U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 05-30-2016, 12:43 PM
12,408 posts, read 7,457,768 times
Reputation: 23248


Originally Posted by WiseManOnceSaid View Post
Gorillas don't have the intelligence that humans do, never will. I'm sure you're confused with Hollywood and it's portrayals of intelligent apes, sadly, they aren't as smart. If they were, we wouldn't be able to keep them as pets.
Who keeps gorillas as pets?

Old 05-30-2016, 12:44 PM
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,759 posts, read 5,435,621 times
Reputation: 8321
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Anyone remember this incident?

CNN.com - Crocodile hunter escapes charges - Jan. 5, 2004
Old 05-30-2016, 12:45 PM
1,677 posts, read 2,050,473 times
Reputation: 5490
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
It has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with protecting people from a witch-hunt mentality driven by (a) a ridiculous assessment of the value of an ANIMAL'S life and (b) ridiculous expectations that parents are on 24/7 watch-tower duty like they're in charge of a prison and if one single solitary second exists which they can't account for and an unforeseen incident occurs we should burn them at the stake, fine them $1,593,234,297 dollars, adopt their children out to people who ARE willing to be on 24/7 watch-tower duty and have them fired from their jobs and have them be the first name on the National Scarlet Letter Registry.
When you take your small children to a public place, sorry, but you SHOULD be on watch tower duty. They're your children and your responsibility. It's no one else's job to monitor your kids' safety while you're "distracted," by your phone, picking boogers, or anything else. It's YOUR job. If you cannot manage to keep your children under control in public, then keep them at home. Too many people think that strangers in public places are obligated to tolerate their out of control brats and want to get indignant when they see that not everybody thinks their precious darling is as adorable as they do.

And we're not talking about a kid slipped out of his mother's grasp and tumbled accidentally into an enclosure, or who suddenly darted off and knocked someone over. This kid managed to climb through barriers, shrubbery, DELIBERATELY, then drop 12 feet into a moat while his mother was in a daze somewhere. And even though it's "just" a gorilla, this living creature lost his life because of her negligence.
Old 05-30-2016, 12:46 PM
Location: New Jersey
12,775 posts, read 7,795,570 times
Reputation: 13083
Originally Posted by MoNative34 View Post
My god.
I think it's a good idea.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember the 1950s. People had very large families compared to today. For instance, I'm one of seven kids. Many people had more.

Walking around to do shopping, it was pretty standard practice to have kids on leashes. One mother just couldn't keep up with five little kids all by herself. No one thought it was odd.

Now, with one or two kids, I don't think that is necessary for ordinary tasks like shopping or taking a walk, but in a situation like a zoo or amusement park, or other places with crowds of people and interesting things for kids to see, using a harness might save a kid getting lost, getting snatched, or falling into a gorilla or lion pit.

Which is worse, do you think?
Old 05-30-2016, 12:46 PM
9,664 posts, read 15,796,249 times
Reputation: 15992
It was a sad day at the zoo, but could have been worse. Given such a choice, the zookeeper did the right thing. Human life takes priority over animal life! I'm just surprised that, in today's environment, he was even allowed to carry a gun! Great shot!
Old 05-30-2016, 12:46 PM
Location: 60630
12,224 posts, read 17,926,900 times
Reputation: 11666
Both the Zoo and the parents are to blame for this. The parents for not keeping a better eye on their child. I have a 2 year old and it is very very easy to not have your eyes on her every second of the day. It's impossible actually. But obviously nowdays people are so distracted by other gadgets ( cell phone ) , and that just makes things worse.
It's also the Zoo's fault. They need to have child proof protective barriers just in case a parents are not paying attention.
Old 05-30-2016, 12:49 PM
Location: CasaMo
15,468 posts, read 7,476,171 times
Reputation: 16824
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00 View Post
So because one child (only 1!) has ever somehow managed to get past the barriers because of a negligent mother, all parents and toddlers must be punished?
Exactly. Restraining harnesses is about as knee jerk reaction as there is.

Imagine how screwed up that would be for a parent holding on to a rope harnessed to a kid because "that's the rule".
Old 05-30-2016, 12:52 PM
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,191 posts, read 4,093,663 times
Reputation: 17950
Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot View Post
It's also the Zoo's fault. They need to have child proof protective barriers just in case a parents are not paying attention.
I'm sure the zoo will be redesigning its safety barriers for that exhibit. But it's actually really hard to design barriers that are 100% certain to defeat the efforts of an idiot or an ignorant member of the public. You know for sure if the barrier fails that it wasn't up to the job, but if no incidents occur is that because the barrier is 100% effective, or does it simply mean it hasn't yet been tested in a way that would reveal its weak spot? It's not an easy design challenge!
Old 05-30-2016, 12:56 PM
Location: The sleepy part of New York City
1,913 posts, read 1,187,385 times
Reputation: 4259
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
Humans do more damage to their children then any animal species does to their offspring. You can see the video of the Gorilla putting & standing over the child. Again IF the Gorilla wanted the boy dead he could of done so long before they shot him. So why didn't he?

Why didn't he just snap the child's neck? Or slam him up against the wall?

Yes, thankfully the child is alive we should be thankful for that.

Nobody knows how the gorilla would have behaved. Not me, not you, not professionals. Nobody. Yes, it didn't kill the child but nobody can say for certainty that it wouldn't have killed the child 5 mins. later or killed the boy if they tried to remove him, or even killed whomever tried to remove the child. The gorilla was stressed because it had this little being in it's enclosure and all the people up top were screaming. It even looked confused in the video.

What other option were you considering? Leave the child with the gorilla until the gorilla get's tired of it?

I'm pro animal but I think in this case the zoo really had no choice.
Old 05-30-2016, 12:56 PM
Location: New Jersey
12,775 posts, read 7,795,570 times
Reputation: 13083
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:48 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top