Or if a kid got loose in a psychiatric hospital and was found on the lap of a very strong, profoundly disabled patient. Maybe the guy is trying to play with/investigate the kid and is being too rough because he doesn't know his strength and doesn't know what's going on. Maybe he's getting agitated as the family/employees freak out. All I know is they would've given the guy much more leeway than a gorilla.
u/empfindsamkeit, change the setting to a barn and make the kid an adult women, and this is literally the plot of Of Mice and Men.
I know it's fiction, but Lennie had the same fate as your boy, Harambe.
I know it's fiction, but Lennie had the same fate as your boy, Harambe.
He was shot after killing the woman. He also has a history of killing animals with his strength, without fail. In my scenario, the guy is just disabled and doesn't have any priors. They're just worried because of his strength and the lack of mental faculties required to handle a small kid in a safe manner.
At what point do you think deadly force would have been necessary with Harambe? It's been a while, but I believe the keepers said that the amount of sedative needed to put him down quickly, without further agitating him, would have likely killed him anyway.
Probably once he had done actual, serious harm. Knocked the kid out, thrown him across the enclosure, whatever. If he did decide to kill the kid he would probably accomplish it before anyone could react, but that's the risk.
but I believe the keepers said that the amount of sedative needed to put him down quickly, without further agitating him, would have likely killed him anyway.
So... Do it then. If it works, great. If he dies, it's no different than if you had shot him in the face. At least there's a chance he'd have lived. I also don't know how people reached the conclusion that being agitated by a tranquilizer shot of insufficient strength would induce a murderous rage toward anything in the vicinity. Sure, an agitated animal poses a danger, but there's still a very good chance he would survive.
Remember the chimp attack lady? She survived being mauled, bitten, and beaten, having her face being ripped off for how many minutes of sustained attack before police came and shot it? The chimp was well capable of killing her. He was also being beaten by a shovel and stabbed with a butcher knife while it was happening. I'm not saying that this is a great outcome for the boy. Just that a small dart/drug striking the gorilla does not mean he's going to instantly kill him. If he does begin attacking the boy, then take your shot with the gun.
I gotta ask, are you legitimately autistic? There's no way a nornal, empathetic functioning human being would "roll the dice" with their own children's lives for some fucking gorilla.
Not to get into r/iamverysmart territory, but a more enlightened person probably would. Look how much bullshit is justified by "think of the children!". People are pathologically attached to them, enslaved by their biology. Yet we don't live in the jungle anymore. But then, I don't want kids in the first place, so I suppose you could say it isn't likely this attitude will be selected for in the future. And it's not so outrageous or cold-hearted as you'd imagine. Your political policy preferences are likely responsible for the deaths of at least a few innocent people every year, no matter who you are. Through military action or otherwise. And whatever you perceive is gained by it, I can probably make it look pretty petty.
Yes, since they're all old and mentally competent enough to know better. They'd have had to intentionally jumped into the enclosure, so I'd say they kind of deserved it even if they outright died. Of course, I'd be sad to lose them even if they had been acting like idiots, but I'm not going to demand they shoot the gorilla in the face to cover for their idiocy.
Also, you should read about it. The kid's grandmother even said she wished they hadn't shot him. At least so quickly. Presumably she is a normal human and cares about her grandson.
Jumping into a gorilla enclosure is more than "a mistake". It's idiocy. I'd rather that nobody died, but I'm sure not going to endorse going on a rampage shooting every animal that might injure her. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I kind of object to this whole line of questioning. It's the same bullshit they pulled on Dukakis for opposing the death penalty. "Gee, are you telling me if it was your wife who got murdered, you'd oppose executing the guy who was convicted of doing it?! You must be heartless and can't love your wife."
I don't believe you're autistic. I can't properly articulate what it is (I'm sure I'll be called out on this), but there's something up with you. Are you religious at all?
No, I'm an atheist. I don't believe humanity or children are somehow sacred or 'special' or that their lives are always privileged above an animal's in any situation. As I said elsewhere, I'm okay with shooting an animal in self-defense or defense of someone else. I'm okay with hunting them if you need to eat. But I think they jumped the gun and acted too early here because they were afraid of a lawsuit or bad publicity if things went bad. The gorilla only posed a relatively minor threat to the kid at that time.
And I think you would eventually agree with me if we started ramping up the circumstances. What if this was the last troop of gorillas known to exist? What if none of them went back into the indoor enclosure. What if they had a minigun handy? Should they have mowed them all down just in case they might've hurt this precious kid, who in all likelihood will grow up to be another utterly disposable consumer, and stands a good chance of becoming one of the many forms of asshole we all hate? I'm not implicitly saying I'm not part of that judgement either. Thus far, I haven't made much of a mark on the world. The idea that people would lift heaven and earth and shoot critically endangered species in the face just to prevent even the possibility I would come to harm just seems ridiculous to me. So much value placed on this life, but if he becomes homeless or goes on welfare, you probably won't care, and a great many will even hate him.
I don't thin I would kill all the gorillas in the world to save one kid, but I think that's easy for me to say since I don't have to personally deal with the ramifications of either.
You don't believe humans occupy any privileged positions above other animals? Would your feelings on this topic change if it was a relatively common animal that was shot in this case. Is your judgment on this based on the endangered status of gorillas? Why is Harambe worth more than an "utterly disposable consumer"?
Is your judgment on this based on the endangered status of gorillas?
Partly.
Why is Harambe worth more than an "utterly disposable consumer"?
He's not worth more, but he should've been given more of a chance to live. They should've tolerated the small risk that he would've gone apeshit and attacked the kid for no reason before they could react, rather than just open fire. It's the same as a cop who opens fire on someone because they feel uncomfortable/scared - as police they have to have some tolerance for risk and be willing to put the public's safety first even if there's a slight risk that their decency will be repaid with murder.
He might have caused unintended harm to the kid by dragging him around, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he was about to do something intentional. Let's say they knew the odds for certain, and it was a 1% chance he was going to kill the kid. They still would've shot him in the face, guaranteeing him death, rather than even take the slightest chance the kid would die. Make that chance as low as they want, and I believe they would still take the shot because of the feared backlash if they didn't - the gorilla's life is worth nothing next to even the slightest chance that a human would die. And that's what I object to.
I think it's really easy for us to talk about how much better this could have gone after the fact. Your argument is predicated on the risk to the child being realitively low, but the reality is, the people on the ground didn't have any way to know how harambe would have reacted; no basis from which to assess risk. Gorillas are amazing creatures. But people are more so, and I'll just leave that at that.
I'll acknowledge that the zoo was probably trying to shield itself from lawsuits and bad press, but apart from legal liability, they do have a moral responsibity to their visitors. Someone falls into an exhibit and the zoo can't just say, "tough luck, it's in god's hands now. Don't be irresponsible next time." It's more than just covering the zoos ass
they do have a moral responsibity to their visitors
I say they have a moral responsibility to their animals, which are their entire reason for existing, and the reason any of them have jobs. They are also taking these animals out of the wild and forcing them into small enclosures to be gawked at by humans. You put them into a substandard enclosure and then shoot them if a human finds his way into it. That's bullshit.
Someone falls into an exhibit and the zoo can't just say, "tough luck, it's in god's hands now. Don't be irresponsible next time." It's more than just covering the zoos ass
For practical purposes, I understand why they can't do this, but they should be able to basically do that. By all means, try to rescue them if you can do it safely, but the idiot who fell/jumped in there now has to deal with the risk that they'll be killed before zookeepers can react to save them.
Your attitude is sound in logic but completely ridiculous in the real world. When the chips are down and actual lives are on the line, you can't actually believe this. Were they just supposed to send in their international team of gorilla whisperers while the zoo sharpshooter waits for the absolute last minute to intervene. I couldn't say what the odds of the kid dying and neither can you. You have no idea if the zoo keepers would have been able to calm Harambe down. And I'm sure their shooter was perfectly competent, but he's not fucking Hawkeye. The reality is that I the situation could have deteriorated way more quickly than they could have reacted. You're kinda just talking out your butt.
Well, in another post (and I've read this myself), someone said the zoo staff argued against tranquilizers on the basis that it would agitate him or else require so much sedative that there's a good chance he would've died anyway. I would say fuck it and use the tranquilizer. Since no one answered before, I'll ask again: When gorillas are shot running from poachers, do they snap their babies necks? Do they take out their rage on whatever's nearby? And if you want to play it safe by overdosing on the tranquilizer, go ahead - at least it gives him a chance to live.
The reality is that I the situation could have deteriorated way more quickly than they could have reacted.
I've acknowledged that. They just have to live with the risk. As I said elsewhere, when that chimp was mauling that woman, how many minutes did it take for police to arrive and shoot it? Yet she still lived even in that extreme situation. Even while the owner was stabbing the chimp with a butcher knife and beating him with a shovel. I think a gorilla could handle a tranq shot without instantly murdering the kid.
As has been said, it would take well above a lethal dosage of sedative to instantly incapacitate the gorilla. Further, the effectiveness of a sedative can vary between individuals and they may not be able to guarantee a sudden incapacitation. I think we can both agree that the zoo shouldn't have chosen a course of action that both guaranteed the gorillas death and increased risk to the child.
A more moderate dosage would allow the gorilla to live but tranquilizer darts don't work the way they do in the movies. Getting hit by a fast moving and relatively heavy projectile is going to hurt. We may not know what he would do when we pissed him off like that, but we know for a fact that shooting him was going to piss him off. Do you think that a 440 pound gorilla couldn't kill or maim a 3 year old kid in seconds?
Finallty, Maybe they could have used that lethal dosage of sedative you suggest. But would you really be okay with that? I bet you and the rest of the Harambe idiots would still be here complaining about how the zoo used over 10x the sedative required to safely incapacitate a gorilla.
But that's not what they said. A normal dose takes about 5-10 min to take effect. So give him the maximum dose you think isn't likely to kill him instantly, and roll the dice with that. Just like tranquilizers don't work as fast in the movies, overdosing deaths aren't guaranteed. Often poisons are described in terms of their "LD50", or a dosage that is lethal 50% of the time. It's perfectly possible to give him a high dose of sedative and then wait and see, with the gun ready if he appears to be getting too erratic. It may even have caused him to lose interest in the kid.
Getting hit by a fast moving and relatively heavy projectile is going to hurt.
Just like getting hit with a shovel or a butcher knife. A chimpanzee is equally capable of killing an adult human, but it didn't. Didn't even attack his owner who was the one hitting him.
But would you really be okay with that?
If they used a high dosage that still gave him a decent chance of living through it with medical attention, yeah. The point isn't to exchange a bullet for a dart with equal lethality, though.
Fine, but you're not talking about a dosage that would have been as effective at subduing Harambe as bullet. That's why the zoo opted against what you're suggesting.
The problem with everything you've said this entire time is that you're just slightly disconnected from reality at every turn. You want the zoo to wait and see, when the 3 year old kid could sustain a fatal injury at any time. You want the zoo to use a high dosage sedative administered by what you referred to as a "tiny dart" - which is a completely misleading way to describe a large, needle pointed round fired from a pneumatic gun and is almost guaranteed to have further angered an already agitated animal. You want the zoo to have a shooter on standby in case things go awry but his job is now potentially complicated by the fact that we've already shot the gorilla once and now its behaving erratically, compromising his ability to intervene.
And when we get away from fantasy scenario, you say, "maybe Harambe would have been distracted, or maybe he would have left the kid alone." but you have no fucking idea. Maybe they play it your way, administer the exact 50% lethal dosage you suggest - and then he crushes the kid, and succumbs to overdose anyway. Or maybe they dose Harmabe, and he does something to injure the kid, they intervene and shoot him - as you suggest - and the kid dies of his injuries later anyway.
But really, you wouldn't be happy unless the zoo completely reversed its moral calculous and prioritized the life of the gorilla over the 3 year old child. If that had happened there may have been a bunch of outrage, and you would be defending the zoo. You might not have the gall to call the 3 year old child a probable future "utterly disposable consumer" if he actually died but you would defend the decision to prioritize the life of a gorilla over that of a 3 year old child who was "stupid enough" to fall into a gorilla enclosure. You say you just want to give the gorilla a fighting chance but your antipathy towards humanity is pretty obvious.
the fact that we've already shot the gorilla once and now its behaving erratically, compromising his ability to intervene
But it was already behaving erratically - that's why they shot it in the first place. It was running up and down the enclosure at high speed.
but you have no fucking idea
No, of course not. Neither does anyone else.
prioritized the life of the gorilla over the 3 year old child
Prioritized it equally. Mostly because it was 100% innocent in this situation.
a 3 year old child who was "stupid enough" to fall into a gorilla enclosure
I've repeatedly listed the people/groups that deserved blame, and omitted the kid every single time. In fact at one point I said he obviously bore no blame. His parents even seem pretty decent.
Maybe they play it your way, administer the exact 50% lethal dosage you suggest - and then he crushes the kid, and succumbs to overdose anyway. Or maybe
Yeah. Maybe. I consider it pretty unlikely and say the dice should've been rolled. The kid could've landed on his head and died instantly. The gorilla could've smashed him immediately. Would that be very much different than any of the scenarios you outline? As I said, they didn't know what the consequences of shooting the gorilla would be. Maybe they'd miss. Maybe they'd hit the child. Maybe he'd go to grab the child and a muscle spasm would've crushed him. According to the news, the kid was between/under the gorilla's legs at the time. Is it safe to drop 500 lbs of dead weight onto a 3 year old? Boy, I'm glad that gamble paid off.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree since we're coming at this from different value systems. I think it's absurd to suggest that a zoo protect an animal rather than maximize the chance one of their guests survive.
You feel that killing an animal to save your own life or the life of another is fine - except in situation. You rightly value the lives of gorillas but I think you're coming from a perspective that they are somehow noble and pure in a way people are not. You believe the kid was blameless but have no problem with him bearing the repercussions of possible negligence on the part of the zoo or of the parents - not to mention the ignobility of mankind as a whole.
What do you mean by C-tier? Just that they're shitty in terms of their ability to entertain you? No, I can't say that affects my opinion. They'd be higher up on my list, though - B-tier at least. At least you can usually count on them doing something interesting besides sitting there or walking around like a lion might. Orangutans are generally wackier in my experience, though.
You're like 50 years late to the argument, first of all. And why are you enraged about the gorilla being shot and not the preventative measures to keep the gorilla enclosed from the public appropriately?
I mean if you're gonna be mad at something that can't be changed, at least choose something in hindsight that would have made the best difference.
32 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-01-17
Jews did this
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan 2017-01-17
u/empfindsamkeit, change the setting to a barn and make the kid an adult women, and this is literally the plot of Of Mice and Men.
I know it's fiction, but Lennie had the same fate as your boy, Harambe.
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
He was shot after killing the woman. He also has a history of killing animals with his strength, without fail. In my scenario, the guy is just disabled and doesn't have any priors. They're just worried because of his strength and the lack of mental faculties required to handle a small kid in a safe manner.
n/a pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan 2017-01-17
At what point do you think deadly force would have been necessary with Harambe? It's been a while, but I believe the keepers said that the amount of sedative needed to put him down quickly, without further agitating him, would have likely killed him anyway.
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
Probably once he had done actual, serious harm. Knocked the kid out, thrown him across the enclosure, whatever. If he did decide to kill the kid he would probably accomplish it before anyone could react, but that's the risk.
So... Do it then. If it works, great. If he dies, it's no different than if you had shot him in the face. At least there's a chance he'd have lived. I also don't know how people reached the conclusion that being agitated by a tranquilizer shot of insufficient strength would induce a murderous rage toward anything in the vicinity. Sure, an agitated animal poses a danger, but there's still a very good chance he would survive.
Remember the chimp attack lady? She survived being mauled, bitten, and beaten, having her face being ripped off for how many minutes of sustained attack before police came and shot it? The chimp was well capable of killing her. He was also being beaten by a shovel and stabbed with a butcher knife while it was happening. I'm not saying that this is a great outcome for the boy. Just that a small dart/drug striking the gorilla does not mean he's going to instantly kill him. If he does begin attacking the boy, then take your shot with the gun.
n/a ragazzo_soup 2017-01-17
I gotta ask, are you legitimately autistic? There's no way a nornal, empathetic functioning human being would "roll the dice" with their own children's lives for some fucking gorilla.
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
Not to get into r/iamverysmart territory, but a more enlightened person probably would. Look how much bullshit is justified by "think of the children!". People are pathologically attached to them, enslaved by their biology. Yet we don't live in the jungle anymore. But then, I don't want kids in the first place, so I suppose you could say it isn't likely this attitude will be selected for in the future. And it's not so outrageous or cold-hearted as you'd imagine. Your political policy preferences are likely responsible for the deaths of at least a few innocent people every year, no matter who you are. Through military action or otherwise. And whatever you perceive is gained by it, I can probably make it look pretty petty.
n/a ragazzo_soup 2017-01-17
So if instead of child it was your mother is danger? Father? Siblings? Would you still roll the dice?
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
Yes, since they're all old and mentally competent enough to know better. They'd have had to intentionally jumped into the enclosure, so I'd say they kind of deserved it even if they outright died. Of course, I'd be sad to lose them even if they had been acting like idiots, but I'm not going to demand they shoot the gorilla in the face to cover for their idiocy.
Also, you should read about it. The kid's grandmother even said she wished they hadn't shot him. At least so quickly. Presumably she is a normal human and cares about her grandson.
n/a ragazzo_soup 2017-01-17
Holy shit. "If my mom ever made a mistake in her life I'm okay with her dying". And you're telling me you're not autistic?
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
Jumping into a gorilla enclosure is more than "a mistake". It's idiocy. I'd rather that nobody died, but I'm sure not going to endorse going on a rampage shooting every animal that might injure her. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I kind of object to this whole line of questioning. It's the same bullshit they pulled on Dukakis for opposing the death penalty. "Gee, are you telling me if it was your wife who got murdered, you'd oppose executing the guy who was convicted of doing it?! You must be heartless and can't love your wife."
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
I don't believe you're autistic. I can't properly articulate what it is (I'm sure I'll be called out on this), but there's something up with you. Are you religious at all?
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
No, I'm an atheist. I don't believe humanity or children are somehow sacred or 'special' or that their lives are always privileged above an animal's in any situation. As I said elsewhere, I'm okay with shooting an animal in self-defense or defense of someone else. I'm okay with hunting them if you need to eat. But I think they jumped the gun and acted too early here because they were afraid of a lawsuit or bad publicity if things went bad. The gorilla only posed a relatively minor threat to the kid at that time.
And I think you would eventually agree with me if we started ramping up the circumstances. What if this was the last troop of gorillas known to exist? What if none of them went back into the indoor enclosure. What if they had a minigun handy? Should they have mowed them all down just in case they might've hurt this precious kid, who in all likelihood will grow up to be another utterly disposable consumer, and stands a good chance of becoming one of the many forms of asshole we all hate? I'm not implicitly saying I'm not part of that judgement either. Thus far, I haven't made much of a mark on the world. The idea that people would lift heaven and earth and shoot critically endangered species in the face just to prevent even the possibility I would come to harm just seems ridiculous to me. So much value placed on this life, but if he becomes homeless or goes on welfare, you probably won't care, and a great many will even hate him.
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
I don't thin I would kill all the gorillas in the world to save one kid, but I think that's easy for me to say since I don't have to personally deal with the ramifications of either.
You don't believe humans occupy any privileged positions above other animals? Would your feelings on this topic change if it was a relatively common animal that was shot in this case. Is your judgment on this based on the endangered status of gorillas? Why is Harambe worth more than an "utterly disposable consumer"?
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
Partly.
He's not worth more, but he should've been given more of a chance to live. They should've tolerated the small risk that he would've gone apeshit and attacked the kid for no reason before they could react, rather than just open fire. It's the same as a cop who opens fire on someone because they feel uncomfortable/scared - as police they have to have some tolerance for risk and be willing to put the public's safety first even if there's a slight risk that their decency will be repaid with murder.
He might have caused unintended harm to the kid by dragging him around, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he was about to do something intentional. Let's say they knew the odds for certain, and it was a 1% chance he was going to kill the kid. They still would've shot him in the face, guaranteeing him death, rather than even take the slightest chance the kid would die. Make that chance as low as they want, and I believe they would still take the shot because of the feared backlash if they didn't - the gorilla's life is worth nothing next to even the slightest chance that a human would die. And that's what I object to.
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
I think it's really easy for us to talk about how much better this could have gone after the fact. Your argument is predicated on the risk to the child being realitively low, but the reality is, the people on the ground didn't have any way to know how harambe would have reacted; no basis from which to assess risk. Gorillas are amazing creatures. But people are more so, and I'll just leave that at that. I'll acknowledge that the zoo was probably trying to shield itself from lawsuits and bad press, but apart from legal liability, they do have a moral responsibity to their visitors. Someone falls into an exhibit and the zoo can't just say, "tough luck, it's in god's hands now. Don't be irresponsible next time." It's more than just covering the zoos ass
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
I say they have a moral responsibility to their animals, which are their entire reason for existing, and the reason any of them have jobs. They are also taking these animals out of the wild and forcing them into small enclosures to be gawked at by humans. You put them into a substandard enclosure and then shoot them if a human finds his way into it. That's bullshit.
For practical purposes, I understand why they can't do this, but they should be able to basically do that. By all means, try to rescue them if you can do it safely, but the idiot who fell/jumped in there now has to deal with the risk that they'll be killed before zookeepers can react to save them.
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
Your attitude is sound in logic but completely ridiculous in the real world. When the chips are down and actual lives are on the line, you can't actually believe this. Were they just supposed to send in their international team of gorilla whisperers while the zoo sharpshooter waits for the absolute last minute to intervene. I couldn't say what the odds of the kid dying and neither can you. You have no idea if the zoo keepers would have been able to calm Harambe down. And I'm sure their shooter was perfectly competent, but he's not fucking Hawkeye. The reality is that I the situation could have deteriorated way more quickly than they could have reacted. You're kinda just talking out your butt.
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
Well, in another post (and I've read this myself), someone said the zoo staff argued against tranquilizers on the basis that it would agitate him or else require so much sedative that there's a good chance he would've died anyway. I would say fuck it and use the tranquilizer. Since no one answered before, I'll ask again: When gorillas are shot running from poachers, do they snap their babies necks? Do they take out their rage on whatever's nearby? And if you want to play it safe by overdosing on the tranquilizer, go ahead - at least it gives him a chance to live.
I've acknowledged that. They just have to live with the risk. As I said elsewhere, when that chimp was mauling that woman, how many minutes did it take for police to arrive and shoot it? Yet she still lived even in that extreme situation. Even while the owner was stabbing the chimp with a butcher knife and beating him with a shovel. I think a gorilla could handle a tranq shot without instantly murdering the kid.
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
As has been said, it would take well above a lethal dosage of sedative to instantly incapacitate the gorilla. Further, the effectiveness of a sedative can vary between individuals and they may not be able to guarantee a sudden incapacitation. I think we can both agree that the zoo shouldn't have chosen a course of action that both guaranteed the gorillas death and increased risk to the child.
A more moderate dosage would allow the gorilla to live but tranquilizer darts don't work the way they do in the movies. Getting hit by a fast moving and relatively heavy projectile is going to hurt. We may not know what he would do when we pissed him off like that, but we know for a fact that shooting him was going to piss him off. Do you think that a 440 pound gorilla couldn't kill or maim a 3 year old kid in seconds?
Finallty, Maybe they could have used that lethal dosage of sedative you suggest. But would you really be okay with that? I bet you and the rest of the Harambe idiots would still be here complaining about how the zoo used over 10x the sedative required to safely incapacitate a gorilla.
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
But that's not what they said. A normal dose takes about 5-10 min to take effect. So give him the maximum dose you think isn't likely to kill him instantly, and roll the dice with that. Just like tranquilizers don't work as fast in the movies, overdosing deaths aren't guaranteed. Often poisons are described in terms of their "LD50", or a dosage that is lethal 50% of the time. It's perfectly possible to give him a high dose of sedative and then wait and see, with the gun ready if he appears to be getting too erratic. It may even have caused him to lose interest in the kid.
Just like getting hit with a shovel or a butcher knife. A chimpanzee is equally capable of killing an adult human, but it didn't. Didn't even attack his owner who was the one hitting him.
If they used a high dosage that still gave him a decent chance of living through it with medical attention, yeah. The point isn't to exchange a bullet for a dart with equal lethality, though.
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
Fine, but you're not talking about a dosage that would have been as effective at subduing Harambe as bullet. That's why the zoo opted against what you're suggesting.
The problem with everything you've said this entire time is that you're just slightly disconnected from reality at every turn. You want the zoo to wait and see, when the 3 year old kid could sustain a fatal injury at any time. You want the zoo to use a high dosage sedative administered by what you referred to as a "tiny dart" - which is a completely misleading way to describe a large, needle pointed round fired from a pneumatic gun and is almost guaranteed to have further angered an already agitated animal. You want the zoo to have a shooter on standby in case things go awry but his job is now potentially complicated by the fact that we've already shot the gorilla once and now its behaving erratically, compromising his ability to intervene. And when we get away from fantasy scenario, you say, "maybe Harambe would have been distracted, or maybe he would have left the kid alone." but you have no fucking idea. Maybe they play it your way, administer the exact 50% lethal dosage you suggest - and then he crushes the kid, and succumbs to overdose anyway. Or maybe they dose Harmabe, and he does something to injure the kid, they intervene and shoot him - as you suggest - and the kid dies of his injuries later anyway.
But really, you wouldn't be happy unless the zoo completely reversed its moral calculous and prioritized the life of the gorilla over the 3 year old child. If that had happened there may have been a bunch of outrage, and you would be defending the zoo. You might not have the gall to call the 3 year old child a probable future "utterly disposable consumer" if he actually died but you would defend the decision to prioritize the life of a gorilla over that of a 3 year old child who was "stupid enough" to fall into a gorilla enclosure. You say you just want to give the gorilla a fighting chance but your antipathy towards humanity is pretty obvious.
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
But it was already behaving erratically - that's why they shot it in the first place. It was running up and down the enclosure at high speed.
No, of course not. Neither does anyone else.
Prioritized it equally. Mostly because it was 100% innocent in this situation.
I've repeatedly listed the people/groups that deserved blame, and omitted the kid every single time. In fact at one point I said he obviously bore no blame. His parents even seem pretty decent.
Yeah. Maybe. I consider it pretty unlikely and say the dice should've been rolled. The kid could've landed on his head and died instantly. The gorilla could've smashed him immediately. Would that be very much different than any of the scenarios you outline? As I said, they didn't know what the consequences of shooting the gorilla would be. Maybe they'd miss. Maybe they'd hit the child. Maybe he'd go to grab the child and a muscle spasm would've crushed him. According to the news, the kid was between/under the gorilla's legs at the time. Is it safe to drop 500 lbs of dead weight onto a 3 year old? Boy, I'm glad that gamble paid off.
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree since we're coming at this from different value systems. I think it's absurd to suggest that a zoo protect an animal rather than maximize the chance one of their guests survive. You feel that killing an animal to save your own life or the life of another is fine - except in situation. You rightly value the lives of gorillas but I think you're coming from a perspective that they are somehow noble and pure in a way people are not. You believe the kid was blameless but have no problem with him bearing the repercussions of possible negligence on the part of the zoo or of the parents - not to mention the ignobility of mankind as a whole.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-01-17
affable sociopathy?
n/a ragazzo_soup 2017-01-17
The level of disinterest and disregard for his own family's lives definitely gave me some sociopath vibes.
n/a grungebot5000 2017-01-17
there's a kind of empathy to it though. might be one of the other big ten
n/a lastrealzoozoo 2017-01-17
Is it he who has the disorder, or us? "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society." - Abrabert Lincolnstein
n/a TheWhiteUsher 2017-01-17
Does the fact that gorillas are, at best, a C-tier zoo animal at all affect your opinion?
n/a empfindsamkeit 2017-01-17
What do you mean by C-tier? Just that they're shitty in terms of their ability to entertain you? No, I can't say that affects my opinion. They'd be higher up on my list, though - B-tier at least. At least you can usually count on them doing something interesting besides sitting there or walking around like a lion might. Orangutans are generally wackier in my experience, though.
n/a SoButtscrewed 2017-01-17
You're like 50 years late to the argument, first of all. And why are you enraged about the gorilla being shot and not the preventative measures to keep the gorilla enclosed from the public appropriately?
I mean if you're gonna be mad at something that can't be changed, at least choose something in hindsight that would have made the best difference.
n/a Tiammatt 2017-01-17
u/empfindsamkeit confirmed for being 16