Is it ok - Harambe Killing.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Moody, Jun 4, 2016.

  1. Welcome back to is it ok and for a player-submitted one for forums to get their gnashers into.

    Is it ok to kill an endangered species to protect a human?



    After the news exploded over he internet last week that a child fell into the enclosure of Harambe, a 17 year old male gorilla in Cincinnati is it ok that a an animal where there are only 790 of them left was put as less important than that of a human child (when there are 7.4billion).



    In ratio terms that is the equivalent of 9.4million humans being wiped off the planet.

    Is it ok that due to the stupidity of humans a majestic creature that did absolutely nothing wrong, suspect or behave in any way out of the ordinary to its daily life was shot and killed?

    I don't doubt that over a long period of time the boy would have become hurt, or even killed as Harambe dealt with the intruder to his habitat. But was killing Harambe the best course of action? What suggestions can you think of?



    Should the parents have been prosecuted for allowing their child too close to the enclosure? Should the zoo have questions to answer about how good the barriers are between man and animal at their zoo? I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions. They are just help spark debate!



    Would it have been better to tranquillise the gorilla and risk some damage to the boy or are humans life worth more than that of a gorilla?

    Is it ok?

    Forums decide.

    Moody ️

    N.B. I know this is an unbiased is it ok. And I know that my opinions are possibly extreme and likely to be argued against. But if you had the education I have had on this topic amongst others I bet you'd feel the same.
     
  2. He wouldnt have been killed if he was white
     
  3. i'm literally speechless. I am literally at a loss for words.
     
  4. :eek:
     
  5. Well, here's the thing, we still don't know if he was protecting the boy or against him...

    Quite frankly we will never know, just only know that in a similar situation the gorilla protected the young child
     
  6. I don't think we can really compare the life of an animal to that of a human. It's sad, yeah, but this kid could be the next Michael Jordan, or Albert Einstein. If the gorilla meant to kill him, and had done so, we wouldn't get to find out.

    I also think it's saddening that because the father messed up his life, that people think the kids life doesn't matter(or that he should have been tranquilized which can take up to 15 minutes, in turn possibly killing him).

    If it comes between a child and an animal, the child should ALWAYS be first. No matter what. Human life is more important than an animals life.

    I'm not for animal abuse, or illegal hunting and such, but I do value human life to be far more superior than an animal.
     
  7. My understanding is that the child managed to slip between the protective barriers and fell into the enclosure.

    The gorilla then proceeded to drag the child for, what, 17 feet? And was then in a state described as agitated.

    When I heard the news I wondered if he thought he was getting some kind of exotic meal chucked at him.

    The zoo took the decision to shoot their captive animal rather than risk the inevitable lawsuit for negligence.

    You could aruge that the parents were at fault, but then why bother having barriers at all if humans are so reponsible all of the time?

    Meh, get rid of all zoos, they've served their original purpose and are now obsolete. At least while Attenborough is still around.
     
  8. Harambe killing should be Haram.
     
  9. As sad and unfortunate as this is the zoo made the right decision imo. They couldn't risk the child being killed and tranquillisers would have taken too long to work and probably agitate Harambe even further.
     
  10. If youve seen the video the gorilla looks calm and protective and the mom should be put down bc of the fact she was on her phone and let her kid run unattended and it's extremely hard to slip into an enclosure he was unattended for atleast 4 min while she was on her phone
     
  11. Without being there and able to judge on exactly what was happening and not being an animal behaviour specialist.

    They made a decision based on saving the life of a child.

    There is no right or wrong in this situation.
    Killing harambe to save a child, or allowing a child to die are both wrong choices.
    There is no good or acceptable answer, when simply put a situation should never have occurred.

    Bad enclosure design.
    Poor parenting allowing a child so young so close without adequate supervision.

    There is plenty of blame to be apportioned and lessons to be learned.
    Humanity seems to do nothing but harm nature even when we try to protect it.
    You can equally argue should beaches have shark nets that kill millions of marine animals. Just so people can go swimming.
    If we are going to have zoo's they need to be safe for both the visitor. And the residents.
     
  12. Unattended? I agree. Bad parenting. Yet are you saying it would be okay not to kill the gorilla? The gorilla dragged the kid around, and was stated to be in a state of agitation.. So what's more important, a human or an animal?
     
  13. Human Life > Animal Life. That's the way it is in pretty much every case. As the superior being we protect ourselves rather than putting ourselves at risk and protecting other species. I don't completely agree with this but I don't really disagree with it either. If we start putting animal lives over human lives, many many people will die.
     
  14. I think killing it was the right move, but I also think the parents should be charged with something. Yes, accidents happen, but an accidental death is still a death.
     
  15. I served in public safety for 23 years. When faced with a situation that you never have been in before, a decision still has to be made. They made that choice to euthanize the animal because of the inherit risk to the child. I don't for 1 second challange that choice. I was not there in those minutes as it played out and don't have any historical fact. I am sure their handler was present giving advice and sharing tips of body language....the zoo didn't just allow a stranger to sight in and whack their gorilla.

    Now, do I think the parents are liable, damn straight they are for being idiots. I can also speculate that the zoo built the enclosure with the latest safety features of its time. That they conducted annual inspections or even more often than that to verify no construction decline had occurred since it was built. If they had not completed inspections or if there had been previous instances of safety throughout the zoo, then the zoo has some explaining to do. For me to sit here and arm chair the quarterback because he made a pass in the few seconds left of a game is wrong. Let the investigation play out as it will before you pass judgement.

    Oh, and whoever was referencing the parents history. ....please stop. A child can change a legacy. This childs life was worth no less than mine or the potus's child. Black, white, red or green. I don't care who or what they come from. A child is a child and it has alot of value in my opinion. Now had the dad fallen over, we'll let's save that debate for Moody's next thread. Lol

    Edited to add...nice topic Moody. I think this one will stir the pot for sure. Be prepared to lick the spoon.
     
  16. Let the kid die.
     
  17. A very fair point, and in the situation you mention the gorilla was a mother with her own child on her back. She was seen to be nurturing rather than aggressive towards the possible threat. We will never know and if the situation were to repeat then experts in the species will always have a better opinion than mine or anyone else's
     
  18. Agreed, postman. Like I said, who knows this kid could be the next MJ, or Einstein, or the next president!
     
  19. I agree with your premise, we don't need to ogle at animals anymore within cages or enclosures.

    However, good conservation science is completed within zoos as we learn about these creatures and how we can best protect them in regards to their extinction or other issues.

    Zoos as a public attraction are still used mainly for their income. Scientists complete their conservation on the animals which is funded my you and me as we watch them. If we could fund zoos without keeping them like fancy real-life televisions I would be all for it