# The Killing Of The Gorilla At The Cincinnati Zoo



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

By now everyone will have heard about the killing of the gorilla at the Cincinnati zoo. There are a lot of people who are outraged that it was killed. I guess they believe that the gorilla's life is worth more than the child's and I am not sure what else they think the zoo should have or could have done.

Then there are those engaging in your typical faux outrage...people just jumping on the bandwagon and being outraged for the sake of being outraged. I somehow suspect that, if the child had been harmed or killed by the gorilla, many of those same people would be screaming that it should have been killed to protect the child. 

I'm curious what people here think. Did the zoo do the right thing?


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2016)

Yes they did.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

laristotle said:


> Yes they did.


 I agree 100%


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

laristotle said:


> Yes they did.


Ayup


----------



## amagras (Apr 22, 2015)

Not one, the entire zoo.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I can't believe people are bitching about this. 

The gorilla was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. 

They did the right thing.


----------



## SixDerv1sh (May 9, 2015)

Yes. And Mother of child involved will never poorly supervise him again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

The only thing they could do (unfortunately)


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Unfortunate--but also--why was it so easy for a child that young to get into the gorilla area?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Not sure. The kid'll probably grow up to be like the parent.

One less idiot, I'm thinkin'.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

The idiots are the people that think it was the wrong decision to kill the gorilla.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It was unfortunate, but most likely the only option they had. The child's life was in danger and whether some people don't get it, a human does take precedent over the animal. Having said that. Is it perhaps time we as a civilization start to maybe move on from zoo's and circuses? When I was 5 years old these type things were the only way you could observe these creatures. Today we have vast supplies of documentaries and films on just about any species. I think its only a matter of time before they are all done away with.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I heard an interview with celebrity zoo director emeritus Jack Hannah yesterday.

Part of the situation was that all the screaming was alarming the gorilla and prompting rash behaviour on his part, complicating things. Of course, VERY few people would have the presence of mind to stifle their screams in such a situation, so one can't point fingers. "Tranquilize him" they say. Numerus commentators beyond Hannah have noted that the dart action is slow and the animal doesn't expect it so it triggers even more rash behaviour. So what if the gorilla does get sleepy, clutches the child and falls down on him, pinning the kid under the water? This is not a stray black bear in a suburban tree.

Hannah was quick to point out that, while there HAVE been instances where a human child elicits protective and gentler behaviour on the part of a gorilla, these involed female gorillas who grew up around human caregivers. This silverback was no such instance. As for "How could the kid have gotten in there?", Hannah noted the millions and millions of zoo visitors each year, and the very low incidence of people getting past the barriers in place. He was satisfied that the zoo staff did the right thing and that the barriers were as well-planned and prohibitive as we knew how to make them. So in his eyes, it was just one of those things. A tragedy, given the precarious nature of the lowland gorilla population, and the waste of a magnificent animal. But the right response in a highly improbable situation, nonetheless.

Some have suggested "holding the parent responsible". If you have or have had pre-schoolers, you will know that even the most attentive parent can find their kid doing something dangerous in the blink of an eye. A person comes up and says "Hi. Howya doin'?", you avert your gaze for 5 seconds, and the kid has climbed out a window, picked up a sharp object, touched a hot or electrified object, run out onto the road, or any of a variety of other actions that jeopardize their safety even when you are otherwise monitoring them closely.

Even IF one were to hold the parent responsible...for what? Is there a penalty in the criminal code? Is there cost associated with the event? Are they supposed to pay for a replacement gorilla? Honestly.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I'm sure there are line of lawyers already at the door of these parents prepared to sue the zoo as well.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I don't get how they have enclosures that aren't entirely enclosed, ie no possible entry. If a child can get in, it's not an enclosure. That's where zoos have got it wrong, besides the questionable ethics of keeping wild animals out of their natural habitat.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Mabe they had to shoot the gorilla. Maybe tranquilizers wouldn't have been quick enough. Maybe.

But, the gorilla was not at fault. He (or it if you prefer) was a victim from start to finish.

Yes, the child's life comes first. I'm a little surprised at how trivial some seem to think shooting the gorilla was.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

What can I say that already hasn't been said? Any way you look at it, it's a tragedy all around...but it could have been a much bigger tragedy. A dead Gorilla AND a dead child.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The world has changed so much in the past 70 years. Travel is so much cheaper now and destinations that were once available to only the mega rich can be had by just about anyone. You want to see these animals close up? Go and see them on their turf. Believe me you cannot get that from a zoo. For me, to go t a zoo today is just depressing, looking at these animals doing nothing. A few years back I spent a week in the jungle in Costa Rica. No cars, no phones, no nothing. Just the crocs and the many species of apes and snakes etc. That's the way to do it. When you are on their turf you get it. We are the ones being observed.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

I watched a documentary on gorillas once. Majestic animals for sure but was a scene that stuck with me. There was a Silverback who beat a female gorilla's baby to death. He did this to force her to mate with him. It was literally the most violent thing that I've ever seen... Of course, I understand that they are animals and behave as such. I remembered that scene when I saw the gorilla with the little boy... I doubt that a male gorilla would have a protective instinct over a youngster. In the same sense, if humans weren't socialized, we'd probably behave the same (as gorillas).


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

The whole thing is very sad anyway you look at it. The zoo did the only right thing to protect the child. And again, the media jump all over this to make it a circus.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

They really had no choice, it had to be done. Sad yes but there was nothing else they could do.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Mooh said:


> I don't get how they have enclosures that aren't entirely enclosed, ie no possible entry. If a child can get in, it's not an enclosure.


There are different functions of enclosures and barriers. Some aspects are intended to prevent the animal getting out. Others intended to prevent any physical interaction with the animals (e.g., feeding the deer your lunch). Barriers have a symbolic function too. So a rope barrier or a railing that's hard to lean over tells the visitor "You should not and can not go beyond here", even if it is physically possible to do so. Of couse, pre-schoolers are not usually capable of drawing such inferences. I've been at zoos where the animals are behind a mesh enclosure that surrounds them, and there is a space between a railing for viewers and the mesh enclosure for the animals. Safe for anyone who understands the purpose of the railing, but if a kid doesn't get it, they can slip under it and go right up to the mesh. The animal on the other side can't get out, but the kid can still stick their tiny hand through the mesh or up to it.

There is also the difference between the degree of entry-prevention at the spots where one might anticipate viewers gathering the most, and where the barriers end due to other physical parameters. The gorilla enclosure appears to be part of a large rock formation, with rock outcroppings at those points where you "can't really see anything". The barrier will end at such places. There my be a small opening if the railing/barrier is not installed _into_ the rock. Could a small child who isn't as interested in watching the animals as their parent/guardian slip through? Possibly. The tricky part in any security system is anticipating the improbable.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Lord-Humongous said:


> Of course, I understand that they are animals and behave as such.


Take a look around, I don't believe we've got anything to be proud of as a species.

As for the event the Zoo did what it had to do to guarantee the safety of the child. I don't like it, but I understand it. The gorilla was an innocent victim. Both the parents, for lack of adequate supervision, and the zoo, for not providing a safe environment for it's animals or it's visitors, share the blame. In my humble opinion, of course.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

For those that are outraged that the gorilla was shot, I wonder how they'd feel if it was there child. Maybe the gorilla was protecting the child, maybe not. Why take a chance?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The gorilla appeared to be taking an interest in the child as an object. Knowing what to do with a gorilla infant or juvenile to protect it is a whole other matter.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

I can see folks being genuinely sad about the whole matter, but not angry at those who took action. With all the attention this incident has received, perhaps something good (besides the obvious i.e. the child's survival) could come out of it, like a new interest in alternatives to zoos and the like for wildlife conservation efforts...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Milkman said:


> I'm a little surprised at how trivial some seem to think shooting the gorilla was.


I don't think anyone's tried to make it out to be trivial. But no one is willing (and rightly so) to waste any time debating whether or not it had to be done. It did...


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I don't think anyone's tried to make it out to be trivial. But no one is willing (and rightly so) to waste any time debating whether or not it had to be done. It did...


Very well said. Thank you.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

That enclosure has been open for 38 years. This is the first time anyone's gained access to it.

I'd say that's a pretty good record...


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Solution: close all zoos and attempt to return their inmates to natural (or more-natural) habitats. Zoos are expensive anachronisms. Copious easily-available high-quality programs about nature accessible to virtually anyone makes the entrapment and imprisonment of animals for display in numerous cities unnecessary and wrong. Sending schoolchildren to watch the animals sleep through their depression in zoo enclosures isn't teaching them anything important or useful. Zoos are yesterday.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I don't think anyone's tried to make it out to be trivial. But no one is willing (and rightly so) to waste any time debating whether or not it had to be done. It did...


Your opinion.

And the quick, knee jerk statements about how obvious it is that the innocent animal had to be shot are what makes me say people are trivializing his killing.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Mooh said:


> I don't get how they have enclosures that aren't entirely enclosed, ie no possible entry. If a child can get in, it's not an enclosure. That's where zoos have got it wrong




The barriers have been in place for 38 years and this is the first incident they have had. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people who will have gone through there in those years I would say that the barriers have worked pretty damned well.




> besides the questionable ethics of keeping wild animals out of their natural habitat.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.



Zoos like this are engaged in a breeding program designed to keep the endangered species viable.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Mabe they had to shoot the gorilla. Maybe tranquilizers wouldn't have been quick enough. Maybe.
> 
> But, the gorilla was not at fault. He (or it if you prefer) was a victim from start to finish.
> 
> Yes, the child's life comes first. I'm a little surprised at how trivial some seem to think shooting the gorilla was.



I don't think anyone is saying its life was trivial. They are simply saying that when it came down to the child or the gorilla then of course you save the child. And no, tranquilizers would not have worked quickly enough.




Milkman said:


> Your opinion.
> 
> And the quick, knee jerk statements about how obvious it is that the innocent animal had to be shot are what makes me say people are trivializing his killing.



What other viable option did they have?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

boyscout said:


> Solution: close all zoos and attempt to return their inmates to natural (or more-natural) habitats. Zoos are expensive anachronisms. Copious easily-available high-quality programs about nature accessible to virtually anyone makes the entrapment and imprisonment of animals for display in numerous cities unnecessary and wrong. Sending schoolchildren to watch the animals sleep through their depression in zoo enclosures isn't teaching them anything important or useful. Zoos are yesterday.



While I tend to agree, zoos like that do engage in breeding programs which help to guarantee the continued survival and viability of endangered species.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

colchar said:


> I don't think anyone is saying its life was trivial. They are simply saying that when it came down to the child or the gorilla then of course you save the child. And no, tranquilizers would not have worked quickly enough.


Yes, human life has to be valued above an animal. I think that's what I said in my first post.

I'm just saddened that this animal was shot to death because of such an incident.

He was completely innocent.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Yes, human life has to be valued above an animal. I think that's what I said in my first post.
> 
> I'm just saddened that this animal was shot to death because of such an incident.
> 
> He was completely innocent.



Nobody is disputing that.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Ok, your point?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Ok, your point?



You claimed that people were trivializing his killing. I am pointing out that they are not. You also stated that "_. . . the quick, knee jerk statements about how obvious it is that the innocent animal had to be shot are what makes me say people are trivializing his killing_" and I am asking what else you think could possibly have been done? If you think that agreeing with the killing is a knee jerk reaction, what alternative action do you propose?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

There has been much talk about alternatives to shooting the animal. I think in this case we all need to defer to the zoo response team. None of us are qualified to discuss the behaviour of this particular animal and what he may or may not have done. They assessed the situation and made the call. That's good enough for me. It certainly would have been ok by if it were my child in there. 

It was a tragic end to this gorillas life. He was minding his own business and was essentially murdered for doing so. It's not pleasant but apparently that was the only decision that was available. I would also like to point out what this discussion would be like right now if they did not shoot him and we were watching video clips of this child being torn to pieces. We can't have it both ways.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Milkman said:


> Your opinion.
> 
> And the quick, knee jerk statements about how obvious it is that the innocent animal had to be shot are what makes me say people are trivializing his killing.


The gorilla was dragging the kid around like he was a sack of rice. The innocence of the animal isn't being debated here. The kid is in the hospital with serious injuries.

What level of injury to a 4 year old child is acceptable to you?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It was a tragic end to this gorillas life. He was minding his own business and was essentially murdered for doing so. It's not pleasant but apparently that was the only decision that was available. I would also like to point out what this discussion would be like right now if they did not shoot him and we were watching video clips of this child being torn to pieces.


At which point they would have killed the Gorilla anyway. The resulting lawsuit filed by the inattentive parents would likely have bankrupted the zoo and put the lives of the rest of the animals in jeopardy. It makes me feel sick to think about them killing the Gorilla but I think they made the only call available to them.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I havent seen the video, but I cant imagine what a horrifying spectacle that would have been to watch in person.

Killing is something that most of us dont have a stomach to see any more. thats one of the big things about the proliferation of social media. and when we do see it, we're ususally so revolted by it that we have to blame someone/something or second guess the decision, even if the grounds for the decision were reasonable.
i bet if most of us had to watch where our food comes from, every step of the way, a lot of us would be vegetarians as well. but they dont show the killing floor in Mcdonalds commercials for some reason, lol...just smiling kids and basketball players holding a fistful of something that was a part of a living breathing sentient cow a few days ago.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Honestly, as soon as that kid went in the enclosure the Gorilla's end was in sight. Either immediately to prevent or mitigate the child's injury or as an after effect of it killing the child, euthanized. I'm not making a judgement on the morality of the issue but the Gorilla's death was inevitable.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

I'm of the vein that the parenting does hold some responsibility here. I used to do volunteer work with kids. With good parenting, a 4 year can easily be smart enough to know not to go in (even without their parents watchful eye) and disciplined enough to listen when they're told not.

Regardless, as has been said, the situation sucks all around. Can't imagine how scary that would be for all parties involved.

*EDIT: Whether the decision was right or not isn't really the question for me. The question is, was it necessary? To that, the answer is most likely yes.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I saw several sections of the clip where two or three darts could have been admnistered.

Even if they used somehung stringer than they needed (don't they have elephants and rhinos there?) and it killed the gorilla it would have been better than gunning him down.

It's just a sad thing.

I would have probably shot the animal myself, but I get the impression others aren't as bothered by the killing as I am.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I would have probably shot the animal myself, but I get the impression others aren't as bothered by the killing as I am.


Not sure if I'm as bothered my the gorilla dying as you but I know I'd have been sick to my stomach if anything tragic happened to the 4 year old.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I thnk we should ALL be sick to our stomachs over this anyway.

But hey, some people swerve when a squirrel runs in front of their car, and others run the little guy over.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I thnk we should ALL be sick to our stomachs over this anyway.
> 
> But hey, some people swerve when a squirrel runs in front of their car, and others run the little guy over.


And then there are those who would actually swerve to hit it.


I just read an article that stated that the kid had already told his mom he wanted to go in there. duh!


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

And some of those who swerve to avoid the squirrel end up in collisions resulting in injury or death of others.
I wasn't too happy to hear about this, but when I saw the gorilla dragging the kid through the water, the response was a little more understandable.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

boyscout said:


> Solution: close all zoos and attempt to return their inmates to natural (or more-natural) habitats. Zoos are expensive anachronisms. Copious easily-available high-quality programs about nature accessible to virtually anyone makes the entrapment and imprisonment of animals for display in numerous cities unnecessary and wrong. Sending schoolchildren to watch the animals sleep through their depression in zoo enclosures isn't teaching them anything important or useful. Zoos are yesterday.


If you can arrange for folks back in Africa NOT to hunt such animals for bush-meat, or to sell to Chinese men afraid of not getting a boner, be my guest. Until such time as the natural habitats for all endangered species are safe, there will be a place for zoos.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

The correct choice in my mind, was made.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

From what I understand the gorilla was captive born as are a lot of zoo animals these days.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

A tragic incident with very few, or no other ways to handle it.

I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important? That is only from the perspective of humans, who have excelled in finding ways of killing each other. It is on the news every day. Not to mention other ways we try to demean and profit and use each other for our own purposes.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> A tragic incident with very few, or no other ways to handle it.
> 
> I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important? That is only from the perspective of humans, who have excelled in finding ways of killing each other. It is on the news every day. Not to mention other ways we try to demean and profit and use each other for our own purposes.


You won't get lambasted by me. We're probably the worst thing to happen to the planet. All life is precious, except maybe insects, I really don't like insects, especially spiders


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important?


Because we make the rules. Gorilla's don't...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

jb welder said:


> And some of those who swerve to avoid the squirrel end up in collisions resulting in injury or death of others.
> I wasn't too happy to hear about this, but when I saw the gorilla dragging the kid through the water, the response was a little more understandable.


Yes, we have some terrible drivers in Canada.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

davetcan said:


> You won't get lambasted by me. We're probably the worst thing to happen to the planet. All life is precious, except maybe insects, I really don't like insects, especially spiders


Spiders have parents too, Dave.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

adcandour said:


> Spiders have parents too, Dave.


If they're in my house I'd kill them too.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

On another note.

Boy Falling Into Gorilla Enclosure Evokes Memories of 1996 Incident


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> On another note.
> 
> Boy Falling Into Gorilla Enclosure Evokes Memories of 1996 Incident


There's a belief that the kid in that video was protected because the gorilla was female and, as such, was more prone to adopt a protective nature than an aggressive one like we saw with Harambe...


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Jim DaddyO said:


> A tragic incident with very few, or no other ways to handle it.
> 
> I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important? That is only from the perspective of humans, who have excelled in finding ways of killing each other. It is on the news every day. Not to mention other ways we try to demean and profit and use each other for our own purposes.


Human lives aren't more important. Non-humans don't have a voice or a choice. Humans haven't learned what animals have been trying to teach us since the dawn of time. We're slow learners, and it's going to be the death of us all eventually.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

JBeal - I'm curious. Do you actually have children? Even well-raised, well-observed children will do ridiculous things at times because they are curious and have a low cause/consequence meter. I have 4 children, and 20+ years in professional education as a teacher and administrator at the secondary and elementary levels. I can tell you these children you describe are few and far between, which is why mine would never be left unsupervised and unwatched in a place like a zoo.

I've read so many posts by pure idiots ... mostly on Facebook ... saying the parents should have been shot. Was there a lapse in parental responsibility here - sure. To me, the normalcy of visiting a zoo probably created a complacency on the part of the parents, but kids will find ways to do stupid things despite our best efforts to protect them from their own curiosity. That the child told his mother he wanted to get in with the gorilla doesn't set off major alarms for me...my younger boy once told me he wanted to be a flying goat...I hid the ladder, but I didn't move to a 1-story. I doubt the mother paid much attention to the child saying he wanted to get in there because it didn't occur to her that he _could_. To say that the parents should be shot is a perfect example of the idiotic extremist attitudes people develop when they're behind a keyboard. Gorilla or my kid? Gorilla eats the slug every day.

A long time hunter and fisherman, and coming from a background where it was actually done out of necessity, I guess I have a lower sensitivity to these things, Milk. That said, I'm also not a fan of needless killing (probably why I barely hunt anymore). That was a majestic and rare animal that needs protection (ironically, the species protecting it is the one it needs protection from). The combination of mistakes that led to that child getting into that paddock is unfortunate, but once that child was in there, prompt action was demanded. The power these animals possess and the slow action of tranquilizer coupled with the reflex from being shot with a dart would have been a recipe for further disaster. It's unfortunate and saddening, but the correct action was taken.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Mooh said:


> Human lives aren't more important.


If the gorilla was the one deciding that, we'd be screwed.

Sorry, we're more important...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Jim DaddyO said:


> A tragic incident with very few, or no other ways to handle it.
> 
> I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important? That is only from the perspective of humans, who have excelled in finding ways of killing each other. It is on the news every day. Not to mention other ways we try to demean and profit and use each other for our own purposes.


We are a very odd species. We tend to pick and choose our episodes of outrage and the targets. We watch our own starve and do little. We watch our own slaughter each other and do little. But some lunatic kills a lion in Africa (Cecil) and we lose our minds. We want to stay in our comfort zones. We tend to do only things that do no not cause us any personal discomfort. Like actually doing anything other than talking about doing something.

I actually read a post on CBC that some young girl made that stated she believed because there are so many humans and so few apes that she was entirely OK with the child being killed and not the Ape. I hope she realizes in a few years how outrageously and unbelievably stupid she sounds. 

We cannot call ourselves the best but we have been given the higher level of intelligence by the powers that be. To date we have not made good use of them


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Steve6D said:


> Because we make the rules. Gorilla's don't...


For now. It's only a few decades until.....


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> *We cannot call ourselves the best* but we have been given the higher level of intelligence by the powers that be. To date we have not made good use of them


Why can't we?


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Well, we _can_, but we probably shouldn't...since it's entirely biased, egotistical, and self serving.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> Why can't we?


We have a very long way to go before we can do that. Based solely on how we treat each other and every species below us. It's not something we should be proud of for sure. Each individuals mileage may vary but as a whole we have a ton of room for improvement.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

StevieMac said:


> Well, we _can_, but we probably shouldn't...since it's entirely biased, egotistical, and self serving.


People act and speak in their own best interests all the time. It's like species-based patriotism. It's no different than me saying "America is the greatest" while you guys are saying "Canada's the greatest".

No one can name a species which has done more with what they've had. I defy anyone to even try. Is there bad? Sure there is. But there's also _immeasurable _good...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> We have a very long way to go before we can do that. Based solely on how we treat each other and every species below us. It's not something we should be proud of for sure. Each individuals mileage may vary but as a whole we have a ton of room for improvement.


How much have we spent on, and how much talent and expertise has gone into caring for, the needy; not only in our own countries, but in others, as well?

If we get no credit for that, and if that's utterly meaningless, I propose that we repatriate both our talent and our money and give the rest of the world the finger in lieu of assistance...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> Why can't we?


Im with you. Right or wrong, we are THE apex predator, the top of the food chain. Weve proven that we can eliminate pretty much every living thing on this planet.
It doesnt mean we always win every battle, or make every right decision, or sometimes bite off more than we can chew. But its undeniable...humans are calling the shots.
on the positive side, we arent allbad. im sure theres at least as many noble, well-meaning humans as there are gorillas.

i dont know what this has to do with this argument though. If it came down to the child vs one of the gorillas babies, i know what it would have done. in this case, we just hold all the cards.
IMO, this issue isnt whether the kid should have died, the gorilla, the parents etc....it really is about whether or not zoos are such a good thing. Its pretty clear they arent for marine life ie dolphins, orcas etc...maybe its time to revisit mammals as well.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Diablo said:


> IMO, this issue isnt whether the kid should have died, the gorilla, the parents etc....it really is about whether or not zoos are such a good thing.


It was for Harambe. He couldn't be released into the wild, simply because he never lived there. Since we can't unring a bell, we have to accept the fact that Harambe _had _to be kept in captivity. He was born in captivity. He never had to hunt for food. That's good, since he was never _taught _how to hunt for food.

We can decide that zoos aren't good and they should be closed, but the reality is that they're a necessity. A five year old gorilla, born in captivity, would never be able to survive in the wild. So where do we keep such animals? Or do we release them into the wild and let them die in a completely alien environment?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

if thats the cae, maybe we shouldnt be breeding them then?

Im pretty sure they do have sanctuaries for anaimals near their natural habitat where the goal is less about gawking and entertainment (and I'll say it, $$$) and more about re-introducing a portion of them back into the wild.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> ...It's like species-based patriotism. It's no different than me saying "America is the greatest" while you guys are saying "Canada's the greatest".
> 
> No one can name a species which has done more with what they've had. I defy anyone to even try. Is there bad? Sure there is. But there's also _immeasurable _good...


Hmmm. All this chest beating about our dominance over the animal kingdom...being "king of the apes" if you will....reminds me of something I've seen before. It was a wildlife documentary I think ;^ )


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

StevieMac said:


> Hmmm. All this chest beating about our dominance over the animal kingdom...being "king of the apes" if you will....reminds me of something I've seen before. It was a wildlife documentary I think ;^ )


Well, show me where I'm wrong.

Our dominance over the animal kingdom is ridiculously well documented. It would take a fool to conclude otherwise...


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Dominance doesn't equal greater importance. Our dominance has truly fucked up the balance between us and the rest of nature.

But carry on, I doubt whether minds will be changed here.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

b-nads said:


> I have 4 children, and 20+ years in professional education as a teacher and administrator at the secondary and elementary levels. I can tell you these children you describe are few and far between, which is why mine would never be left unsupervised and unwatched in a place like a zoo.


As I said, my experience is based entirely on the volunteer work I've done with young children. I never said these good kids were common, only that they are out there and they are the result of good parenting. I agree, these children are few and far between and that is a tragedy. My only point was that we should all strive to be better parents.



> I've read so many posts by pure idiots ... mostly on Facebook ... saying the parents should have been shot. Was there a lapse in parental responsibility here - sure. To me, the normalcy of visiting a zoo probably created a complacency on the part of the parents, but kids will find ways to do stupid things despite our best efforts to protect them from their own curiosity. That the child told his mother he wanted to get in with the gorilla doesn't set off major alarms for me...my younger boy once told me he wanted to be a flying goat...I hid the ladder, but I didn't move to a 1-story. I doubt the mother paid much attention to the child saying he wanted to get in there because it didn't occur to her that he _could_. To say that the parents should be shot is a perfect example of the idiotic extremist attitudes people develop when they're behind a keyboard.


I agree. I would only add that people sitting so firmly on either extreme aren't really taking the time to think through the issues.

This tragedy raises several moral questions and I would be very interested in seeing that discussion played out, rather than the majority of what we've seen online.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Well, show me where I'm wrong.
> 
> Our dominance over the animal kingdom is ridiculously well documented. It would take a fool to conclude otherwise...


Making friends?

We try not to toss childish insults around on this site( may be a Canadian thing).


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Dominance doesn't equal greater importance. Our dominance has truly fucked up the balance between us and the rest of nature.
> 
> But carry on, I doubt whether minds will be changed here.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


dominance gives deciding power over who/what is of greater importance.


Again, Im not sure where this is going...Maybe some of you should get a living will that stipulates that if ever attacked by a bear, shark etc no effort should be made to save you as your life is no more important than the animal and since the animal has to eat to survive, let nature takes its course. is this correct?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> Well, show me where I'm wrong.
> 
> Our dominance over the animal kingdom is ridiculously well documented. It would take a fool to conclude otherwise...


I have a buddy of mine that is very religious. He has always told me that all the animals on earth were put here for our use. To eat and to conduct experiments on etc. Basically to use in any fashion we see fit. There is that view to consider. I have always gone by Ghandi when he said "a society can be judged by the way it treats it's animals" and I say that to a certain degree. Clearly there are times that animals are required in order to advance our species. How many monkeys are we willing to sacrifice in order to find a cure for cancer? These are things that many people don't want to talk about but are necessary. If you were to ask someone who is dying of cancer or a family member that if sacrificing some animals is acceptable to save a life I am sure the answer in most cases would be a resounding yes. But when we do these things we do them for the best of reasons. But we must acknowledge the sacrifice these other species are making and give them the respect and praise they deserve. 

We don't own them. We share this earth with them. There is nothing more disturbing to me then the abuse of domesticated animals. We took them from the wild and forced them to rely on us. To trust us. Then we abuse them when they have no defense against us. Those are crimes I cannot tolerate.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

This is apparently a view of the gorilla exhibit.










It's not hard to imagine a kid climbing on the rail to get a better look - especially with the bushes growing high enough to block his/her view. It seems that a little person could skip over that railing and slip through those bushes in a second and fall in to a moat that they may not have even known was there.

Given the design I'm not surprised that something like this hasn't happened sooner.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> This is apparently a view of the gorilla exhibit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, except for that last double negative


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Well, show me where I'm wrong.
> 
> Our dominance over the animal kingdom is ridiculously well documented. It would take a fool to conclude otherwise...


Pretty sure no one can disagree with that. How we've managed that superiority is what's open for debate. 

None of this takes away from the decision being the right one, given the circumstances.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Diablo said:


> dominance gives deciding power over who/what is of greater importance.
> 
> 
> Again, Im not sure where this is going...Maybe some of you should get a living will that stipulates that if ever attacked by a bear, shark etc no effort should be made to save you as your life is no more important than the animal and since the animal has to eat to survive, let nature takes its course. is this correct?


I disagree. It gives them power to be selfish and abusive.

I wouldn't assume we (or at least I) wouldn't take our place in the food chain by defending ourselves against an attack by your bear or shark...one usually chooses self-preservation as an individual for one's own safety, and I suggest it's not the same thing as inter-species respect on a mass scale. I've been between mom and baby bear a couple of times, within striking distance of a rattler, but nothing as bad as a bar brawl with swinging pool cues. We humans are a vicious lot.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Mooh said:


> Dominance doesn't equal greater importance. Our dominance has truly fucked up the balance between us and the rest of nature.
> 
> But carry on, I doubt whether minds will be changed here.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Mooh, if you were forced to kill either a monkey or a small boy, would you kill the child?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Milkman said:


> Making friends?
> 
> We try not to toss childish insults around on this site( may be a Canadian thing).


I've insulted no one.

The only way you could be insulted is if you believe the life of a gorilla is more important than the life of a four year old boy.

Do you believe that?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Diablo said:


> dominance gives deciding power over who/what is of greater importance.


Exactly.

We are the dominant species. Therefore, we get to decide which species carries more importance...


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

This is getting silly...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Clearly there are times that animals are required in order to advance our species.


Which essentially states that we are more important...



> How many monkeys are we willing to sacrifice in order to find a cure for cancer? These are things that many people don't want to talk about but are necessary. If you were to ask someone who is dying of cancer or a family member that if sacrificing some animals is acceptable to save a life I am sure the answer in most cases would be a resounding yes. But when we do these things we do them for the best of reasons. But we must acknowledge the sacrifice these other species are making and give them the respect and praise they deserve.


Um, okay. 

How should we do that?



> We don't own them. We share this earth with them. There is nothing more disturbing to me then the abuse of domesticated animals. We took them from the wild and forced them to rely on us. To trust us. Then we abuse them when they have no defense against us. Those are crimes I cannot tolerate.


A Great Dane is domesticated. A lowland gorilla is not. And, in the case of Harambe, he wasn't taken from the wild. I'm pretty sure he was born in captivity...


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Contributing to this thread is like trying to jump in to some double-dutch.

Can we sum up and say that humans are pieces of shit on top of the food and brain chain?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> Which essentially states that we are more important...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to think that several people here are saying that the Ape is more important than the child. I am not reading that here anywhere. Are you seeing something that nobody else here is?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You seem to think that several people here are saying that the Ape is more important than the child. I am not reading that here anywhere. Are you seeing something that nobody else here is?


I've certainly seen posts which state we're not more important than than animals.

Did you miss those?

Permit me to refer you to post #61: The Killing Of The Gorilla At The Cincinnati Zoo


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> I've certainly seen posts which state we're not more important than than animals.
> 
> Did you miss those?
> 
> Permit me to refer you to post #61: The Killing Of The Gorilla At The Cincinnati Zoo


Excellent. That's one in 7 pages worth. I personally don't agree with it. But you seem to think everyone posting has the same opinion. Not me friend


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Excellent. That's one in 7 pages worth. I personally don't agree with it. But you seem to think everyone posting has the same opinion. Not me friend


First you say I think "several people" are of that opinion. Now you're saying I think "everyone" posting has that opinion. If you could settle on one, that would be helpful; thanks so much.

The post I quoted was in response to the question: "I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important?", which was asked by Jim DaddyO. Davetcan also replied to that question with "You won't get lambasted by me. We're probably the worst thing to happen to the planet."

Now, maybe you view things a bit differently north of the border but, down here, none of those are comments which would come from someone who believes humans are more important than animals...


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Davetcan also replied to that question with "You won't get lambasted by me. We're probably the worst thing to happen to the planet."


And I stand by that statement. I'd still have shot the gorilla to save the child though. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> And I stand by that statement. I'd still have shot the gorilla to save the child though. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


Do you believe humans are more important than animals?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Do you believe humans are more important than animals?


Most of them, but not all.

Do you have a particular agenda here?


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

jbealsmusic said:


> As I said, my experience is based entirely on the volunteer work I've done with young children. I never said these good kids were common, only that they are out there and they are the result of good parenting. I agree, these children are few and far between and that is a tragedy. My only point was that we should all strive to be better parents.
> 
> I agree. I would only add that people sitting so firmly on either extreme aren't really taking the time to think through the issues.
> 
> This tragedy raises several moral questions and I would be very interested in seeing that discussion played out, rather than the majority of what we've seen online.


Don't get me wrong, J - I'm not trying to call you out or anything - just adding a bit of insight for consideration. The "good parenting" idea was tossed around a lot in this debate, but how do we know if these are good parents or not. The fact is, accidents happen with kids regardless of parenting practices. Yes, certain situations call for increased vigilance on the part of parents, but it only takes a split second for something to happen.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) I'm notsure this belongs in a "politics" sub-forum, but so be it.

2) There are parts of the criminal code that pertain to cruelty to animals, and apply penalties. We are often disgusted by articles that appear concerning something repugnant that a person has done to a cat, dog, horse, or other animal. Part of our disgust comes from the value we place on freedom from suffering for anything sentient. But there is a difference between wanting as torment and pain free an existence for animals we feel for as possible, and placing their lives at the same value as ours. Indeed, one of the things we often see in sociopaths is early instances in childhood of them hurting small animals. We keep an eye on such things largely because we know that those who are prone to willfully hurting defenseless animals are also prone to acting violently, and remorselessly, towards humans. So, protecting animals supports protecting humans. And when the choice has to be made, the human life comes before the animal life. That does NOT, in any way, support or condone insensitivity to animals, because as I said, we see such insensitivity as a gateway to insensitivity to humans. So, protecting animals is in service of protecting people, even though it also serves its own ends.

If the last Siberian tiger on earth is about to kill my child or spouse, as much as I detest killing anything, the tiger goes.

3) "Good" parents take their eyes off their kids for a bit now and then. Indeed, self-steem essentially arises from learning how to trust your own judgment by being placed in situations of acceptable challenge without anyone watching and guiding your every action.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I would love the Siberian tiger into submission. 

Guess what I would do if I had to choose between my Penny and a guy that I deem an a55hole?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> Most of them, but not all.
> 
> Do you have a particular agenda here?


No agenda, just trying to figure out exactly where you stand.

What type of person would you condemn to death before condemning to death a gorilla who was threatening a small child?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> No agenda, just trying to figure out exactly where you stand.
> 
> What type of person would you condemn to death before condemning to death a gorilla who was threatening a small child?


Let me rephrase that for you because, once again, you're thinking far too narrowly. I've already stated many times the gorilla needs to be killed to save the child. 

So if the question really is (as i think it should be) "what kind of human do i value less than most animals ? "

Well the list could get pretty long but here's a short version;

Terrorists
Pedophiles
Mass murderers
Rapists
Religious fanatics
Wife beaters
Violent Criminals
"people" who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on other people or animals.

Why do i value them less? Because as the "superior race" they should know better. They are supposed to have the capacity to "think" and "feel" but an awful lot of people don't.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> Let me rephrase that for you because, once again, you're thinking far too narrowly. I've already stated many times the gorilla needs to be killed to save the child.
> 
> So if the question really is (as i think it should be) "what kind of human do i value less than most animals ? "
> 
> ...


Hmmmm... Okay.

The only one I would take issue with would be the religious fanatics.

I'm hardly a religious guy; don't believe in "God", per se. But everything else you've listed is not only heinous, but illegal. Being a religious fanatic is not (and, trust me, I've had my run-ins with the 8:00am-on-a-Saturday-morning door-knockers).

It's perplexing that you would opt to have them killed simply because you don't like what they have to say...


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Hmmmm... Okay.
> 
> The only one I would take issue with would be the religious fanatics.
> 
> ...


You're definition of "fanatic" and mine are obviously worlds apart. Point out to me where I said I would have them killed because I don't like what they're saying please.

Please continue to be perplexed, I'm done trying to rationalize what to me seems obvious.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> You're definition of "fanatic" and mine are obviously worlds apart. Point out to me where I said I would have them killed because I don't like what they're saying please.
> 
> Please continue to be perplexed, I'm done trying to rationalize what to me seems obvious.


Well, I asked you "What type of person would you condemn to death before condemning to death a gorilla who was threatening a small child?" The fact that you didn't like the question, and tried to change it, is meaningless. I would agree with every other group on your list, again, because those actions are _illegal_. That should matter to a civilized society, shouldn't it?

What do you consider a "religious fanatic"?

Is Pat Robertson a fanatic because he'll quickly tell you why you're going to Hell? Or is Eric Rudolph a fanatic because he bombed an abortion clinic and killed a police officer? Because the latter is far more than a fanatic...


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

This is a stupid question to begin with. Anyone who thinks they should have waited to see what would happen to the child before they acted against the gorilla has got there priorities completely wrong. The very fact that this is being discussed shows me there is a big problem with mankind today.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I'm enjoying just following along. Open and shut no debate no thinking about it to me, on the original subject. Amazing what we can find to be outraged about.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

adcandour said:


> I would love the Siberian tiger into submission.
> 
> Guess what I would do if I had to choose between my Penny and a guy that I deem an a55hole?
> 
> View attachment 21060


It would appear that your ferocious beast has swallowed a baby right up to the soother!


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

davetcan said:


> Let me rephrase that for you because, once again, you're thinking far too narrowly. I've already stated many times the gorilla needs to be killed to save the child.
> 
> So if the question really is (as i think it should be) "what kind of human do i value less than most animals ? "
> 
> ...


Fixed it for you Dave


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

allthumbs56 said:


> It would appear that your ferocious beat has swallowed a baby right up to the soother!


Haha, it was either my Penny, or that little baby.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Well, I asked you "What type of person would you condemn to death before condemning to death a gorilla who was threatening a small child?" The fact that you didn't like the question, and tried to change it, is meaningless. I would agree with every other group on your list, again, because those actions are _illegal_. That should matter to a civilized society, shouldn't it?
> 
> What do you consider a "religious fanatic"?
> 
> Is Pat Robertson a fanatic because he'll quickly tell you why you're going to Hell? Or is Eric Rudolph a fanatic because he bombed an abortion clinic and killed a police officer? Because the latter is far more than a fanatic...


I believe you're missing Dave's tongue-n-cheek-ish sense of humour.............................


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Could you imagine the outcry if the marksman had accidentally hit the child? I wonder if that thought went through his mind at all. He had to be one helluva shot because I'm sure he only had one chance.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Pretty frigging big target, though.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Could you imagine the outcry if the marksman had accidentally hit the child? I wonder if that thought went through his mind at all. He had to be one helluva shot because I'm sure he only had one chance.


Anyone with 15 minutes training can hit a 6" target every time from 100m. A trained shooter would be an inch. I don't know what range it was shot from but if it was outside 50m I'll eat your hat. He'd have to have had a stroke as he pulled the trigger to miss.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

keto said:


> Anyone with 15 minutes training can hit a 6" target every time from 100m. A trained shooter would be an inch. I don't know what range it was shot from but if it was outside 50m I'll eat your hat. He'd have to have had a stroke as he pulled the trigger to miss.


Yeah but we're talking about a zoo employee - not a sniper. If he'd only wounded the gorilla things would have gone very badly. Watching the video I was amazed at how fast that thing moved in the blink of an eye.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> I believe you're missing Dave's tongue-n-cheek-ish sense of humour.............................


You think? LOL.

But just to be clear, when I say "Religious Fanatic" I mean someone willing to resort to violence to further their beliefs. Perhaps Religious Extremists might have been a better choice of term.

And don't get me started on politicians


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Steve6D said:


> People act and speak in their own best interests all the time. It's like species-based patriotism. It's no different than me saying "America is the greatest" while you guys are saying "Canada's the greatest".
> 
> No one can name a species which has done more with what they've had. I defy anyone to even try. Is there bad? Sure there is. But there's also _immeasurable _good...





Steve6D said:


> First you say I think "several people" are of that opinion. Now you're saying I think "everyone" posting has that opinion. If you could settle on one, that would be helpful; thanks so much.
> 
> The post I quoted was in response to the question: "I suppose I will get lambasted for this, but why are human lives more important?", which was asked by Jim DaddyO. Davetcan also replied to that question with "You won't get lambasted by me. We're probably the worst thing to happen to the planet."
> 
> Now, maybe you view things a bit differently north of the border but, down here, none of those are comments which would come from someone who believes humans are more important than animals...


Now that's at least twice you've brought up Canada vs. U.S.A. While some of your posts seem rather argumentative...for the sake of being argumentative. They're somewhat tolerable. However, if you think this is a suitable place to bring up the whole Canada vs. U.S.A thing...well you're sorely mistaken. I can almost feel that American superiority complex infesting your posts like a virus. This is SO *NOT* the forum for that.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> Now, maybe you view things a bit differently north of the border but, down here, none of those are comments which would come from someone who believes humans are more important than animals...


Your kidding of course, I feel much better now. I know your just having some fun. For a minute there I was starting to think you were out of your mind. Continue on.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

People seem to be blowing this out of proportion.

I think most people who express disappointment at the fact that this animal had to be put down are doing just that, expressing disappointment.

Outrage? Yes, some people are getting carried away. 

I'm not outraged. I, like most people would probably pull the trigger myself if I had to make the call.

It's clear however that some consider animals to be at our disposal, here for our use, consumption and entertainment.

Something about that feels a bit sleezy to me.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

davetcan said:


> You're definition of "fanatic" and mine are obviously worlds apart. Point out to me where I said I would have them killed because I don't like what they're saying please.
> 
> Please continue to be perplexed, I'm done trying to rationalize what to me seems obvious.


Well this is where you really need to outline specifics. "Religous Fanatic" is a broad term and how can you expect someone to know if you're talking about the annoying aunt thats always thumping her Bible at you or the individual that thinks its his "God serving" duty to take out the abortion doctor. For the record I do believe in God and that, alone, to some people could label me a fanatic.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> People seem to be blowing this out of proportion.
> 
> I think most people who express disappointment at the fact that this animal had to be put down are doing just that, expressing disappointment.


I agree. And if people want to feel outrage thats their right and I support it. Because somewhere in the process something wasn't right that allowed this to happen and an innocent gorilla was shot. But thats a separate thing from the decision that was made to kill the gorilla. In this case I fully agree that the right decision was made. 
Its easy to sit back and be the arm chair quarterback to this and think that there were other alternatives.
But you put anyone elses kid in with that gorilla, who thinks there may have been an alternative and you'll see their opinion change mighty quick


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

I just read an interview from the person who raised the gorilla. While he is obviously upset by the final result, his comments seem to validate the act. He, himself, stated that trainers would not enter the enclosure once the animal reached 100lbs, as they are fall too powerful, and what is play to them can be extremely hazardous to a human adult. He also cautioned against personifying these animals too much. 

Refreshingly sensible and realistic response from someone who probably has more emotional investment in the gorilla than anyone else.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> Mooh, if you were forced to kill either a monkey or a small boy, would you kill the child?


In what scenario would I be forced to kill a small child?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Well this is where you really need to outline specifics.


I did. 

"But just to be clear, when I say "Religious Fanatic" I mean someone willing to resort to violence to further their beliefs. Perhaps Religious Extremists might have been a better choice of term.

And don't get me started on politicians "


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Mooh said:


> In what scenario would I be forced to kill a small child?


If he was attacking your monkey, I guess... ;-)


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> But just to be clear, when I say "Religious Fanatic" I mean someone willing to resort to violence to further their beliefs. Perhaps Religious Extremists might have been a better choice of term.


But when they turn to violence they become terrorists.

Holding the beliefs, even to an extreme degree, is not illegal. Acting on them changes the game.

I don't call terrorists "radical Muslims". I call them terrorists, because that's what they are...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

JBFairthorne said:


> Now that's at least twice you've brought up Canada vs. U.S.A. While some of your posts seem rather argumentative...for the sake of being argumentative. They're somewhat tolerable. However, if you think this is a suitable place to bring up the whole Canada vs. U.S.A thing...well you're sorely mistaken. I can almost feel that American superiority complex infesting your posts like a virus. This is SO *NOT* the forum for that.


I'm just trying to figure out the disparate viewpoints coming from some of my Canadian friends, that's all. It happens a lot, actually. You guys think Labatt's is good beer. You think curling's a sport, etc.

What I saw was a Canadian listing those whom he valued less than an animal. He valued the life of an animal over the life of someone who'd nothing wrong. Without his subsequent clarification, I don't see how anyone could see his position as remotely reasonable. I allowed for the possibility that it was a cultural divide between our two fine countries.

Honestly, I didn't expect such a high sensitivity level to that...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Your kidding of course, I feel much better now. I know your just having some fun. For a minute there I was starting to think you were out of your mind. Continue on.


No, I'm not kidding. None of those comments would come from someone who believes humans are more important than animals...


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Labatts' doesn't make good beer. At least none that I've tried lately. But Canadians do make good beer. Just stay away from Labatts and Molsons....

And easy on the curling thing. That's getting close to serious out-n-out brawling stuff now. Next you'll tell me you're siding with the Euros who are fighting the directional sweeping technique Canadians came up with this year.



Milkman said:


> People seem to be blowing this out of proportion.
> 
> I think most people who express disappointment at the fact that this animal had to be put down are doing just that, expressing disappointment.
> 
> ...


It does, but it's understandable.

History is always written by the victors (especially when the victors are the only ones to have invented writing). We are the victors, we tell the stories from our perspective. Some people, much more than others, can see the animal's perspective, but it isn't universal. Some people go too far in this respect, IMO, and think animal rights should take precedence over human rights (like peta). Perhaps that's the cause of some of the kerfuffle here.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> I'm just trying to figure out the disparate viewpoints coming from some of my Canadian friends, that's all. It happens a lot, actually. You guys think Labatt's is good beer. You think curling's a sport, etc.
> 
> What I saw was a Canadian listing those whom he valued less than an animal. He valued the life of an animal over the life of someone who'd nothing wrong. Without his subsequent clarification, I don't see how anyone could see his position as remotely reasonable. I allowed for the possibility that it was a cultural divide between our two fine countries.
> 
> *Honestly, I didn't expect such a high sensitivity level to that*...


...meaning you posted without giving much thought to your comments.

*You guys???*

So *all* Canadians think Labbatts is good beer? And what, *no* Americans do? Years of playing border town bars will dispel that particular insulation pretty quickly. Incidentally, I don't like Labbatts anymore than I like Sam Adams or any other American beer I've tried...and lets not forget one of Labbatts' biggest sellers is actually from the good ole US of A. 

*You* think Curling is a sport??? Well, actually I liken it with darts, pool, etc - skill involved? Yes; more of an activity, though. All things considered, NASCAR ain't an Olympic sport, although a strong case could be made for that lingerie football league...

Like our fine host, I do hope some of your comments here are in gest, as they are inflammatory, immature, and stink of trolling.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> I'm just trying to figure out the disparate viewpoints coming from some of my Canadian friends, that's all. It happens a lot, actually. You guys think Labatt's is good beer. You think curling's a sport, etc.
> 
> What I saw was a Canadian listing those whom he valued less than an animal. He valued the life of an animal over the life of someone who'd nothing wrong. Without his subsequent clarification, I don't see how anyone could see his position as remotely reasonable. I allowed for the possibility that it was a cultural divide between our two fine countries.
> 
> Honestly, I didn't expect such a high sensitivity level to that...


How so?

_DH_


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mooh said:


> In what scenario would I be forced to kill a small child?


Yes he had bad wording but are you not bright enough to know what he meant.
Not killing the animal had a high probability that the child would have been harmed or killed. 
There are many self righteous activists out there thinking it was a bad decision but anyone of us had a child in that danger would have wanted the same decision


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Wow steved6. I'm really beginning to think you're sole purpose here is to be a troll. Curling is every bit as much a sport as golf. And I'm someone who loves golf and not so much curling. And although I dont drink anymore Im proud to know I used to drink a mans beer and not that lady beer we here call water.
And yes I'm taking a couple of shots at your American heritage but it seems this is where you've been wanting it to go by bringing it up quite frequently.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I'm just trying to figure out the disparate viewpoints coming from some of my Canadian friends, that's all. It happens a lot, actually. You guys think Labatt's is good beer. You think curling's a sport, etc.
> 
> What I saw was a Canadian listing those whom he valued less than an animal. He valued the life of an animal over the life of someone who'd nothing wrong. Without his subsequent clarification, I don't see how anyone could see his position as remotely reasonable. I allowed for the possibility that it was a cultural divide between our two fine countries.
> 
> Honestly, I didn't expect such a high sensitivity level to that...


So let me ask you a question for a change.

Do you place all humans above all other forms of life on this planet?

If the answer is "yes" then no clarification is needed.

If it's "no" then please clarify.

Did I actually say I valued the life of an animal to that of someone who'd "done nothing wrong"? Or are you purposefully reading stuff into my comments, after asking for them, in an effort to stir shit? Are we dealing with a troll?

edit - looks like gtman and I were asking the same question at the same time.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Yes he had bad wording but are you not bright enough to know what he meant.
> Not killing the animal had a high probability that the child would have been harmed or killed.
> There are many self righteous activists out there thinking it was a bad decision but anyone of us had a child in that danger would have wanted the same decision


I think Mooh is more than "bright enough". Perhaps a sarcasm smiley would be useful.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

davetcan said:


> I think Mooh is more than "bright enough". Perhaps a sarcasm smiley would be useful.


Sorry. On my phone and tend to forget they're there.
Having said that if you're reading the context Its easy to interperet bad wording. Its obvious we arent debating if the zoo officials should have shot the gorilla or shot the child.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

This is the person I have been waiting to hear from since this whole fuster cluck started:
Jane Goodall.
In my View the world's pre-eminate Primate Behaviourist.
http://www.janegoodall.org/wp-content/uploads/2796_001.pdf

That's a letter/email that has been released consoling the head of the zoo.
I would have preferred a resolution that didn't involve shooting or loss of either animal or human life (This from an ex-infantryman)
However this is the real world.

How much ketamine would it take to knock out an adult gorillia that's on an Adrenalin high from the kids presence and idiots shouting?
unknown/no guarantee

How much damage could the gorillia do if shot to wound?
unknown/no guarantee

Was there time to get another behaviourist/trainer to analyse the situation and get the screaming idiots away from the enclosure?
unknown/no guarantee

If the gorillia is shot & killed, can the kid be returned safely?
yes/guaranteed

Easy call actually.
Sorry mr gorillia, you didn't do anything unnatural, but you're still gone.

I think the kid got lucky he fell into a gorillia enclosure. Chimpanzee or Baboon would have killed the kid pretty much instantly


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

b-nads said:


> ...meaning you posted without giving much thought to your comments.
> 
> *You guys???*
> 
> ...


Dear Lord... Apparently you guys aren't much on tongue-in-cheek comments, either.

Lighten up, huh?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> Wow steved6. I'm really beginning to think you're sole purpose here is to be a troll.


Not at all. What I'm seeing here, though, is a dynamic in which people don't like a different opinion or being questioned about something...



> Curling is every bit as much a sport as golf. And I'm someone who loves golf and not so much curling.


Golf is a sport because you use a ball. Ask George Carlin.

*THAT WAS A JOKE!!*



> And although I dont drink anymore Im proud to know I used to drink a mans beer and not that lady beer we here call water.
> And yes I'm taking a couple of shots at your American heritage but it seems this is where you've been wanting it to go by bringing it up quite frequently.


You took shots at my American heritage?

Where?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> How so?
> 
> _DH_


"How so?" what?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

davetcan said:


> So let me ask you a question for a change.
> 
> Do you place all humans above all other forms of life on this planet?
> 
> ...


Yes, I do.

If a gorilla was attacking a known child molester or murderer, kill the gorilla. Period. Then deal with the individual as deemed appropriate...



> Did I actually say I valued the life of an animal to that of someone who'd "done nothing wrong"? Or are you purposefully reading stuff into my comments, after asking for them, in an effort to stir shit? Are we dealing with a troll?


You listed those whose lives you don't value as much as animals. "Religious fanatics" was among them. Being a fanatic isn't doing something wrong.

I can't restate what you meant to say, I can only read what you say and accept that it's what you intended to convey. Don't get mad at me because you weren't clear (as evidenced by your need to later provide clarification)...


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> If a gorilla was attacking a known child molester or murderer, kill the gorilla. Period. Then deal with the individual as deemed appropriate...
> 
> ...


I'll get mad at you when I damn well please.

(THAT WAS A JOKE)


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

djmarcelca said:


> This is the person I have been waiting to hear from since this whole fuster cluck started:Jane Goodall.


I understand she was quoted as saying she believed the gorilla was protecting the child.

I don't know what video _she _watched, but I doubt it was the one where the little boy was getting violently pulled through the water...


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I would agree with every other group on your list, again, because those actions are _illegal_. That should matter to a civilized society, shouldn't it?


"Yes I do"

(I really need to figure out that multi quote stuff one of these days.)



So you don't see a contradiction in these two statements?

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Or maybe I'm just too thick to understand what you're trying to get me to say.

Your original question, which I didn't like because I thought it was kind of stupid,

"What type of person would you condemn to death before condemning to death a gorilla who was threatening a small child?"

The obvious answer is "none". If a gorilla is threatening anyone, let alone a small child, you kill it.

But if I take myself out of that situation, where there is no immediate threat, and ask myself if there are people on this planet who's lives are worth less than those of an animal, I'll still say yes. Mainly because those "people" are more of a threat to the rest of us than any animal could ever be.

If you'd rather save a terrorist than an animal then knock yourself out.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve6D said:


> I understand she was quoted as saying she believed the gorilla was protecting the child.
> 
> I don't know what video _she _watched, but I doubt it was the one where the little boy was getting violently pulled through the water...


Violent by what standard?
By superimposing human standards on a being that is not human?
By taking into account the proportional strength and size difference?

I'm not an expert on simian behaviour, and unless you have a zoological degree, neither are you.

I saw both in that video.
I saw both aggression and gentleness from that Gorilla, But I have no background to predict how it would act.
Neither do you.
Neither do any of us in this thread.

The People who do acted in the way they felt warranted in that situation.
I reluctantly agree.
I would have preferred not to though.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> Yes he had bad wording but are you not bright enough to know what he meant...


Seriously, this is what you think of me?

I'm disappointed that I haven't made a better impression here.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mooh said:


> Seriously, this is what you think of me?
> 
> I'm disappointed that I haven't made a better impression here.


I didn't state what I thought of you. I only asked.GF^%@


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)




----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

ronmac said:


>




Damn, I was just about to post that!


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

djmarcelca said:


> Violent by what standard?


By the "standard" that a four year old boy shouldn't be dragged by his leg around a moat.

Howsabout _that _standard?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

allthumbs56 said:


> Yeah but we're talking about a zoo employee - not a sniper. If he'd only wounded the gorilla things would have gone very badly. Watching the video I was amazed at how fast that thing moved in the blink of an eye.



But a zoo employee trained for this kind of thing so you'd have to assume they had some training in marksmanship.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

This thread is like crack. I wanna quit it, but I just can't.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> You guys think Labatt's is good beer.


Since when? And how is an American in any position to question Canadian beer? There is a reason the old joke (see below) about American beer exists.

Q: What do having sex in a canoe and American beer have in common?

A: They're both fucking close to water.




> You think curling's a sport


It is.





> What I saw was a Canadian listing those whom he valued less than an animal. He valued the life of an animal over the life of someone who'd nothing wrong. Without his subsequent clarification, I don't see how anyone could see his position as remotely reasonable. I allowed for the possibility that it was a cultural divide between our two fine countries.



You don't think there are American who value the life of an animal over that of a human? You haven't met many animal rights activists have you? Their beliefs are cross cultural.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> History is always written by the victors (especially when the victors are the only ones to have invented writing).



As a trained historian this drives me nuts because it is both simplistic and demonstrably false.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

BTW, despite the crackiness and my desire to see this continue...

No one is really contributing anything anymore. It's getting awkward for us hiding and watching.

It boils down to gorilla vs. molester. What side are you on? Forget the child business - we're all in agreement with that.

So,...gorilla or molester?

I think the reason there's so much friction, is that most contributing GCers would let him kill the molester.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

colchar said:


> Since when? And how is an American in any position to question Canadian beer? There is a reason the old joke (see below) about American beer exists.
> 
> Q: What do having sex in a canoe and American beer have in common?
> 
> A: They're both fucking close to water.


It's pretty comical that you ask "And how is an American in any position to question Canadian beer?" only seconds before judging American beer.

I've had _plenty _of Canadian beers, from Nanaimo to Newfoundland. Quite honestly, most of it blows. That said, I _did _enjoy Big Rock Traditional Ale in Alberta. Tried to get it down here in the States, but to no avail.

But crap like Labatt's or Molson? Sorry. I love beer but, if those were the only ones available, I'd drink whiskey...


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve6D said:


> By the "standard" that a four year old boy shouldn't be dragged by his leg around a moat.
> 
> Howsabout _that _standard?


That's purely subjective.

If my dog tripped you running?, You gonna shoot it?
If a Skunk sprays your dog, you gonna shoot it?
If a racoon eats your garbage you gonna shoot it?
If a deer eats your grass, you gonna shoot it?
How about if a horse dragged the kid around? shoot the horse?

Animals have well established behaviour patterns; until something new happens. The kid getting in the enclosure was very new. I actually agree that the gorillia should have been shot. Doesn't mean I like it.

Kinda surprised you're challenging everyone.

PS, Stay away from bears in springtime too


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I've had _plenty _of Canadian beers, from Nanaimo to Newfoundland. Quite honestly, most of it blows.


Well of course it blows. No one likes passing out after 1. With American beer you can drink it all night and pretend your drunk and having a good time.
But if you're raised on Canadian beer like we were you'll be able to drink more than one before passing out.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The experts have weighed in


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

I drink whiskey and whisky over beer any day...problem solved.

On a related note, what if the gorilla is a molester too?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

colchar said:


> But a zoo employee trained for this kind of thing so you'd have to assume they had some training in marksmanship.


I accept that but how much experience? I'd be willing to bet that the employee has probably not had to do this before ........... and shooting 20 down into a moat and around rocks and corners and bushes at a real target holding a little child with only one shot to get it right can't be like shooting at stationary paper targets. That shooter had some real cajones ................ and probably still can't sleep.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

allthumbs56 said:


> I accept that but how much experience? I'd be willing to bet that the employee has probably not had to do this before ........... and shooting 20 down into a moat and around rocks and corners and bushes at a real target holding a little child with only one shot to get it right can't be like shooting at stationary paper targets. That shooter had some real cajones ................ and probably still can't sleep.


Or maybe he's a hunter or gun enthusiast and could shoot a fly at that distance...too many unknowns.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Tying this back to guitars, did anyone else get the email blast from LA Music this week promoting a sale called "Gorilla Days"? 
Could this be related to something else and not just completely tasteless?
I've never heard that term used for a sale before.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Diablo said:


> Tying this back to guitars, did anyone else get the email blast from LA Music this week promoting a sale called "Gorilla Days"?
> Could this be related to something else and not just completely tasteless?
> I've never heard that term used for a sale before.


That's messed up. I've never heard of that either. I wonder if it has something to do with riding the gorilla thing for more google visibility? I'd take it down unless it means something else.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Rescue Mission in wake of Gorilla shooting.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

djmarcelca said:


> That's purely subjective.


No, it's not. It's impossible to view that video and conclude that the child _wasn't_ being violently dragged through the moat. Stevie Wonder could see that. Anyone who concludes anything different is someone who I hope never breeds.

I don't like that they shot him, either, but I'm not at all shook up about it.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The experts have weighed in


"In the wild, I'm certain the boy wouldn't have been killed."

That's actually a pretty stupid statement. First, this wasn't "the wild". Second, Harambe had never lived in "the wild".

I would be willing to bet that animals who have actually lived in the wild will react differently in the wild...


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

deleted.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Chuck, you say some interesting, edgy stuff and don't delete much. Now I'm tres curious................



colchar said:


> As a trained historian this drives me nuts because it is both simplistic and demonstrably false.


Are you saying another species has invented writing and has written from their own perspective? Did someone actually do the 'million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters for a million days' thing and the monkeys squeeled on us? 

Oh crap, trouble now. I told you were only a few decades from


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2016)

zontar said:


> Rescue Mission in wake of Gorilla shooting.


Loved it!
For those who don't want to click the link;

_
Rescue Mission Launched As Thousands Stranded On Higher Moral Ground

A WORLDWIDE rescue mission has been launched today after thousands of internet commentators were left stranded 
on higher moral ground in dangerously ignorant conditions, following an incident in a Cincinnati zoo where a gorilla 
was shot in a bid to protect a young boy.

Internet rescue service personnel have been inundated with emergency calls from people trapped in comment sections, 
many of whom are incredibly passionate about news stories they can jump to conclusions on without reading the facts.

“It’s very hard to gain access to the higher moral ground. It’s tough for rescuers to get past the raging statements made 
without even a cursory look at the information, and conditions overhead aren’t great as we’ve to weather a torrent of 
mindless abuse,” explained lead rescuer Don Franklin.

In fact, several panicked victims resorted to lambasting the parents of the child in question in a bid to survive the gushing 
stream of opinions engulfing social media.

“Could I wait until the information is gathered before forming an opinion? Of course, but where’s the fun in that, plus they’re 
African American and the father also has a criminal record: I read in the Mail Online,” said one man who has been trapped on 
the moral high ground since Saturday. “What kind of neglectful parent brings their kids to the zoo like that anyway? Surely 
there’s a law against people who have spent time in cages, visiting animals in cages?”

Many experts in the field of ape psychology have since come forward to point out how the child was obviously safer being 
dragged underwater by 800 pound gorilla, who has spent most of its incarcerated life in cramped conditions while being stared 
at by noisy humans with flashing camera phones.

“Split second decisions which are made in high pressure situations all in the name of protecting a child are my bread and butter, 
so trust me when I say I knew exactly what they should have done in that moment. I’m actually livid the Zoo didn’t contact me,” 
shared Alan Boland from Waterford, a father of none and avid nature program fan.

“That poor animal should have been talked down using bananas and sign language. All gorillas know sign language and they should 
have coaxed him away from the child with bananas. Simple” he concluded._

_If you have been affected by a gorilla tragedy, please leave your comment below. 
If you have not been affected by a gorilla tragedy, do not let that stop you._


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

adcandour said:


> He also can't see the point of that stupid video and takes it down a weird path by stating truths that are totally irrelevant to the point that video is making (albeit it a useless one based on who knows what). If he was autistic, I could wrap my head around it; otherwise, it seems like trolling.


I'm glad someone pointed out how dumb it was (the video)


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I'm glad someone pointed out how dumb it was (the video)


It shouldn't have needed to be pointed out in the first place.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

davetcan said:


> It shouldn't have needed to be pointed out in the first place.


Exactly.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I'm glad someone pointed out how dumb it was (the video)


What's dumb about it?

I hope my audacity is asking that question isn't considered "trolling". I'm truly interested in why you would find the video, which shows the interaction between the child and the gorilla who was dragging him through the moat, "dumb"...


----------



## Jamdog (Mar 9, 2016)

@Steve6D, it's not the opinions that makes you a troll, but how you post about it. 

My main question is this: why are most of the post on this thread here from or about you? 

Side question is: what is an American doing posting about monkeys in a Canadian guitar forum? 

On a simpler note: pushing ones opinion and turning around in circles is not argumentation nor discussion.
Being insulted to be pointed out as trollish instead of making a less trolley discussion, is too something to be mentioned. 

I know of lots of US-held forums where a user would have been either moderated down or expulsed by the moderators, yet here the troll is allowed to blame the site. 

Yeah, I see it like it is. 

But I'll stop now. "don't feed the troll"


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Tying this back to guitars, did anyone else get the email blast from LA Music this week promoting a sale called "Gorilla Days"?
> Could this be related to something else and not just completely tasteless?
> I've never heard that term used for a sale before.


Maybe riffing on L&M's Monster Days?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Jamdog said:


> @Steve6D, it's not the opinions that makes you a troll, but how you post about it.
> 
> My main question is this: why are most of the post on this thread here from or about you?


Because I converse with everyone, and not just those I agree with...



> Side question is: what is an American doing posting about monkeys in a Canadian guitar forum?


Well, a few reasons.

First, I spent a good deal of time selling guitars in Canada. Hell, I would wager that I've seen more of Canada than most of the people here.

Second, as a result of having spent so much time in Canada, I know a lot, if not most, of the stores in Canada, and stores are often a topic of conversation on guitar forums.

Lastly, there's no rule precluding it.

Make sense?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Haha, who sent you?

C'mon spill the beans. Was it tgp? Those jokers...haha. LOVE IT!!!


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

adcandour said:


> Haha, who sent you?
> 
> C'mon spill the beans. Was it tgp? Those jokers...haha. LOVE IT!!!


ah I was thinking the same thing quite a while ago.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Yeah, I'm so done with this guy's nonsense...


----------



## Jamdog (Mar 9, 2016)

Steve6D said:


> Because I converse with everyone, and not just those I agree with...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see zero mention of monkeys in your reply, nor any reason why this thread is about you while it being titled gorilla. 

The only conclusion is that you are an American guitar playing monkey. 

Here's proof:


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Guess I have to put on my administration hat for a few minutes and remind everyone of our golden rule. Attack the post not the poster.

To our new member Steve. You have to realize we are a smaller community here and for the most part the people posting in this thread have been hanging around here a long while. We kind of get to know each other's personalities and which way our sense of humor leans. Mine is fairly dry and if you hang out here long enough you will come to realize that the vast majority of the regular posters here are a bunch of nice people. We rarely ban people and rarely have to tune anyone up. So keep that in mind. We throw little barbs at each other all the time. Get to know us.

We also normally don't carry things like this too far and never too seriously. We log our opinions and move on. Continuously pounding the same opinion over and over again usually ends up like this thread.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Well said...except I'm the only nice guy. The rest of you are all jerks.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Jamdog said:


> I see zero mention of monkeys in your reply, nor any reason why this thread is about you while it being titled gorilla.


I addressed the larger question (after all, I've been admonished for taking what's written so literally) of why an American is on a Canadian guitar forum.

Sorry that was so lost on you; I apologize for the fly-by...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Guess I have to put on my administration hat for a few minutes and remind everyone of our golden rule. Attack the post not the poster.
> 
> To our new member Steve. You have to realize we are a smaller community here and for the most part the people posting in this thread have been hanging around here a long while. We kind of get to know each other's personalities and which way our sense of humor leans. Mine is fairly dry and if you hang out here long enough you will come to realize that the vast majority of the regular posters here are a bunch of nice people. We rarely ban people and rarely have to tune anyone up. So keep that in mind. We throw little barbs at each other all the time. Get to know us.
> 
> We also normally don't carry things like this too far and never too seriously. We log our opinions and move on. Continuously pounding the same opinion over and over again usually ends up like this thread.


I understand the dynamic of a smaller internet forum. To be honest, though, I didn't expect to have my presence here questioned because of my nationality. I do well head-butting "old boys clubs"; I don't mind it and, when pushed, I push back. When I see something which I think is stupid, I say it's stupid. If I see someone say that an animal's life is of a higher value than any human's life, I'll take issue with that. That's what's happened here. There's a mob mentality against the new guy. I'm perfectly fine with that. But when people start whining when I push back, I really do have to laugh at them.

I have strong opinions, and I'll state those opinions regardless of how they're received, simply because they're as valid as anyone elses. That's why they're "opinions"...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> What's dumb about it?
> 
> I hope my audacity is asking that question isn't considered "trolling". I'm truly interested in why you would find the video, which shows the interaction between the child and the gorilla who was dragging him through the moat, "dumb"...


I will answer this one if you promise to read my last post first. 

I posted that video because when I viewed it I wanted to vomit. Why? Because it's pure nonsense. We have the "experts" weighing in on a single incident that NOBODY could predict the outcome to. I assumed that was pretty obvious but maybe I should have pointed that out. 

I will also point out now and for my final time that this particular incident, and this incident only, was handled the only way it could have been handled. Anyone with half a brain can understand that. Yes, it's tragic that a majestic beast such as this one had to be killed. Of course people will feel for the animal anyone with half a heart would. But you had a human child in there and that takes precedence. 

If someone feels that the apes life was more important than the child's then they are clearly missing a few pieces to the puzzle. But I don't think anyone here has made that comment about this particular incident. Some have expressed that we do not value animals as much as we should and I happen to agree with that sentiment. 

Now I have to get back to my bejeweled game. I am collecting ruby's or something


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I will answer this one if you promise to read my last post first.
> 
> I posted that video because when I viewed it I wanted to vomit. Why? Because it's pure nonsense. We have the "experts" weighing in on a single incident that NOBODY could predict the outcome to. I assumed that was pretty obvious but maybe I should have pointed that out.


I would submit that it's not the video that's "dumb", but the reactions to it and the comments about it. The video is a pretty fair representation of what happened...



> Now I have to get back to my bejeweled game. I am collecting ruby's or something


Well, it's good to have goals...


----------



## Blind Dog (Mar 4, 2016)

Steve6D said:


> ... If I see someone say that an animal's life is of a higher value than any human's life, I'll take issue with that. ...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Blind Dog said:


>


Is that your IQ or your sperm count?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> Is that your IQ or your sperm count?


I see you are already getting the hang of it. But on that note I think we will call it a day on this thread


----------

