Support NeoGAF

[mikefrails]

I swear the people against zoos are probably just one step away from declaring owning a pet dog/cat as being equivalent to owning a slave.

We beat them and force them to provide us with some sort of service, whether it be guarding us or responding emotionally.

 

[vainglorious]

I'm confused here are you trying to say pets have no emotional value? I can't love my pet? My dog had a tumor and it cost me alot to get it removed, should I just say "fuck it, its a pet no fucks given?"

I really don't understand this lack of value people are putting on pets, when I was younger my dog was instrumental in getting me through some of my darkest days. I can't imagine treating it like a piece of garbage with no meaning. I don't know what I would do if I got put in a situation where I had to choose between a human and my dog but there would certainly be alot of hesitation going on.

No one is suggesting that pets do not have value to their respective owners. The argument, again, is that the decision to put greater value on the life of your pet versus the life of a human being, is fundamentally emotional and irrational. Because you are prioritizing the consequences of your decision in terms of how it will directly effect you and your emotional well being, ie not wanting to experience the loss of a pet versus allowing a family to experience the loss of their child.

Hypothetical situation. A dock with your child and another persons pet dog collapses into the ocean and both begin to drown. If the only capable and able person in this scenario was the dogs owner, and chose to save their dog over your child, which resulted in the death of your child, would you feel that that person made the correct ethical choice?

That person consciously decided that their grief over the loss of a pet was of greater importance and took precedent over the grief of a parent losing their child. If you feel that they made the correct choice, well, that's your prerogative but it's not a good one.

 

[Byakuya769]

Because it seems illogical and short sighted to me to cause the extinction of an entire animal species for the life of one human being on a planet of over 7 billion human beings. Does that make sense to you to eradicate an animal species to save a human life? I get the gut instinct reaction to save the human life, but logically it doesn't add up for me.

There's hardly any intrinsic value to the lone specimen of a species surviving, as the species no longer has the numbers to influence an ecology anyway (and any reintroduction over time, may in fact change an already transitioned ecological system in a way that does not recreate the original system you're trying to emulate). Not sure why people are straining to mask their preference as logic.

 

[LaMagenta]

it's sad the gorilla had to die, but it was the gorilla or the child.

 

[Azuran]

What are your feelings about war, disease, famine, and genocide?

The worst of the worst especially since most of those are brought forth by fellow humans. Furthermore, most people really don't care at all about the specific people that die during those events meaning they're nothing more than an statistic in the end. And even when it's just one person dying of hunger, they still don't care seeing the large number of people that inconsiderably walk by a homeless person asking for food.

Human empathy doesn't work that way. It works the way it did here, where humans put the life of a child over the life of a gorilla. As they are right to do. And no amount of 'the gorilla didn't want to hurt the child' nonsense will offset that.

I'm not putting the life of that kid over some random gorilla. I'm just saying that I don't believe ALL human life is worth saving.

And yes, according to some in this thread, I have "mental issues" and need help because I gladly save my cat who I have known for over 10 years instead of another person.

Are you some sort of a machine? If that child had died, would you be the one to say to the parents that "one death won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it"?

I don't think so considering I care a lot about the people that are part of my life.

The big difference is that I have no emotional attachment to that kid and his family which means he would just have been a random death to me. Furthermore, just because I really don't care doesn't mean I have to be an asshole to the people that lost someone.

 

[psynergylover]

Wow I didn't think would go on for so long, anyone care to give me a recap?

 

[Sami+]

Wow I didn't think would go on for so long, anyone care to give me a recap?

Kid fell into the pit because the railing was really low and he's like four years old

Gorilla got shot because he could tear through a child like paper if agitated, it was a dangerous situation, and they figured at the end of the day killing an animal is justified if it means saving a human child

Also some dudes in here would proudly let a human kid die if it meant saving their dog

That's all I got

 

[mrkgoo]

Wow I didn't think would go on for so long, anyone care to give me a recap?

Same thing for 30 pages.

People fundamentally have different view points so people are mostly talking to the wind.

There are also multiple discussions.

One is about value of human life over animal life. Another about responsibilities of a parent. Responsibilities of a zoo. Zoos in general.
Edit: oh yeah, the effectiveness of tranquillisers, animal behaviour, and gorillas in general.

 

[mrkgoo]

The worst of the worst especially since most of those are brought forth by fellow humans. Furthermore, most people really don't care at all about the specific people that die during those events meaning they're nothing more than an statistic in the end. And even when it's just one person dying of hunger, they still don't care seeing the large number of people that inconsiderably walk by a homeless person asking for food.



I'm not putting the life of that kid over some random gorilla. I'm just saying that I don't believe ALL human life is worth saving.

And yes, according to some in this thread, I have "mental issues" and need help because I gladly save my cat who I have known for over 10 years instead of another person.



I don't think so considering I care a lot about the people that are part of my life.

The big difference is that I have no emotional attachment to that kid and his family which means he would just have been a random death to me. Furthermore, just because I really don't care doesn't mean I have to be an asshole to the people that lost someone.

I do get loving a pet more than a random person. But just to throw it out there, would you be understanding if a stranger chose to save their pet over someone you knew in such a situation?

 

[mckmas8808]

I think most people would be satisfied with her just admitting she was at least partly responsible for what happened and maybe just acknowledge the fact that her inattentiveness cost an animal its life.

Instead she thanked god for saving her son and claimed she was a good parent...

Who do you know she isn't a good parent?

And could it be possible that it wasn't her inattentiveness, but a bad fence that cost an animal's life?

 

[vainglorious]

I can see a variety of times when the saving of an animal over a human wouldn't be the strangest or more controversial outcome. A blind man or woman who relies on a seeing eye dog as their constant companion would need that creature to help them with both the most mundane of activities to those that are vital for getting by in the world. This creature is basically their liaison with the rest of the world and damn near an extension of the person themselves.

I can easily see this person saving their dog over a random persons child, its not just a pet, its that persons way of living their life in a somewhat normal fashion and while saving it might be a very emotional experience for all those involved, its not just done based purely on emotion. A seeing eye dog is takes a huge amount of training from a very young age and a large investment from everyone involved from trainer to owner, its not just a dog that makes them feel good, its their life.

...okay?

You are inventing additional, more exaggerated, hypothetical situations to hide your preference and initial response.

 

[mckmas8808]

https://www.change.org/p/cincinnati-zoo-justice-for-harambe

I say its a tad much, a fine and a better fence would be enough.

And how much would this fine be?

 

[entremet]

Good, so you agree with me that there are situations where the life of a single human being does not always take precedent above all else.



This is what I'm getting at. I'm not saying never kill an animal to save a human being. Hell, I'm not even saying the wrong decision was made in this case. I'm saying it can't be so black and white that it's humanity first no matter what. Logically that doesn't add up. Spock even said so. =)

In species preference. We're wired that way and so are gorillas.

Survival came before logic. Our brains didn't evolve to be logical but to survive.

Logic is a man made fiction. I'm not saying it's false, but it does not exist in nature. We created it. Same with the concept of money, property, and many other human creations. Society is just a construct that accept these "fictions". Laws, money, property wouldn't have the power if we didn't all agree that they were concepts worth keeping.

But in species preference is deeply biological. This not to say that we lack empathy for other species. We probably have the most developed emphatic reasoning in the animal species.

 

[Hylian7]

I'm a little late to the party on this thread, so I apologize if this has been answered before, but was tranquilizing the gorilla not possible? My guess as to why not would be that it would agitate the gorilla and the tranq might not take effect immediately, so the kid would be in more danger in the time between the gorilla being tranquilized and actually going unconscious.

If tranquilizing it was off the table, then yeah, they did the right thing. The human life is more important, even if this was a drunk adult or something.

 

[Hex]

NVM do not want to get involved in this thread

 

[CornBurrito]

There's 7 billion of us. One death or a hundred won't cause the downfall of humanity as we know it.

10 people probably just died right now. I am supposed to be crying for them?

There's a clear psychological difference between not feeling every death, and being able to let a child die over a gorilla if both were right in front of your face.

 

[mckmas8808]

I really hate selfie culture. I didn't know it had invaded the zoos.

What is really wrong with selfie culture? Isn't it just pictures?

 

[entremet]

I'm a little late to the party on this thread, so I apologize if this has been answered before, but was tranquilizing the gorilla not possible? My guess as to why not would be that it would agitate the gorilla and the tranq might not take effect immediately, so the kid would be in more danger in the time between the gorilla being tranquilized and actually going unconscious.

If tranquilizing it was off the table, then yeah, they did the right thing. The human life is more important, even if this was a drunk adult or something.

They don't work immediately. Don't believe the hype from video games and movies.

 

[CornBurrito]

We beat them and force them to provide us with some sort of service, whether it be guarding us or responding emotionally.

I don't think I've ever seen a pet cat beaten but w/e.

 

[Hylian7]

They don't work immediately. Don't believe the hype from video games and movies.

That's what I figured was the case, just wanted to get that cleared up. Thanks.

Yep, they did the right thing then.

 

[CornBurrito]

Worth a read the only thing more upsetting than harambe the gorillas death was the reality of his life

Humans don't have a responsibility to cut back on their predation and expansion. No other predator on the planet does so. That we choose to do so is a blessing for those other species.

Yes, funds could be better spent on preserving animals in their natural habitat. But that doesn't earn as much as zoos.

Zoos are fun to go to. And I don't think I've seen a convincing argument that the gorillas/other animals are sad at zoos. Most people assuming so just see the cages and over-humanize the animals. Prove to me first that a gorilla isn't happy in a huge outdoor enclosure.

 

[mckmas8808]

Take McDonald's for example. You'd think it's common sense for coffee to be scorching hot, but you wouldn't expect McDonald's to have a child safety zone around the coffee pot area. Or do we now? Where is the line where we expect establishments to build all sorts of safety nets for us vs having people take responsibility for their own actions?

Why do people never understand what the McDonald's lawsuit was really about? McDonalds lost that lawsuit because they didn't take responsibility for their actions.

 

[HStallion]

...okay?

You are inventing additional, more exaggerated, hypothetical situations to hide your preference and initial response.

Because its a discussion and I like to discuss things. Feel free to not quote my posts if you're not actually looking to respond. I brought up this scenario because you are so black and white about saving an animal life over a human and bringing in things like the logic being flawed if you were to save an animal over a human.

I presented a case where someone might want to save the animal over the human, its not a stretch either, a seeing eye dog is almost an extension of a blind man as much as a companion so saving it over a random child is fairly logical from how I view it. Training a seeing eye dog is a long hard affair that begins as a puppy and is not cheap or easy and getting them to work with the handicapped person takes time in of itself. Losing it would be detrimental to basically every facet of the owners life not to mention its no doubt a beloved companion. Feel free to respond or not but try and the whole,"You are wired wrong for thinking different than me" is not only a rather lame counterpoint that doesn't negate or dispute anything I said but its also really insulting and offensive as well.

 

[norm9]

What is really wrong with selfie culture? Isn't it just pictures?

In this case, selfie culture MAY have been a factor in the parent being too busy taking pics of themselves while their child climbs over the railing.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Because its a discussion and I like to discuss things. Feel free to not quote my posts if you're not actually looking to respond. I brought up this scenario because you are so black and white about saving an animal life over a human and bringing in things like the logic being flawed if you were to save an animal over a human.

I presented a case where someone might want to save the animal over the human, its not a stretch either, a seeing eye dog is almost an extension of a blind man as much as a companion. Feel free to respond or not but try and the whole,"You are wired wrong for thinking different than me" is not only a rather lame counterpoint that doesn't negate or dispute anything I said but its also really insulting and offensive as well.

Fuck that. I wouldn't save a police, seeing-eye, competition, or whatever dog over a human.

 

[Thornton Reed]

Humans don't have a responsibility to cut back on their predation and expansion. No other predator on the planet does so. That we choose to do so is a blessing for those other species.

Yes, funds could be better spent on preserving animals in their natural habitat. But that doesn't earn as much as zoos.

Zoos are fun to go to. And I don't think I've seen a convincing argument that the gorillas/other animals are sad at zoos. Most people assuming so just see the cages and over-humanize the animals. Prove to me first that a gorilla isn't happy in a huge outdoor enclosure.

There isn't just gorillas at zoos though. Big cats who would wander miles in a day confined in a small space is cruel.

Did you read the article were in mentions pacing and head nodding being common place at zoos and signs of an animal in distress.

 

[Stevey]

Couldnt they have just tranquilised the gorilla?

 

[SkeptiMism]

Couldnt they have just tranquilised the gorilla?

Ctrl + f tranquilizer

It's just a few posts above yours.

To be brief, no.

 

[Slacker]

Couldnt they have just tranquilised the gorilla?

That's gotta be a record for most times a question has been asked in a thread. This is history in the making, people!

 

[mikefrails]

I don't think I've ever seen a pet cat beaten but w/e.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Eooo2Oi3k

Now you have.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Couldnt they have just tranquilised the gorilla?

Stargate SG-1 had an episode like it as well. It was pretty good, especially when O'neill started to lose it.

 

[DeathyBoy]

I'm not putting the life of that kid over some random gorilla. I'm just saying that I don't believe ALL human life is worth saving.

And yes, according to some in this thread, I have "mental issues" and need help because I gladly save my cat who I have known for over 10 years instead of another person.

Well, those people are assholes.

In this case, the only option was to kill the gorilla. Drugging it or tasing it is just going to put the child in more danger than it already was. And you can't reason with a gorilla because it has no context - it may have been treating the child like it would it's own young, but there's a big difference between the offspring of a gorilla and a young child.

And of course you'd save your cat over a stranger. If aliens invaded Earth and said they'd leave peacefully, and all I had to do was let them kill my best friend, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. Course, I'd probably do the same thing if they wanted to take some random guy too... so I don't know what my point is.

 

[HStallion]

Fuck that. I wouldn't save a police, seeing-eye, competition, or whatever dog over a human.

That's totally fine, I would probably do much the same but I am curious if a bomb sniffing dog that worked with the military and saved dozens if not hundreds or thousands of lives in its time, does that make its life any more valuable? If it was that dog that had served its country for several tours over a child would you still do it?

 

[mrkgoo]

There isn't just gorillas at zoos though. Big cats who would wander miles in a day confined in a small space is cruel.

Did you read the article were in mentions pacing and head nodding being common place at zoos and signs of an animal in distress.

I like zoos and have been to many, and there is a wide spectrum of quality.

Some zoos you can tell prioritise the visitors and entertainment thereof over the welfare of the animals. I couldn't say if any zoo prioritises the animals COMPLETELY over the visitors (it's their income after all), but some zoos do seem to have strong preservation, educational and conservational approaches.

But just for example, I've seen a lot of animals sit in the corner and butt heads on the wall, or gate. In another zoo, they had a train that went around the park, with a loud bell sounding off every five to ten minutes to signify the train leaving....right next to an enclosure where a leopard was trying to sleep. I literally stood there for half an hour and watched that leopard wake up every time the bells went off.

Ok, so maybe "in the wild" large cats probably have to deal with all manners of noise and what not, but you know, I'd argue whether a routine bell would be one of them and whether being in the presence of such is a "happy" experience.

That said, even the notion of happiness can be biased towards our own definition of the word.

 

[Pandy]

Kid fell into the pit because the railing was really low and he's like four years old

Gorilla got shot because he could tear through a child like paper if agitated, it was a dangerous situation, and they figured at the end of the day killing an animal is justified if it means saving a human child

Also some dudes in here would proudly let a human kid die if it meant saving their dog

That's all I got

That's all there is.

 

[CornBurrito]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Eooo2Oi3k

Now you have.

Some human parents beat human children. Having children is slavery!!!

 

[Ray Wonder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Eooo2Oi3k

Now you have.

I'm actually pretty pissed I clicked on this down where you're quoted because I didn't know what it was. You should probably label it brutal cat beating or something because it's disgusting.

 

[pottymouth]

All the people talking about tranquilizers clearly don't have any understanding of pharmacokinetics. There's a very very high chance using a tranquilizer would have resulted in a dead child. You just can't take that chance.

 

[Byakuya769]

Kid fell into the pit because the railing was really low and he's like four years old

Gorilla got shot because he could tear through a child like paper if agitated, it was a dangerous situation, and they figured at the end of the day killing an animal is justified if it means saving a human child

Also some dudes in here would proudly let a human kid die if it meant saving their dog

That's all I got

Yeah. A lot of crazy people.

 

[Speedydonut]

Jane Goodall gave a response to this.

http://pets.people.com/pets/2016/05/31/article/jane-goodall-responds-harambe-gorillas-death

 

[Stage On]

What I don't understand is why they didn't just have a better enclosure in the first place.

For example the Toronto zoo has transparent panels from ceiling to floor at the indoor Gorilla exhibit making it impossible for a human to fall in while still allowing good visibility of the animals.

 

[Shambalakan]

Why didn't they tranquilize the gorilla?

Spoiler

sorry!

Did the boy say anything after the incident?

 

[Kickz]

That's totally fine, I would probably do much the same but I am curious if a bomb sniffing dog that worked with the military and saved dozens if not hundreds or thousands of lives in its time, does that make its life any more valuable? If it was that dog that had served its country for several tours over a child would you still do it?

Yes its still a dog

 

[Kickz]

I'm starting to think I would save the gorilla over you.

LMAO.. This got me good

 

[GIANKRATOS]

Humans don't have a responsibility to cut back on their predation and expansion.

We may have not a responsibility, but we as a species will have to deal with the consequences of this kind of reasoning and of our actions one day.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah. A lot of crazy people.

I would normally fault the liberals for this but I agree it's just crazy people.

 

[EndlessSky]

People can learn a thing or two about parenting from gorillas

 

[MIMIC]

People can learn a thing or two about parenting from gorillas

"He's a bad influence, honey. Let's go."

 

[diamount]

I think it's time for this thread to be closed. Nothing else can be gleamed from this situation.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

If you believe that the life of a pet takes precedence over human life you won't find any better explanations. Arguing any position with logical arguments when an individual is posing questions from a position that is inherently emotional and not rational "I love my pet" or "My pet is like family to me", in the words of Barnie Frank, is like having a conversation with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

I wasn't saying I believe either way, I just asked explanation. I don't think just saying "human life matters more than pets", is some all explaining logical answer. There has to be reason and don't act like for most people that answer above isn't hugely emotional, and not from "rational" thinking. You just resort to arguments like that you are talking to dining room table. Funny thing is I was talking from objective point of view, while you got up on arms, emotional and still not providing any explanation on my question.