Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Jun '16 16:00
    Recently an child fell into a gorilla pit in Ohio, and it was subsequently shot to protect the child.

    Is this a just killing?
  2. 02 Jun '16 16:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Recently an child fell into a gorilla pit in Ohio, and it was subsequently shot to protect the child.

    Is this a just killing?
    yes
  3. 02 Jun '16 16:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    Recently an child fell into a gorilla pit in Ohio, and it was subsequently shot to protect the child.

    Is this a just killing?
    Of course, you shoot the ape. Is there really anything to discuss?
  4. Donation mwmiller
    RHP Member No.16
    02 Jun '16 16:23
    If it were up to me I would totally eliminate all zoos from the planet, along with any other activities that use animals to entertain people.
    Wild animals should be left alone to live in their natural habitat and should not be interfered with in any way by humans.

    We can study them and photograph them in a non-intrusive manner from a distance, but capturing them and placing them in a zoo or circus is no better than torturing them.
    I don't care how well they are cared for in a zoo, they are still being held captive and do not deserve that.

    If we want our children to see wild animals, they can look at pictures or video movies of them.
  5. 02 Jun '16 16:29
    Originally posted by mwmiller
    If it were up to me I would totally eliminate all zoos from the planet, along with any other activities that use animals to entertain people.
    Wild animals should be left alone to live in their natural habitat and should not be interfered with in any way by humans.

    We can study them and photograph them in a non-intrusive manner from a distance, but captu ...[text shortened]... we want our children to see wild animals, they can look at pictures or video movies of them.
    [/b]
    yes. unquestionably zoos are wrong.

    but the question was, do we shoot the ape.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    02 Jun '16 16:53
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    yes. unquestionably zoos are wrong.

    but the question was, do we shoot the ape.
    I think that's part of his point: that if there were no zoos, situations like this wouldn't come up.
  7. Donation mwmiller
    RHP Member No.16
    02 Jun '16 17:17
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    yes. unquestionably zoos are wrong.

    but the question was, do we shoot the ape.
    Probably should have shot the kids' parent that let the kid get into the gorilla enclosure.

    We don't really know for sure what the gorilla might have done if they had waited a few minutes. Everyone hollering and the kid screaming his head off probably didn't help either. I'm sure the gorilla was scaring the kid but the damn kid was probably scaring the gorilla more.

    We will never know now, but tranquilizing the gorilla might have been a good first step and see if it knocked him out before he took it to a higher level. Kill him as the last resort but give the drug a chance to work first. Or maybe tranquilize the kid to shut him up too.
  8. 02 Jun '16 17:29
    Originally posted by mwmiller
    Probably should have shot the kids' parent that let the kid get into the gorilla enclosure.

    We don't really know for sure what the gorilla might have done if they had waited a few minutes. Everyone hollering and the kid screaming his head off probably didn't help either. I'm sure the gorilla was scaring the kid but the damn kid was probably scaring the ...[text shortened]... esort but give the drug a chance to work first. Or maybe tranquilize the kid to shut him up too.
    An excellent solution. Would we first let people watch the child being crushed to death by the ape and then would they get to watch the public execution or does justice require an immediate execution causing people to choose which violent death they get to watch?
  9. 02 Jun '16 18:30
    Originally posted by mwmiller
    Probably should have shot the kids' parent that let the kid get into the gorilla enclosure.

    We don't really know for sure what the gorilla might have done if they had waited a few minutes. Everyone hollering and the kid screaming his head off probably didn't help either. I'm sure the gorilla was scaring the kid but the damn kid was probably scaring the ...[text shortened]... esort but give the drug a chance to work first. Or maybe tranquilize the kid to shut him up too.
    "Probably should have shot the kids' parent that let the kid get into the gorilla enclosure."
    probably you should keep your mouth shut if the only way you can contribute to the discussion is this idiotic statement

    "We don't really know for sure what the gorilla might have done if they had waited a few minutes."
    we don't need to know for sure. we have a wild animal strong enough to break a grown man in half and aggressive enough to have done so.

    "Everyone hollering and the kid screaming his head off probably didn't help either."
    this supports the idea of shooting the gorilla.

    "I'm sure the gorilla was scaring the kid but the damn kid was probably scaring the gorilla more."
    and you know what a scared animal does? attack the "damn kid"

    "We will never know now, but tranquilizing the gorilla might have been a good first step "
    many animals, when agitated, cannot be tranquilized. it wouldn't be an instant effect anyway. i will trust the judgement of those zoo employees over yours.

    " Kill him as the last resort but give the drug a chance to work first"
    when shot with a tranquilizer, the gorilla might have become even more aggressive.
    "Or maybe tranquilize the kid to shut him up too"
    you are full of wonderful ideas.
  10. 02 Jun '16 18:31
    Originally posted by vivify
    I think that's part of his point: that if there were no zoos, situations like this wouldn't come up.
    i am all for it.

    until then, when faced with a choice between a wild animal and a human, suks to be anywhere but the top of the food chain.
  11. Donation mwmiller
    RHP Member No.16
    02 Jun '16 18:59
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi

    probably you should keep your mouth shut if the only way you can contribute to the discussion is this idiotic statement
    You probably need to just relax a little. You take yourself way too serious.

    But as far as shutting my mouth, sure no problem. I already said about all I have to say about the unfortunate incident anyway! Cheers!
  12. 02 Jun '16 19:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by mwmiller to Zahlanzi
    Probably should have shot the kids' parent that let the kid get into the gorilla enclosure.

    We don't really know for sure what the gorilla might have done if they had waited a few minutes. Everyone hollering and the kid screaming his head off probably didn't help either. I'm sure the gorilla was scaring the kid but the damn kid was probably ...[text shortened]... esort but give the drug a chance to work first. Or maybe tranquilize the kid to shut him up too.
    In fact, the gorilla had made no aggressive or threatening moves toward the child.
    There's evidence that a gorilla can live in peace for a long time with a much smaller, weaker creature.
    At the Erie Zoo, a gorilla and a rabbit have been living together in apparent friendship.
    It's true that the zoo officials would not care if someday the gorilla killed the rabbit.

    While there's a *potential risk* that the gorilla could harm the child, that rationalization
    has long been used by people to justify the slaughter of wildlife, such as elephants.
    Given that it would be quite unusual behavior for a gorilla *suddenly* to become deadly
    aggressive against an obviously non-threatening intruder (the child), I think that the zoo
    officials should have not have shot the gorilla unless one displayed any threatening behavior.
    I suspect that the zoo officials were most worried about the possibility of being sued by the child's
    parents, even if the child emerged unharmed, for not hastening to kill the gorilla as soon as possible.
    So I suspect that the decision may have been motivated more by advice from lawyers
    than experts on gorilla behavior.

    One more point; Zahlanzi described this gorilla as a 'wild animal'. Given that this gorilla
    presumably was born and bred in a zoo and has lived one's entire life in a zoo, this gorilla
    is quite different from the real wild gorillas in Africa. A relevant fact is that this gorilla has
    become thoroughly accustomed to the presence of people (zoo employees or the public),
    so this gorilla would feel much less threatened than a wild gorilla by a human intruder.
    It's wrong to perceive this gorilla as though it were truly 'wild'.
  13. 02 Jun '16 19:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Recently an child fell into a gorilla pit in Ohio, and it was subsequently shot to protect the child.

    Is this a just killing?
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/06/01/former_zookeeper_on_the_death_of_gorilla_at_cincinnati_zoo.html

    No question, you shoot the gorilla.

    Sad as it is, you don't risk the kids life by leaving it with a huge and angry animal as
    large and dangerous as that one was. [read the article for details]

    And tranquillisers are not a viable option, as they take ~10 minutes to kick in... Which is way
    more than enough time for the kid to die or be seriously injured, particularly as hitting the gorilla
    with a tranquilliser dart is going to make it even angrier.

    And it's not a parents fault either, you just cannot keep your eyes on kids at all times it's just not possible.
    You will always have moments of distraction [or attention on a different kid] where they will be out of your
    sight. And in those moments you just hope that you have taught them enough and/or other adults are watching
    out and/or the environment is designed in such a way as they don't get into trouble.

    Sometimes however that is not the case.

    In this instance the enclosure was not sufficiently well designed that it didn't prevent a 4 year old falling into it.

    As the article says, it's a hard act the Zoo's have trying to balance keeping people and animals apart while
    also providing stimulating and safe enclosures with good views of the animals. I think that in this instance
    they probably got it wrong, and I am sure the safety reviews will show that and suggest fixes as a result.
    Which is how the system is supposed to work.

    Now I don't take such a hard line on the existence of Zoo's as some others have expressed [circuses on the other hand...]
    as many are making legitimate good faith efforts to help preserve species as well as help connect people with wildlife
    that can inspire them to care about the wilds in ways they might not otherwise [particularly those who live their lives
    in big cities as over 1/2 the worlds population now does]. That said I am sympathetic to the arguments made and
    would argue that many Zoos are not so beneficial and who's conditions should not be permissible. But that is an entirely
    different argument from the one we have here. We could just as easily have had a discussion about a kid in a similar
    situation but out in the wild, and the answer would be the same.
  14. 02 Jun '16 19:19
    Originally posted by mwmiller
    You probably need to just relax a little. You take yourself way too serious.

    But as far as shutting my mouth, sure no problem. I already said about all I have to say about the unfortunate incident anyway! Cheers!
    While, I don't agree with your point, it is completely ridiculous that anyone in an discussion forum would tell you or anyone to shut up.
  15. 02 Jun '16 19:23
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In fact, the gorilla had made no aggressive or threatening moves toward the child.
    There's evidence that a gorilla can live in peace for a long time with a much smaller, weaker creature.
    At the Erie Zoo, a gorilla and a rabbit have been living together in apparent friendship.
    It's true that the zoo officials would not care if someday the gorilla killed ...[text shortened]... orilla by a human intruder.
    It's wrong to perceive this gorilla as though it were truly 'wild'.
    As shown in the article I linked, the experts in the field do not agree with you.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/06/01/former_zookeeper_on_the_death_of_gorilla_at_cincinnati_zoo.html

    Gorillas are considered a Class I mammal, the most dangerous class of mammals in the animal kingdom—again, merely due to their size and strength. They are grouped in with other apes as well as tigers, lions, and bears. While working in an Association of Zoos and Aquariums–accredited zoo with apes, keepers do not work in direct contact with them; they never share an enclosed space with these animals. There is always a welded mesh barrier between the animal and the humans.
    .....................
    I have watched the video of Harambe and the little boy over and over again. The silverback's posturing and tight lips are a sign of agitation—a signal that the animal was stressed. Like humans, great apes have many different facial expressions that reveal what they are feeling. When a gorilla stands tense on his knuckles with shoulders high and lips tucked in tight, he is ready to intimidate whatever is threatening him.
    .....................
    I keep hearing on the news and on social media that the gorilla appeared to be trying to protect the boy from the yelling onlookers. I do not think this was the case. Harambe reaches for the boys’ hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes. Males perform very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about, as Harambe did with the young child. Typically, male gorillas in captivity (and in the wild) will drag around large branches, barrels, and heavy-weighted balls to make as much noise as possible—not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually), but just to intimidate. It is clear to me from Harambe’s body language that he was reacting to the screams from the gathering crowd and possibly from the child himself.

    Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first—again, due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent.
    ................