200 lb. chimp attacks woman after being given Xanax
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.
Plus, I think it's funny that you would think people wouldn't want to be friends with someone just based on the type of animal they own.
Why is that weird? Would you work for an employer that has a known unsafe assembly line? Would you work for someone who's a known ongoing wife abuser? Child abuser? (not in rehab) If you were a vegan would you work at a slaughterhouse? We pick our friends and who we work for based on all sorts of moral, cultural, ethical, beliefs as well as safety concerns. I strongly disagree with owning exotics. So why would I befriend or work with one? Would I choose to work somewhere really dangerous? No. Seems a perfectly normal decision for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina
It is! Do a little reading on the subject.
I don't believe owning the chimp was illegal - so whats your point?
Personally think sue'ing the state, even the owner, over the chimp attack is BS. She had to know the risks, especially as she claims the state knew there were problems because of previous reports - well so did she.
"She deserved to be raped because she was wearing suggestive clothing and drinking!"
"She deserved to be raped because she was wearing suggestive clothing and drinking!"
Yeah, blame the victim.
Not the same thing at all. She's a human being that made choices. I suppose you think that people who text while driving and have an accident should be able to sue the state because the state didn't put them in jail before that happened?
Basically you do something stupid expect consequences. It not like they were 17 and didn't have the life experiences to have a clue. If I were a taxpayer in that state I would not think it right that the state would have to pay out for something they did willingly and knowing the risk. People need to take responsibility for their choices.
Come up with a better argument
Not the same thing at all. She's a human being that made choices. I suppose you think that people who text while driving and have an accident should be able to sue the state because the state didn't put them in jail before that happened?
Strawman. Fail.
Quote:
Basically you do something stupid expect consequences. It not like they were 17 and didn't have the life experiences to have a clue. If I were a taxpayer in that state I would not think it right that the state would have to pay out for something they did willingly and knowing the risk. People need to take responsibility for their choices.
Of course they need to take responsibility for choices. But if you think the victim is 100% at fault here, and the chimp's owner has no culpability, then you're the one with no clue.
Quote:
Come up with a better argument
I don't have to; you're the one with the invalid argument above.
I saw her on the Today show the other day and she took off her veil that she wears so not to scare people (it was a clip from her being interviewed on Oprah). Omg...I cried.
I have never seen anyone w/ that much facial damage. Her spirit is truly amazing.
Of course they need to take responsibility for choices. But if you think the victim is 100% at fault here, and the chimp's owner has no culpability, then you're the one with no clue.
I don't have to; you're the one with the invalid argument above.
God this is juvenile. Hey, feel free to send them money. Go help her out with her new chimp.
I don't believe owning the chimp was illegal - so whats your point?
Did I write that it was illegal? No, I did not.
You wrote "this needs to be legislated!" What exactly do you think needs to "legislated!"?
What's my point? Your arguments are all over the board, bouncing from one idea to another. They are ill-founded, emotional and argumentative. And almost always you find it impossible to refrain from sarcasm. Your contributions to this thread are a prime example of that.
Laws exist in almost every state regarding the keeping and rehabilitation of wildlife. If you had done the least little bit of reading before writing "this needs to be legislated!" you would've known that. That's another point.
Why is that weird? Would you work for an employer that has a known unsafe assembly line? Would you work for someone who's a known ongoing wife abuser? Child abuser? (not in rehab) If you were a vegan would you work at a slaughterhouse? We pick our friends and who we work for based on all sorts of moral, cultural, ethical, beliefs as well as safety concerns. I strongly disagree with owning exotics. So why would I befriend or work with one? Would I choose to work somewhere really dangerous? No. Seems a perfectly normal decision for me.
Not everyone has the luxury of chosing their jobs based on their moral, cultural or ethical beliefs. Some people simply need to put food on the table.
Why is that weird? Would you work for an employer that has a known unsafe assembly line? Would you work for someone who's a known ongoing wife abuser? Child abuser? (not in rehab) If you were a vegan would you work at a slaughterhouse? We pick our friends and who we work for based on all sorts of moral, cultural, ethical, beliefs as well as safety concerns. I strongly disagree with owning exotics. So why would I befriend or work with one? Would I choose to work somewhere really dangerous? No. Seems a perfectly normal decision for me.
you seem to have forgotten what you wrote. i'll help jog your memory:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giesela
Who would be friends with someone who had a chimp?
didn't have anything to do with working for someone. if you want to explain how you didn't mean what you wrote, used the wrong words, and are being misunderstood, feel free.
but you wrote "who would be friends with someone who had a chimp?" and now you are jumping on people for calling you out on your ridiculous question.
Quote:
I don't believe owning the chimp was illegal - so whats your point?
again, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote. you said that it needs to be legislated. it is legislated. do you understand the meaning of the word?
people need to read up a bit before they start posting things. all it would take is 30 seconds worth of a google search and you would realize that this is already controlled by certain laws.
**********
many people make the fallacious mistake, especially where anything dangerous (exotic pets, guns, vehicles, etc) are concerned, that if a tragedy happens, it means that there is not enough governmental control in the works within that certain topic.
legislated restrictions and bans do not create perfect safety. there will always be tragedy, even with the most restrictive and tyrannical laws possible. laws can only dissuade people from doing stupid things and punish those that proceed to do them anyway.
therefore, when loads of people jump on a gun-control, dog-control, chimp-control, or any other kind of restriction-promoting bandwagon in direct response to a tragedy, it is usually because they have not thought critically about the situation, and it is based off of logically fallacious thought.
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.
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.
