct answer in my view

[Bad Dog]

16. Thank you.

If you start off with the assumption that people are idiots you won't go far wrong.

[Nay]

25. Exactly. The enclosure was not designed well enough to exclude a 7yrold? Who

the hell do the designers think go to zoos? This should never have happened at all.

[CincyDem]

52. A track record of success.

I agree that this never should have happened and it hasn't over the course of 37 years and over 44 million visitors to the gorilla enclosure. After all that, a curious energetic 4 year old found the right combination of twists and turns to get through the barriers. Just like the gorilla was just being a gorilla, Issac was just being a 4 year old.

I hate what happened and I hate that this kid found a way in with terrible results. But "never happen" is never going to happen.

[yardwork]

89. I agree. This is really sad.

[ArcticFox]

8. How the hell do you have a zoo enclosure a child can bypass?

Seriously. WTF?

[SunSeeker]

9. The video of the gorilla violently dragging the boy by the ankle showed the zoo had no choice.

The gorilla had become agitated, probably all the screaming, and was being very rough with the child. Even if he meant no harm to the child, the boy could have been easily killed by the gorilla. I am amazed the boy suffered no broken bones after the way the gorilla yanked him through the water by one ankle.

[rpannier]

18. Link to video

I've watched two videos and neither of which showed the occurring
Cincinnati.com has one of the videos I wayched
Admittedly they don't show every second and lose some sight of the gorilla and child
One account says the gorilla did drag the boy around, the other I read said that didn't happen

Video link please

[firebrand80]

19. There are two different videos floating around

Here's the one that shows the dragging:

https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/736940408182165504

[rpannier]

20. Thank You

I will watch
Appreciate it


Must be getting old... had trouble finding the wave icon

on an unrelated note... I think it's time to get glasses
The button you have 'African Americans for Hillary'
I thought it read 'American Americans for Hillary.'

I was like 'Huh?'

[SunSeeker]

57. It is at the CNN link provided in the OP. Click on the 2:42 video.

It is entitled "Gorilla drags 4-year-old in shocking video."

Here is the link from the OP where the video is:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/us/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot/

[MFM008]

10. My kid never got arms length from me

I totally blame this person.
Id bet anything she was on the phone.
And when are these damn zoos going to use a fast acting tranqulizer instead of killing everything?
Its a canned hunt.

[Orrex]

32. Which fast-acting tranquilizer do you have in mind, exactly?

And is it instantaneous? No? In other words, you want to roll the dice and deal with a pissed off animal with a dart in its ass and 45 seconds to take out its anger on whoever's nearby.

Do you really think that the keepers were eager to kill the gorilla? Seriously?

[bluestateguy]

11. Dumbass mother

I don't think she comitted a crime, but she's a careless nitwit.

[dilby]

15. I blame the people who go to zoos. Wild animals should not be kept in cages

For our amusement.

[Orrex]

33. If the option is alive in a cage or dead in the back of a poacher's truck...

I'd say that the cage is a better option.

[Stargleamer]

59. What a false dichotomy that is!

as if zoos significantly reduce the amount of poaching going around, as if one can't say "Hell No!!" to both.

Maybe just like Orwell it's somehow incorrect to allude to The Twilight Zone, but here goes:

Gorillas belong in the homeland not in some zoo. And I see nothing wrong with alluding to an Orwellian quote making a point worth pondering--sorry, it's not "silly".

[Orrex]

60. Sorry, but that's not a false dichotomy. It's a hypothetical. Not the same.

A false dichotomy is forcing someone to choose between only two options when in fact more exist. I'm not requiring anyone to choose one or the other, nor am I pretending that only two choices exist. You've decided to read it that way, but that's your problem and not mine.

I indicated (correctly, I might add) that given a choice between two particular options, one is clearly better than the other. That's not a false dichotomy at all. In fact, it's a pretty solid representation of how most people make most of their decisions, narrowing the field of options down to two (or several) of the most relevant.

You can allude to The Zone all you want, but don't pretend I'm relying on a fallacy when I'm clearly (and demonstrably) not.

[Stargleamer]

65. it comes across as a false dichotomy when you know damn well

that there are more options than that but you just present the two as if that's all there is. There is no real hypothetical when the hypothetical obviously doesn't exist and any reasonably knowledgeable person knows that the hypothetical doesn't exist. Putting an "if" in front of it doesn't get you off the hook, since it doesn't change the unreality of that hypothetical.

If we're driving on a wet and slippery road, and you're at the wheel, and there are plastic bottles lying in the road, and in order to avoid hitting them you tell me well if I go to the right we'll fall off a cliff and if I go to the left we'll crash into the wall, well, I'd rather crash into the wall, I'd tell you, If I could get the words out of mouth in time " those aren't the only 2 choices! Go straight!!" Putting an "if" in front doesn't change the false dilemma/dichotomy of it all.

But if for pedantry's sake, if you wish me to classify my objection to what you wrote as a "stupid, meaningless, pointless hypothetical" rather than a "false dichotomy", well I'm cool with that.

[Orrex]

69. Again, that's your problem and not mine

Nowhere did I claim nor imply that only two options exist, and it is incorrect of you to claim otherwise.

Everything in your post that follows from your incorrect claim can be disregarded, but I'll humor you.

There is no real hypothetical when the hypothetical obviously doesn't exist and any reasonably knowledgeable person knows that the hypothetical doesn't exist.

Are you perhaps not familiar with what the term "hypothetical" means?

Putting an "if" in front of it doesn't get you off the hook, since it doesn't change the unreality of that hypothetical.

There's nothing to "get off the hook." Despite your insistence, it's simply not a false dichotomy, full stop.

Also, as a hypothetical, it is inherently speculative and suppositional. Why is that a problem for you? By your reasoning, every hypothetical decision made between two hypothetical options must therefore be a false dichotomy, which obviously isn't the case.

If we're driving on a wet and slippery road, and you're at the wheel, and there are plastic bottles lying in the road, and in order to avoid hitting them you tell me well if I go to the right we'll fall off a cliff and if I go to the left we'll crash into the wall, well, I'd rather crash into the wall, I'd tell you, If I could get the words out of mouth in time " those aren't the only 2 choices! Go straight!!" Putting an "if" in front doesn't change the false dilemma/dichotomy of it all.

Actually, yet it does. Completely. And your example has nothing to do with the current discussion in general nor my own hypothetical in particular.

When you posit a hypothetical, you are free to set the terms of that hypothetical however you see fit. The hypothetical can freely exclude all options except two, even if in reality there are many more options. Because the example is hypothetical, and because it does not purport to represent the whole of reality, the example is absolutely not bound by the constraints of reality. The listener is free to reject the hypothetical, but the listener can't simply say "that's not reality," because no shit. It's a hypothetical. This is fundamental to logic and has been so for thousands of years. The fact that you don't care for it is irrelevant.

But if for pedantry's sake, if you wish me to classify my objection to what you wrote as a "stupid hypothetical" rather than a "false dichotomy", well I'm cool with that.

Again, the listener is free to reject the hypothetical, but the reader has no authority to declare the hypothetical "stupid" without explaining why it is perceived to be so. And in any case a "stupid" hypothetical doesn't necessarily entail a failure of logic, as a false dichotomy does. The listener will be incorrect if he attempts to reject an argument (as you did) on the grounds that the hypothetical is a false dichotomy when it clearly is not. That's not pedantry; it's basic critical thought.

Bottom line: it is unfortunate that the child made it into the enclosure, and it is unfortunate that the keepers opted to shoot the gorilla, but it appears that in the circumstances the keepers made the best decision available to them.

[Stargleamer]

75. An explanation

Okay, then it's stupid/specious/disingenuous because you obviously knew there were more than 2 options but you presented only 2 as if that's all there was. Well, if you don't see any "implying" or "insinuating" there well to use your words "that's your problem, not mine". You knew there were more than 2 options but you purposely left others out. It's a pointless and meaningless for the same reasons.

"If global warming is not occurring, then. . ." is a hypothetical that references an untrue reality which is what yours did and which is what I meant to say rather than what I wrote. (In other words I concede that my wording re hypotheticals was off/wrong). Not that such utterances can be without value, for ex: "if global warming is not occurring then we would expect. .. ." But to only present 2 hypothetical possibilities as if those that are all that is there is specious/disingenuous, when you quite obviously knew there was more to it than that.

And if technically your remarks were not a "false dichotomy" than they were a "false choice": "The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue" (Wikipedia).

[Orrex]

77. Perhaps you unfamiliar with "imply" versus "infer"

Okay, then it's stupid/specious/disingenuous because you obviously knew there were more than 2 options but you presented only 2 as if that's all there was.

No, I absolutely did not. I was positing a choice between two options, and I certainly was not in any way suggesting that those are the only two options. My choice to exclude them from the hypothetical does not imply that they don't exist in reality.

Well, if you don't see any "implying" or "insinuating" there well to use your words "that's your problem, not mine". You knew there were more than 2 options but you purposely left others out.

I implied nothing of the sort. It appears that you have inferred that, but you have inferred incorrectly. That's your problem, not mine.

"If global warming is not occurring, then. . ." is a hypothetical that references an untrue reality which is what yours did and which is what I meant to say rather than what I wrote. (In other words I concede that my wording re hypotheticals was off/wrong). Not that such utterances can be without value, for ex: "if global warming is not occurring then we would expect. .. ."

That's actually a terrific example, so I'm gratified to see that understand how hypothetical examples work after all.

When the hypothetical is proposed, the listener is free to reject or accept it, no harm/no foul. Here's my statement again:

If the option is alive in a cage or dead in the back of a poacher's truck, I'd say that the cage is a better option.

You reject that if/then formulation; so be it. You apparently identify the first clause as false; so be it. You are saying, in effect, "the choice is not between alive in a cage or dead in the back of a poacher's truck." So be it.

But I'm sorry--that doesn't mean that it's stupid/specious/disingenuous; it means only that you reject it as false, because you are unwilling to posit the choice between only those two options.

It also doesn't mean--in any way--that I'm implying that only those two options exist in reality, and I frankly see no way to interpret the statement that way. What I am stating is that between Option A and Option B, Option A is preferable. You may feel that Option B is preferable, and that's fine, because we can certainly disagree. But our disagreement doesn't mean that the hypothetical is specious/stupid/disingenuous.

[Stargleamer]

87. Well, okay then, it’s a preference expressed (disguised?) in a hypothetical format. . .

But it’s still problematic.

If I use another example, say for example that you were to state that “I prefer habitual drug users/dealers to be incarcerated rather than executed” (or hypothetically, “if dealing with drug offenders there is the choice of execution and incarceration and I think incarceration is to be preferred”), and I counter, like one does in false dichotomy/false choices situations (leaving aside whether this is one or not) by saying “WTF?? These aren’t the only 2 options! One could try Substance-Abuse treatment for example!” And you then reply/retreat by saying “I never said they were only 2! I was merely expressing an opinion/preference, and therefore immune to the charge of false choice/false dichotomy.” Well okay then, but can’t you see that just like in false dichotomy/false choice situations, how insubstantial and--to use another word rather than “stupid/disingenuous/specious” (not saying though that those don’t apply, but leaving that aside as well)—trite (especially in this case) your initial remarks then are? Using the above example, It’s like “Duh” that incarceration is [to be] preferred to execution for drug offenders, and going back to your original remarks it’s also like “Duh!” that being in a zoo is to be preferred to being butchered. And one reason (maybe not the only one) it’s trite in both examples is because when making such remarks other (perhaps more reasonable) options, (such as just letting animals be left alone in freedom), are ignored/not considered (just like they aren’t in false choice/false dichotomy situations (again leaving aside whether this is one or not)).

Given that your initial remarks don’t rise above the level of being trite, it is ironic in a way that you dismiss Feeling the Bern’s comments as being “silly” and "irrelevant&quot which I note you don’t really explain why (while stating that I should explain why I thought your remarks were “stupid”), unless you think your comment, “So did everyone else” counts as an explanation, in which case I think you should speak for yourself and not for others (I might have heard Orwell’s comment just once or twice before, and only read 1984 and not Animal Farm)).

And although you appear to want me to technically correct when leveling a charge of "false choice" against what you say, and you chide me for making wrong inferences and drawing incorrect conclusions, I note that that level of precision is, in my opinion, quite lacking in what you write to Feeling The Bern and others: To wit: " "You've also imagined that the keepers were eager to kill this animal, which is a ridiculous and baseless accusation (to Feeling the Bern)." How can you draw such an inference based on what he wrote? Murder can still be murder even if carried out reluctantly. Nothing Feeling the Bern wrote indicates that he thought they were eager to kill, that they didn't do so without conflicting emotions. He may bemoan what he feels was the impetuousness of the act, but that is different than eagerness. ""Do you really think that the keepers were eager to kill the gorilla? (to MFM008)." Where does MFM008 express or indicate that they were eager? "Your inability to imagine situations outside of your limited experience speaks volumes" (to Feeling the Bern). Well even if we grant in this instance that Feeling the Bern was not imaging situations outside her/his experience, that doesn't mean indicate that they are unable to do so in other situations or as a whole. "One swallow does not a summer make". (maybe I'll get chided here for referencing Aesop). My guess is that in looking at your posts it wouldn't be hard to find additional examples. Before I get charged with a tu Quoque argument, let me just say that although I question whether or not merely stating a preference always avoids the charge of being a false choice/false dilemma, in light of what you wrote to me I now think that expressing one's preferences might be immune to such objections.

[Orrex]

88. I was going to post a blistering, point-for-point reply

And although you appear to want me to technically correct when leveling a charge of "false choice" against what you say, and you chide me for making wrong inferences and drawing incorrect conclusions, I note that that level of precision is, in my opinion, quite lacking in what you write...

But then I thought, "You know, that's actually an entirely fair objection." Bad on me for inconsistency.

I will reflect upon it.

[Stargleamer]

90. I have absolutely no doubts.. .

"I was going to post a blistering, point-for-point reply" -- I have no doubt you could too.
Indeed, "Blistering" would be too mild a word I think; "torn to shreds" comes to mind. I feel like I'm arguing with someone who has a Master's Degree or more in Philosophy.

[Orrex]

99. You're too kind.

I love the process, so I can get kind of swept up in it. Kudos to you for spelling it out in a way that made me take another look.

[The2ndWheel]

62. There's the issue with issues like this

Nobody can speak for the form of life in a cage that doesn't speak our language. In this case, the option ended up being dead while in a cage.

That gorilla existed in what was basically its version of the Matrix. It was real, but not really real. The zoo created an environment that the gorilla would think as natural, but it wasn't the actual natural environment of a gorilla. Then when it did something defined as wrong, against the rules that it had no say in, it was taken out.

[Orrex]

64. But consider:

Nobody can speak for the form of life in a cage that doesn't speak our language.

Let us first be clear that we're discussing a non-human animal that does not have the same legal rights as a human being, lest someone try to conflate "non-English-speaking-gorilla" with "non-English-speaking-human."

In this case, the option ended up being dead while in a cage.

That's true, but it's not central.

The zoo created an environment that the gorilla would think as natural, but it wasn't the actual natural environment of a gorilla.

Also true, and also not central.

Then when it did something defined as wrong, against the rules that it had no say in, it was taken out.

Also true, but not greatly significant here. If I do something wrong against federal laws in which I've had no say, I will be punished in accordance with those laws. Also, if I present an immediate and credible threat of lethal harm to a child, I can certainly expect to be taken out, even if I've had no say in any laws to that effect.

They gorilla's keepers acted to protect the human child because, according to their experienced and professional judgment, no other equally viable and equally effective option was available. The fact that this took place in a zoo is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that the keepers had to act quickly and decisively and without the benefit of several days' hindsight nor DU's incomparable wisdom on matters of inter-species ethics.

If I'd threatened the gorilla's offspring in the wild, there's a good chance that the gorilla would have ripped me into Rhesus pieces. Similarly, if a gorilla in the wild were threatening a human child, the gorilla would have been shot in that case as well.

[The2ndWheel]

67. Well you were vague in what you were talking about

Better alive in a cage than dead in a truck. I would say that depends on the context of the situation. I'm also not saying the zoo acted incorrectly in this given situation.

[Orrex]

71. Obviously it depends on the context of the situation

And I believe that the point was clear, given the context of the overall discussion.

[The2ndWheel]

83. Then the zoo matrix needs to do more to protect both gorilla and human

There should be no way for a child to get into the artificial environment of the animals. If we're going to take it upon ourselves to save the gorilla's from the back of the truck.

That's true, but it's not central.

Also true, and also not central.

Since we're talking about a gorilla that had to be killed even though in a cage, how is that not central to the discussion? That's why I was wondering what context you meant. In this specific context, it wasn't simply cage or truck. That's the only reason this is a story. Otherwise, it's just another day at the zoo.

[Orrex]

84. The original comment to which I posed that hypothetical...

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 07:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Was something to the effect that "wild animals should not be kept in cages." It was, I inferred, a general statement on the ethics of zoos.

To that end, it seemed reasonable to observe that, given the not too far-fetched choice between a wild animal in a cage and a wild animal dead in a poacher's truck, I'd prefer the former.

It was a hypothetical posed between two choices, one of which was basically handed to me by the thread. I've made no claim that these are the only two choices nor even that they're the best choices; they're simply two among many admittedly sub-optimal but nevertheless dintinguishable scenarios.

Significantly, neither of those scenarios addresses the current tragedy, in which a gorilla was killed because (ultimately) the zoo failed to install adequate barriers to ensure that people can't get into the enclosure. Nor does either scenario intend to; the subthread arose ffom a disagreement about whether the proposed hypothetical was or was not a false dichotomy. Spoiler: it wasn't.

I'm about done with these discussions, in which poster after poster steps forth to present themselves as more passionately pro-animal than anyone else.

[stone space]

21. Not everything can be made idiot-proof, but surely a gorilla cage can be made child-proof. (nt)

[stone space]

22. Blaming the mother is absurd, unless she boosted the child over the fence on her shoulders.

As near as I can tell, the mother's only offense is somehow losing track of the kid, and it isn't clear from the article how that happened.

That's why you sometimes see parents with their kids on leashes, I suppose, despite how stupid it looks.

The mother may need a leash for her kid, but that hardly makes her responsible for the kid being able to make it into the cage on his own.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Not closely monitoring a four year old who you have brought to a place of danger the child can't

perceive fully as being dangerous, the entire responsibility is your own. It's not like the gorilla came to them. They went to the gorilla.

[avebury]

70. If the child keeps saying I want to go play with the gorillas

would you seriously turn your back on the child? The mother had advanced warning of her child's intentions and she not only failed to take appropriate action but turned her back to the child to pay attention to the other children. You cannot expect a 4 year old to have impulse control and what the child did was 100% totally predictable. So yes, mom is at fault because she was the adult and parenting her child was her responsibility. She exhibited a lack of common sense and her child was hurt and an innocent gorilla paid the ultimate price.

Had the child given no notice of his intent then you claim it was a fluke accident and mom might not be at fault. But he did put his mother on notice and she igorned the warning he gave her.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

96. They are called harnesses not leashes.

A mother's most important job to keep her child alive/safe. You cannot afford to 'lose track', as you say, because when you are fucking about and not paying attention your child can get snatched, fall in a river, pull something on top of themself, step into traffic etc. A mother's job is extremely stresseful because when you snooze you lose.

Around potentially dangerous animals a mother's instinct should be in over-priced. This mother was neglectful. She didn't do her job.

I heard the gorilla enclosure had been the same for 38 years and had never been breached before.

My son wore a harness when he was a tot and it saved his life when he tried to dash into traffic. When they're wearing a harness they can explore, get exercise and keep safe.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Its a tragic story all the way around.

But the Zoo didnt have any choice IMHO. Ask the woman who had her face ripped off by a gorilla a few years ago.

[elehhhhna]

46. Not even a gorilla, that was a chimpanzee.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Right you are.

It is sad because probably the only thing that was agitating the Gorilla here was the screaming of the people. But they couldn't take any chances.

[Rex]

92. Fucking wildlife, why cannot it be mildlife?

Zoos should be called Animal Prisons...but that would be harsh and look bad on the sign at the entrance.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. I remember back when i was a wayward young man and was experimenting with the evil weed

And i was in that teenager phase where you suddenly decide you need to re-do all this mundane life stuff, but high. You know, "lets get high and go to the dry cleaner! Lets get high and watch the burger king employees take the trash out to the dumpster in the alley!", that kind of thing.

Well i vividly remembering taking one of these types of excursions to the lincoln park zoo or something like that. There was an elephant there in a cage, IIRC, and I was stoned out to the bejeesus belt. I remember looking at this elephant, eyes met for a moment and -zang!- connection.

Elephant telepathically communicated to me, very clearly "this suuuuucks. yeah, thanks a fucking lot"

No more zoos for me, after that, until i had kids of my own. And even now i find it sad, despite the fact that the conditions are vastly different for the most part.

[Rex]

94. That is interesting, that did it for me too.

I never in my life saw a happy elephant in any zoo. They all looked so sad, even the ones with a large habitat and other elephants. Compared to the ones you would see on Wild Kingdom or read about in NATGEO.

The 420 moment was the Rhino shitting for 5 minutes, this among a group of teens that respect went from who could belch the loudest at the diner table on down.

That Rhino was God to us, Rhino God.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Yeah. Funny that.

Some real personal growth can be attributed to certain entheogens, at least for me.

[leftyladyfrommo]

34. Why was the boy able to crawl into that enclosure?

It should have been secure.

Nightmare for everyone.

[moondust]

63. I blame both

the parents for not keeping the child away from an obvious danger spot and the zoo for not anticipating and dealing with potential danger spots for children that get away from their parents' oversight while the parents are momentarily talking or fucking around with their gadgets.

[mnhtnbb]

66. What a nightmare.

Kids can be out of your sight in no time. I know from personal experience because my youngest was not quite 3 when we went
to the Omaha Zoo. My husband was with the oldest and my youngest would still sit in the stroller. I took him out of the stroller
turned to put the stroller against the building (to go into the new Lied Jungle exhibit) turned back and he was gone. Nowhere in sight.
I started screaming his name and everything went into slow motion. People turned around to look at me. I kept screaming. Everyone
stopped. And because they did, I saw him, still walking away from me. He was a good 20 yards away from me and my back had been
turned for only a few seconds.

That was before cell phones and the distraction of people carrying devices around in one hand with their faces in screens all the time.

It took a while to find the video that shows the gorilla dragging the kid around in the moat. If the gorilla didn't crush him, he surely could
have drowned him. What a horrible, awful decision to have to make.

I can't tell you how many times I've suggested to parents at zoos that they hold a young child by the hand, or take the kid down from
balancing him on the railing or barrier where a child could easily fall. And the signs are everywhere. People don't pay attention.

There are a lot of dumb parents out there. Clueless. But it only takes a second of distraction for an active, inquisitive child to get away
from even the most attentive parent.

[avebury]

68. The mother 100% at fault.

The boy kept saying that he wanted to go play with the gorilla. A smart parent would have either a) hold onto the boy or b) move the family onto a different exhibit thus removing the boy from temptation. A 4 year old cannot be trusted to have impulse control. What did the mother do? She turned away and focused on the other children. Despite being forewarned by the child of his intentions, the mother failed to take appropriate action which would have prevented the tragedy.

In the video, it appears that what might have agitated the gorilla was the noise (yelling and screaming) from the people. He pulled the boy to the far end away from the people. It appeared that the gorilla was actually trying to protect the child.

Result, child injured in fall and an endangered gorilla was killed.

Had the mother made a statement about how horrible she felt about the whole thing, she should have kept tighter control over her son, her son's injuries and the death of the gorilla, it might have gone a long way towards tamping down the massive anger that has come out against the mother. From a PR standpoint the family really screwed up. And believe it or not, she works at a child daycare. The failure of the other to admit to culpability in what happened has played a huge role in public anger.

Personally I am fed up with parents who exhibit a lack of common sense that results in injuries to their child or others playing the sympathy card and getting away with it with no consequences. There are some supporters who are trying to blame the child's poor decision making. For crying out loud, the kid is 4 years old.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

97. I 100% agree with you.

[kwassa]

98. The zoo is 100% at fault. A four-year old can overcome zoo security?

This is fundamentally idiotic. This is not on the mother at all. A curious small child can breach zoo security.

The gorilla flung the child forcefully, because he was agitated. There was nothing protective about this. The gorilla was reacting to circumstances around him in a dangerous way, and all gorilla experts say so.

[In_The_Wind]

82. ~

[Rex]

91. You cannot have an opinion on this subject, which is not morally wrong to someone else.

Just nuke the planet, that way everyone will never have to worry ever again about anything or anyone.