Toddler falls in gorilla pit

[aelf]

As is the outrage against the outrage against the outrage, apparently.

Where's my outrage, pray tell?

I know you like to get hysterical about stuff, but I really don't. I'm not sure what there is to get outraged about here. The response team did the right thing to save the boy, who should be saved, but I can see why people are angry that an endangered animal died because of this. Obviously someone failed here, either the zoo or the parents or both, and something needs to be done to prevent such incidents from happening again.

My opinions as pedestrian as you can get when it comes to this kind of stuff.

 

[luiz]

Oh I don't get hysterical, I'm annoyed by hysteria over stupid things.

Anyway, I'm in agreement with your opinion. And of course I agree it's normal to be angry or sad over the death of am endangered animal, but the problem was the lack of adequate isolation, not the response once the accident happened.

People saying they should have let the boy die are attention whores pretending to be psychopaths. I'm not outraged at their outrage, l feel kind of ashamed over how pathetic people can be.

 

[aelf]

I don't really feel anything. It's the internet. You know the deal.

 

[Kyriakos]

I know that non-feel

 

[Mise]

I feel like self-righteous outrage, including meta-outrage, is the emotion that the internet does the best job of enhancing.

It's because it's really really low effort. The story itself takes 2 sentences to explain, everyone can instantly understand it, it involves no complicated laws or chemicals or other opaque nonsense like that. It's just a toddler falling into a gorilla pit. And it's easy for people to have opinions on it too, to be judgemental of the parents, to wonder htf he climbed in there in the first place, why they had to shoot the gorilla, to lament the death of an endangered species, to complain about complaining... It's perfect for discussing on social media, where things are 140 characters long, and people don't really want to waste time typing out long posts about the EU or understanding the nuances of North Korea's nuclear strategy.

Of course, this isn't anything new. It's also perfect for discussing around watercoolers, playgrounds and common rooms, tea rooms, elevators, gym changing rooms, on the bus or in the car, at lunch, at pauses during a game of bridge, etc etc etc. It really is the perfect conversation topic for people who aren't close enough to discuss serious personal matters, and aren't annoying enough to discuss serious political matters. It's just so easy to have an opinion on.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Is that from the intro of the new trainspotting movie?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I (almost) never discuss such "news" with people for casual conversation. Nor have I witnessed others doing so. And the idea to do that seems very weird to me.
Football (Soccer) - yes, loads of it everywhere (to my annoyance). But not any actual news about what is happening somewhere.

Is this really a thing? Is here anyone who casually discusses news at the water cooler?

Also have to say it: OMG this topic is sooo boooring. Accidents happen. Child was in danger. Furry thing is shot. WHERE IS THE INTERESTING BIT? (don't answer) People are weird.

 

[Mise]

"watercooler" i'm using as a catch-all for place where people (e.g. at work) who don't really know each other but are forced by social convention to make pleasant conversation for a few minutes at a time. Yeah, with men, it's mostly football... but football is over now, so it's either this or the weather.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I got what you mean. I just don't see people actually doing it, except some exceptions, I suppose. They may of course. But I have difficulty to accept that, since it just feels wrong to me.
And what could be the content of such a conversation? Step 1: Pretend to care. "Oh did you hear that?" -"Yes, I did!" Step 2: Exchange and reaffirmation of super-lazy convenient judgment. "That is so.." "Yes, it is!"
Step 3: Good bye!

I think I'll rather pretend to have a desire to discuss the weather.

 

[Mise]

Yeah that's basically it, in my experience. Like I say, it's low effort - you don't have to think or care or anything, which makes it perfect for this, since all you're doing is pretending to have a conversation for the sake of social convention. It's just a little ritual you do, to tell people you're not weird.

Remember the cat bin lady? Maybe that wasn't a thing in Germany, but here, everyone was talking about her. Step 1: "Did you see the video of that woman putting a cat in the bin?" - "Yes I did!" Step 2: "Isn't she awful! Why would she do that!" "I know!!! It wasn't even her cat!" Step 3: Goodbye!. Again, super low effort, everyone's seen the video, if not it's like 2 seconds to describe, and everyone can easily form an opinion and joke about it. Perfect idle conversation fodder.

EDIT: And who could forget the blue and gold dress!!!

 

[FriendlyFire]

The enclosure at the zoo is fine. I know because I have been there a lot.

1 Meter steel railing, prickly bushes, Followed by a 5 Meter drop
This was an open exhibit, built near 35 years ago.

Mother was apparently busy with her mobile phone, while people scream at her that her son was allowed ran around by himself.

Clearly the fence needs to be upgraded to protect the Gorilla from being shot dead.

 

[Commodore]

1 Meter steel railing, prickly bushes, Followed by a 5 Meter drop
This was an open exhibit, built near 35 years ago.

Mother was apparently busy with her mobile phone, while people scream at her that her son was allowed ran around by himself.

Clearly the fence needs to be upgraded to protect the Gorilla from being shot dead.

And this was the only incident with that particular enclosure in that 35 years. One incident in 35 years hardly means the enclosure was insufficient.

This whole unfortunate incident was caused by poor parenting skills, not poor zoo design. That's why the mother of that child is being investigated by Cincinnati Police to determine if she should bear any criminal liability for the gorilla's death since it was her negligence as a parent that directly led to the gorilla being shot.

 

[Flying Pig]

If I were designing an enclosure, I wouldn't make its safety rely on everything outside going perfectly smoothly. It's all well to say that this wouldn't have happened with better supervision, but it was the enclosure that turned that into a crisis. Safety measures exist for when things are going wrong. At the very least, this incident has shown a weakness in them that will need to be addressed.

 

[Commodore]

If I were designing an enclosure, I wouldn't make its safety rely on everything outside going perfectly smoothly. It's all well to say that this wouldn't have happened with better supervision, but it was the enclosure that turned that into a crisis. Safety measures exist for when things are going wrong. At the very least, this incident has shown a weakness in them that will need to be addressed.

The track record of that enclosure shows that it was negligence on the part of the parent that caused the incident though, not any failure on the zoo's part. Plus, they have addressed or are addressing issues with the enclosure as the currently have that area sealed off (at least they did when I took my daughter there for her birthday on Monday).

If there is any enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo that needs to be completely redesigned, it's the polar bear enclosure. A few months back one of the polar bears was able to just climb right out and it took zoo keepers a few hours to recapture it. As far as I can tell, they didn't make any upgrades to the enclosure and just posted a "guard" near it to report if one of the polar bears gets out again.

 

[Ryika]

Well, there's this post defending the mother, apparently it was very easy for the child to get in very quickly:

Spoiler :

I was taking a pic of the female gorilla, when my eldest son yells, “what is he doing? ” I looked down, and to my surprise, there was a small child that had apparently, literally “flopped” over the railing, where there was then about 3 feet of ground that the child quickly crawled through! ! I assumed the woman next to me was the mother, getting ready to grab him until she says, “Whose kid is this? ” None of us actually thought he’d go over the nearly 15 foot drop, but he was crawling so fast through the bushes before myself or husband could grab him, he went over! The crowed got a little frantic and the mother was calling for her son. Actually, just prior to him going over, but she couldn’t see him crawling through the bushes! She said “He was right here! I took a pic and his hand was in my back pocket and then gone!” As she could find him nowhere, she lookes to my husband (already over the railing talking to the child) and asks, “Sir, is he wearing green shorts? ” My husband reluctantly had to tell her yes, when she then nearly had a break down! They are both wanting to go over into the 15 foot drop, when I forbade my husband to do so, and attempted to calm the mother by calling 911 and assure her help was on the way.

The original post seems to have been removed (no wonder given the harassment that the mother has received, I assume a person defending her would become a target, too). Got that snipped from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...om-after-gorilla-shot-to-protect-her-toddler/

___________________________________________

BBC has a facebook-post from the mother:

Spoiler :

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36416350

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36416350
(Original Post was deleted as well)

That post really annoys me. It wasn't God who saved her child, it was the people in the Zoo, and they did so by taking the life of an animal that she doesn't seem is even worth mentioning (at least not in that snippet, to be fair.).
Still, the outrage she's receiving seems even more insane than usual. I wonder when we finally stop this nonsense.

 

[Farm Boy]

Query: if I say "God willing" in regards to a future hope or concern, do you think I'm actually hoping for holy magic to make it so out of the blue*? If so, why? If not, do you default to that assumption with other people? Why or why not?

*Or "Thank goodness/God" in regards to something that has happened/holy magic made it so.

 

[Commodore]

Query: if I say "God willing" in regards to a future hope or concern, do you think I'm actually hoping for holy magic to make it so out of the blue*? If so, why? If not, do you default to that assumption with other people? Why or why not?

*Or "Thank goodness/God" in regards to something that has happened/holy magic made it so.

It always strikes me as odd that people always sing God's praises when something good happens in their life, but never blame him when something goes wrong in their life.

For example: This lady thanks God that her child was rescued, but why doesn't she blame God for knocking him into that gorilla pit and giving him a concussion?

 

[Farm Boy]

"God dammit?" (blasphemy, no less)

More to the point, why rob the zookeepers of the compliment that she is giving them? That they acted in a Godly manner, as coming from a person of faith? Taken in that context, instead of holymagicwowwow, the blame goes to the same place the credit goes. Imperfect and fallible people.

I mean sure. Maybe she's a magical universe sort of person. They're around and about, but assuming it there is bad faith and credit when it can be explained much easier with being appreciative of luck and effort in a bad situation.

 

[Commodore]

"God dammit?"

That's not blaming God though. That's asking God to damn the person or thing that is causing you hardship.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess, but it's blasphemous because of the presumption that this person or situation God has placed in front of you should be damned because of your assessment of its flawed and evil nature, rather than the assessment of the Creator of Infinite Love and Forgiveness. The basic theology there, presuming mainline Christian faith, is fundamental to the understanding. No? I guess I'm not 100% on that, but that's how it's always seemed to me.