Support NeoGAF

[knkng]

you would actually then sue them for damages?

I suppose in that situation it might be covered by insurance, but if not, of course I would sue for damages. I might let it slide if it was just a couple hundred. But a new bumper casing, headlight, windshield, dented hood...that stuff is expensive. Who do you think is responsible for that?

 

[GamingOblivion]

Man. I can't wrap my head around this. What?

Not that I agree with what he is saying but I want to play devil's advocate hre. What's so bad about what he is saying?

 

[Poona]

Man. I can't wrap my head around this. What?

What's confusing? I care more about my dog too than some random kid in shim sham Walla Walla Bing bang, or wherever.

Downright scary...

Scary how? If you care more about some random kid who you don't know over a dog who depends on you, I wonder why you'd even have a dog in the first place.

 

[ramparter]

I blame the zoo the most, a four year old was able to climb and get in???

Also didnt we have that iiot that went into the lions recently?

 

[akira28]

I suppose in that situation it might be covered by insurance, but if not, of course I would sue for damages. I might let it slide if it was just a couple hundred. But a new bumper casing, headlight, windshield, dented hood...that stuff is expensive. Who do you think is responsible for that?

"your kid's dead? your kid totaled my car, lady!"

 

[knkng]

"your kid's dead? your kid totaled my car, lady!"

It would obviously be sent through a lawyer after discussing the matter with the insurance company. Why are you making this out to be some sort of bizarre situation? Just because somebody dies doesn't mean their guardian or estate isn't responsible for outstanding bills. I could tell you some stories of paying through the teeth to settle up a dead guy's estate, but this isn't the place for that.

My point was simply, even in a situation where the parent is overwhelmed, that doesn't equate to a shift in responsibility. It's the duty of the parent to alleviate the situation (for which I gave some suggestions previously), and not for society to erect giant walls and fences everywhere.

 

[numble]

It would obviously be sent through a lawyer after discussing the matter with the insurance company. Why are you making this out to be some sort of bizarre situation? Just because somebody dies doesn't mean their guardian or estate isn't responsible for outstanding bills. I could tell you some stories of paying through the teeth to settle up a dead guy's estate, but this isn't the place for that.

My point was simply, even in a situation where the parent is overwhelmed, that doesn't equate to a shift in responsibility. It's the duty of the parent to alleviate the situation (for which I gave some suggestions previously), and not for society to erect giant walls and fences everywhere.

In most US states, the driver would likely be found liable for not paying attention to the road. You are supposed to pay attention to potential pedestrians entering the road.

 

[strafer]

That gorilla wasnt going to do shit to that kid. They are smart enough to know that it was a kid and were not a threat.

 

[knkng]

In most US states, the driver would likely be found liable for not paying attention to the road. You are supposed to pay attention to potential pedestrians entering the road.

Only on certain roads, such as in residential or school areas with reduced limits (where I live, at least). A lot of the roads in my city are 60/70/80 km/h, where there is no reasonable expectation for drivers to avoid pedestrians suddenly entering the road. Jump onto these roads and you're either dead, or will cause a horrendous crash in order for the car to avoid you. When walking your kids along these dangerous roads, you must be fully alert and capable of managing their movements. I would argue that the same precautions should be taken when at a place such as the zoo (even ignoring the whole gorilla thing, a young child can be lost so easily among the crowds).

 

[Machina]

Congratulations on being a horrible human being.

The Dog will live for 12-15 years and be a positive, loving influence for all of those years (that is unless, you're a human who trains the dog to be a savage guard dog that will rip a childs face off). The kid has a 50/50 chance of growing up to be a dick. That might be the cynical cunt way of looking at things but that's what it is. Considering that we all know how neglectful the parents are, it's conceivable that they won't do a very good job of raising him. And probably still won't after all this. As soon as the world forgets this story, regularly scheduled programming will resume.

 

[Dad]

The Dog will live for 12-15 years and be a positive, loving influence for all of those years (that is unless, you're a human who trains the dog to be a savage guard dog that will rip a childs face off). The kid has a 50/50 chance of growing up to be a dick. That might be the cynical cunt way of looking at things but that's what it is. Considering that we all know how neglectful the parents are, it's conceivable that they won't do a very good job of raising him. And probably still won't after all this. As soon as the world forgets this story, regularly scheduled programming will resume.

im struggling to tell if this is sarcasm or not

 

[Gravy Boat]

When your kid tells you beforehand that he wants to jump down into the enclosure, would you not grip the kid away from that place? All she did was say 'no don't do that' but didn't take any further precaution.

Have you ever met a 4 year old? They talk an incredible amount of nonsense. If my daugthter told me she was going to play with a gorilla my first thought would be to laugh at her silly comments, not to fear that she was actually going to do it. Kids say stupid stuff all the time, you and they would live miserable existences if you took everything they said literally.

The Dog will live for 12-15 years and be a positive, loving influence for all of those years (that is unless, you're a human who trains the dog to be a savage guard dog that will rip a childs face off). The kid has a 50/50 chance of growing up to be a dick. That might be the cynical cunt way of looking at things but that's what it is. Considering that we all know how neglectful the parents are, it's conceivable that they won't do a very good job of raising him. And probably still won't after all this. As soon as the world forgets this story, regularly scheduled programming will resume.

What in the world are you basing that on? Because of this once incident they're terrible parents who will do a terrible job of raising him? You're literally making stuff up here.

 

[computers putin']

The Dog will live for 12-15 years and be a positive, loving influence for all of those years (that is unless, you're a human who trains the dog to be a savage guard dog that will rip a childs face off). The kid has a 50/50 chance of growing up to be a dick. That might be the cynical cunt way of looking at things but that's what it is. Considering that we all know how neglectful the parents are, it's conceivable that they won't do a very good job of raising him. And probably still won't after all this. As soon as the world forgets this story, regularly scheduled programming will resume.

Hahahaha

The backseat parents, the backseat zookeepers(tranq the gorilla lol) and misanthropes are killing it in this thread.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I love how in threads like these suddenly half of GAF are Animal Behaviorists and have a PhD in parent psychology.

 

[freenudemacusers]

I love how in threads like these suddenly half of GAF are Animal Behaviorists and have a PhD in parent psychology.

Miserable People getting their moment to shine.this thread. Yeesh.

 

[RevenWolf]

What's confusing? I care more about my dog too than some random kid in shim sham Walla Walla Bing bang, or wherever.




Scary how? If you care more about some random kid who you don't know over a dog who depends on you, I wonder why you'd even have a dog in the first place.

There's a pretty big difference between caring about your dog more, and literally deciding that your dog has more right to be alive than a child.

I mean such a train of thought is legit disturbing and more than a little scary.

 

[Vagabundo]

What's confusing? I care more about my dog too than some random kid in shim sham Walla Walla Bing bang, or wherever.




Scary how? If you care more about some random kid who you don't know over a dog who depends on you, I wonder why you'd even have a dog in the first place.

Some people* value human life above animal life, even people we don't know. There is no dog worth a human kid, its no contest.

*by some people I mean most of planet earth.

 

[echoshifting]

This thread went straight off the deep end the minute someone weighed the life of a human child against the life of their dog. I don't think it will recover.

 

[Ray Wonder]

This thread went straight off the deep end the minute someone weighed the life of a human child against the life of their dog. I don't think it will recover.

It would be tough for me to say "Yes, those 10,000 house pet dogs can live, kill that child instead."

I don't think I could make that choice. I'd still pick the kid.

 

[RevenWolf]

It would be tough for me to say "Yes, those 10,000 house pet dogs can live, kill that child instead."

I don't think I could make that choice. I'd still pick the kid.

Yup, but don't get me wrong such a decision would haunt me for a long time, even if it was at a smaller scale.

Having power to decide such things seems truly horrible.

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

That gorilla wasnt going to do shit to that kid. They are smart enough to know that it was a kid and were not a threat.

Purposely I don't think the gorilla was going to harm the kid but he is a wild animal who has been caged in setting that is not his natural habitat and has had to deal with millions of strangers looking at him for years. Was it the right call to kill the gorilla? I don't know I just hope the kids parents face some sort of legal punishment and hopefully the kid is ok but poor gorilla man, fucked up situation across the board.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Congratulations on being a horrible human being.

Saving something I've raised essentially from birth over a random human doesn't make me a horrible human being. Humans don't inherently have more worth than an animal.

 

[entremet]

Saving something I've raised essentially from birth over a random human doesn't make me a horrible human being. Humans don't inherently have more worth than an animal.

Well value is ultimately subjective so the argument will reach an impasse.

Also even if your a vegan, we still are so interconnected that animals dying has been something we've accepted for our survival.

From animal testing, medical research, pest control, feeding populations that provide cheap goods and labor to our benefit.

So yes, we have decided that human life is more valuable by our societal behaviors.

 

[Dunlop]

This thread went straight off the deep end the minute someone weighed the life of a human child against the life of their dog. I don't think it will recover.

Live my dog, married into a dog family.

If I had to choose between then and a child, I would always choose the child. It's crazy that it is even debatable

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Well value is ultimately subjective so the argument will reach an impasse.

Also even if your a vegan, we still are so interconnected that animals dying has been something we've accepted for our survival.

I didn't say that I'd save any animal over a human. There are literally two animals on the entire earth I'd save before a stranger. It isn't about the fact that they're animals. It's about what I have more of an emotional connection to.

Nothing you said there means that humans have more worth, all it means is that they care less about the comfort of other species as long as it furthers their own. Just because society does something doesn't always mean it's right.

I also find it hard to believe that even people who do animal testing or medical reseach would volunteer their personal pets for those tests.

 

[tycoonheart]

Man. I can't wrap my head around this. What?

It's not hard to understand. People have better emotional attachment with their pets than random strangers

 

[entremet]

I didn't say that I'd save any animal over a human. There are literally two animals on the entire earth I'd save before a stranger. It isn't about the fact that they're animals. It's about what I have more of an emotional connection to.

Nothing you said there means that humans have more worth, all it means is that they care less about the comfort of other species as long as it furthers their own. Just because society does something doesn't always mean it's right.

You still haven't defined worth tho?

Because by our behavior, most human societies have absolutely decided that we are more valuable than animals by our priorities and behaviors.

Nothing wrong with in species preference, animals do the same thing.

Your pet argument is moot because millions of pets animals are euthanized yearly. That would never fly for humans.

 

[Vagabundo]

I didn't say that I'd save any animal over a human. There are literally two animals on the entire earth I'd save before a stranger. It isn't about the fact that they're animals. It's about what I have more of an emotional connection to.

Nothing you said there means that humans have more worth, all it means is that they care less about the comfort of other species as long as it furthers their own. Just because society does something doesn't always mean it's right.

I also find it hard to believe that even people who do animal testing or medical reseach would volunteer their personal pets for those tests.

You are ship wreaked. Your precious family dog survives and a random child in a cot washes up on the beach. There is no food. While waiting for rescue do you:

a) Feed the baby to the dog.
b) Feed the dog to the baby.
c) Eat both.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You still haven't defined worth tho?

Because by our behavior, most human societies have absolutely decided that we are more valuable than animals by our priorities and behaviors.

Nothing wrong with in species preference, animals do the same thing.

Your pet argument is moot because millions of pets are euthanized yearly. That would never fly for humans.

You can't define worth. It's constantly shifting from person to person and it constantly shifts from generation to generation. That was my point in saying that a human life doesn't inherently have more worth than an animal in the first place. Us deciding that humans are worth more than animals isn't inherent. It was a guideline of society that was made up, which is something that constantly shifts. You could make dozens of arguments about how society felt about things in the past that have changed throughout time.

You keep listing shit that happens, but just because humans allow something to happen doesn't mean it's morally right.

You are ship wreaked. Your precious family dog survives and a random child in a cot washes up on the beach. There is no food. While waiting for rescue do you:

a) Feed the baby to the dog.
b) Feed the dog to the baby.
c) Eat both.

Whatever keeps my dog safe. I'm not killing my dog just to feed him to a random baby.

 

[entremet]

You can't define worth. It's constantly shifting from person to person and it constantly shifts from generation to generation. That was my point in saying that a human life doesn't inherently have more worth than an animal in the first place. Us deciding that humans are worth more than animals isn't inherent. It was a guideline of society that was made up, which is something that constantly shifts. You could make dozens of arguments about how society felt about things in the past that have changed throughout time.

You keep listing shit that happens, but just because humans allow something to happen doesn't mean it's morally right.

I'm not defining morality. I'm explaining current behavior.

And most of your arguments use pets as an example. Pets make up a tiny portion of animal life and even they are mistreated and abandoned frequently.

Worth means nothing without action proving that worth. That's all I'm saying.

Doesn't mean things stay static. That's not my argument.

But yes current human behavior has shown that we absolutely value human life over animal life as a whole.

I'm not taking about your dog.

 

[Pinko Marx]

You are ship wreaked. Your precious family dog survives and a random child in a cot washes up on the beach. There is no food. While waiting for rescue do you:

a) Feed the baby to the dog.
b) Feed the dog to the baby.
c) Eat both.

Ship wrecked? A dog can at least hunt and fight other animals. A baby does absolutely nothing useful. Bad analogy.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Live my dog, married into a dog family.

If I had to choose between then and a child, I would always choose the child. It's crazy that it is even debatable

I honestly don't think it is debateable, even among the most misanthropic types here. It's just another manifestation of "internet tough guy" syndrome.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Ship wrecked? A dog can at least hunt and fight other animals. A baby does absolutely nothing useful. Bad analogy.

Are you gonna eat the baby bro?

I'm imagining the scenario with my old dog, and the dog is getting eaten. I couldn't imagine ever breaking to the point where I'd eat the baby. Even talking about it makes me queasy.

That's too deep into the caveman part of my survival instinct for me to morally be able to admit though.

 

[TaterTots]

I feel like we're assholes for taking wild animals, locking them up for our amusement and then putting them down when someone hops the fence. The gorilla was being a gorilla and was killed for it. However, if the boy was seriously injured or killed putting it down would be the best call. If the kid was lucky enough to have a few cuts and bruises then let it live. Otherwise, it's not like you taught the gorilla a lesson.

Also, what is up with these zoo stories lately? I feel like better structures and security needs to be implemented.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I'm not defining morality. I'm explaining current behavior.

And most of your arguments use pets as an example. Pets make up a tiny portion of animal life and even they are mistreated and abandoned frequently.

Worth means nothing without action proving that worth. That's all I'm saying.

Doesn't mean things stay static. That's not my argument.

Just because other people treat pets poorly doesn't mean it's right or that they should have less worth. Pointing out that other people mistreat them doesn't mean that society viewing them as having lower worth is right.

All you're doing is listing societal standards as if they don't change. Them currently being one way doesn't really speak to if that way is right or wrong.

This doesn't even get into the fact that if you do mistreat a pet, and someone finds out, legally you could get in trouble for doing so. So it's already in place that mistreating an animal is against societal standards.

Worth is compeltely subjective, and worth shifts over time for both individuals and over arching society. Again, claiming that society as a whole values animals less right now doesn't really mean that it's right.

 

[derExperte]

The Dog will live for 12-15 years and be a positive, loving influence for all of those years

Or annoy the crap out of the whole neighborhood because he's barking day and night and everyone wants to brutally murder him and the owner. I'd have thrown a few dozen puppies into the gorilla's cage if it meant saving him and the kid.

Yep. I mean, at least take another adult with you.

Zoos aren't known to be deathtraps, it's usually a very safe place and who knows what the personal circumstances were. At the end of the day parents are obviously responsible and should be held accountable but even with the best intentions accidents happen everywhere all the time and personally I'd prefer someone doing activities like this over parents placing their children in front of a TV. Also more adults wouldn't have meant 100% security, young children are friggin' fast and elusive.

 

[jond76]

Jack Hanna weighed in and said they did the right thing. That's good enough for me.

Once I saw the video of the gorilla dragging the kid around through the water... That could have been tragic.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

There are many who argue that we already spend so much time, money, and effort protecting a species like the panda which would have died out a long time ago due to no fault of humans. They eat food that gives them very little energy, have no natural predators, and require an immense amount of work to provoke into procreation. Short of the cute factor and the national pride they bring, I don't know that I'd say a panda's life is more important at all.

Umm, we were the ones that invaded their habitats killing them for fur and meat at a rate unsustainable. How is it due to no fault of us?

The giant panda lives in a few mountain ranges in central China, mainly in Sichuan province, but also in neighbouring provinces, namely Shaanxi and Gansu.[7] As a result of farming, deforestation, and other development, the giant panda has been driven out of the lowland areas where it once lived.

Yea, no fault there, nope. none. Zero. Crazy how I could think anything else, really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda

The giant panda has been a target of poaching by locals since ancient times and by foreigners since it was introduced to the West. Starting in the 1930s, foreigners were unable to poach giant pandas in China because of the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, but pandas remained a source of soft furs for the locals. The population boom in China after 1949 created stress on the pandas' habitat, and the subsequent famines led to the increased hunting of wildlife, including pandas. During the Cultural Revolution, all studies and conservation activities on the pandas were stopped. After the Chinese economic reform, demand for panda skins from Hong Kong and Japan led to illegal poaching for the black market, acts generally ignored by the local officials at the time.

Didn't do a god damn thing, yup.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Are you gonna eat the baby bro?

I'm imagining the scenario with my old dog, and the dog is getting eaten. I couldn't imagine ever breaking to the point where I'd eat the baby. Even talking about it makes me queasy.

That's too deep into the caveman part of my survival instinct for me to morally be able to admit though.

Idk wtf I'd do in that situation. I can't fathom ever being in a spot where I'd have to make such a choice. I'm just saying though that a dog has natural instincts that would make living in the wild a little easier. A baby would just cry and poop and eat food.

 

[Vagabundo]

Whatever keeps my dog safe. I'm not killing my dog just to feed him to a random baby.

So would kill the baby to feed the dog? Because the dog is going to die of starvation before the baby in this scenario.

 

[entremet]

Just because other people treat pets poorly doesn't mean it's right or that they should have less worth. Pointing out that other people mistreat them doesn't mean that society viewing them as having lower worth is right.

All you're doing is listing societal standards as if they don't change. Them currently being one way doesn't really speak to if that way is right or wrong.

This doesn't even get into the fact that if you do mistreat a pet, and someone finds out, legally you could get in trouble for doing so. So it's already in place that mistreating an animal is against societal standards.

Worth is compeltely subjective, and worth shifts over time for both individuals and over arching society. Again, claiming that society as a whole values animals less right now doesn't really mean that it's right.

I never stated things don't change. But even pets serve a very selfish human desire. Not that selfishness is inherently evil.

We keep pets because they serve a utility. I love pets as well but I could never think about treating another human the same since humans are sovereign.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Same here, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Some random person's kid means absolutely nothing to me as cold as that sounds.

So if your dog was mauling the fuck out of someone else's child who just had the audacity to go near it but not bother it, you are just like..oh well? Your dog first? That sound right to you? Or even worst, if you were getting mauled by someone else's dog, you think you should die and allow to owner to sit there and watch you die? I mean.....how far does this line of thinking go? Should the mailman die because the owners who are supposed to keep an watchful eye on their dogs don't and that causes irreparable damage to the mailman who's only doing his job? What if the dog jumps over the fence which is about normal for some dogs, and starts running down the street attacking people? Dog life first?

This is not being cold. This is just being ignorant..point blank period.

 

[Dunlop]

Jack Hanna weighed in and said they did the right thing. That's good enough for me.

Once I saw the video of the gorilla dragging the kid around through the water... That could have been tragic.

They really had no choice at all. Had they tried a different non lethal tactic that resulted in the kid's death the zoo probably would have been closed down for a long time.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

So would kill the baby to feed the dog? Because the dog is going to die of starvation before the baby in this scenario.

No, I wouldn't kill anyone. If anything I'd probably find a way to cut off something of my own if it came down to it and feed the dog.

Either way, this is such a ridiculous senerio that it hardly has any worth to the conversation. The odds that this would ever happen are astronomically low.

 

[numble]

I don't know sometimes, though. Like what if a kid got into a panda exhibit?

7billion of us. Only around 3,000 of them.

I'd say one panda's life is more important than one human's life at that stage.

Pandas are generally docile and I don't think I would kill a kid for wandering into a panda habitat. Even more so for domesticated pandas.

There are many who argue that we already spend so much time, money, and effort protecting a species like the panda which would have died out a long time ago due to no fault of humans. They eat food that gives them very little energy, have no natural predators, and require an immense amount of work to provoke into procreation. Short of the cute factor and the national pride they bring, I don't know that I'd say a panda's life is more important at all.

Umm, we were the ones that invaded their habitats killing them for fur and meat at a rate unsustainable. How is it due to no fault of us?

I would say poaching and meat are very minor compared to the loss of habitat (which is caused by humans, yes). It doesn't help to be inaccurate.

 

[Vagabundo]

No, I wouldn't kill anyone. If anything I'd probably find a way to cut off something of my own if it came down to it and feed the dog.

Either way, this is such a ridiculous senerio that it hardly has any worth to the conversation. The odds that this would ever happen are astronomically low.

I'm just interested in how far you'd go to protect your dog.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Pandas are generally docile and I don't think I would kill a kid for wandering into a panda habitat. Even more so for domesticated pandas.





I would say poaching and meat are very minor compared to the loss of habitat (which is caused by humans, yes). It doesn't help to be inaccurate.

I edited.

 

[mrkgoo]

I'm just interested in how far you'd go to protect your dog.

Cutting off part of yourself to feed your dog is pretty far.

But I agree these hypothetical scenarios are stupid. Would I cut off my leg to feed my starving kid? I don't know. It's a stupid scenario.

 

[99hertz]

I eat a lot. The baby and the dog are goners,

 

[taoofjord]

Miserable People getting their moment to shine.this thread. Yeesh.

The great thing about this thread is that it really helps you fill up your ignore list.