I didn't say the child wasn't hurt. I said he wasn't severely hurt. Which he wasn't. No one ever said children weren't fragile. And I don't believe anyone said to leave the child there for an indefinite amount of time. I never claimed to be an expert. I said that from the very beginning. However I haven't been speaking in absolutes like I know what I am talking about. I haven't been trying to make untrue factual statements. Again, the child is important. Most of us can agree on that. So what if it was captive bred? That makes it less important, doesn't? If anything that makes it even more important because it had to be bred in captivity due to it being endangered. I doubt the gorilla would have been put down for minor injuries. The kid got in there on his own because the zoo provided insufficient barriers. If it was put down, it would be a mistake because it wasn't the gorillas fault. It's a little hard to understand your arguments. Most of them don't make sense. Have you watched the whole video or just the small parts that show him dragging the kid? Have you read anything about him being dragged at such a high speed during the time he was in there? He could possibly have been hurt if the gorilla kept pulling. He also might have been fine. See, it goes both ways. You're only acknowledging the worst possible scenario without considering the whole. I am interested in the zoos decision process. I wonder what else they considered.
Usually when it's animal vs child people tend to consider the worse? Idk I've never seen someone like "Ok yeah that kids playing with a rattle snake... But what if the snake doesn't decide to strike??" And people have to put caution hot warnings on hair straighteners because if they don't the company can get sued... People will sue for anything and win
Did I say not to consider the worst? No. That would be stupid. I said you are only acknowledging the worst possible situation without bothering to have in mind the other side of the situation. 'Quick shoot the gorilla' seems to be your mentality based on little solid argument. Rash decision making gets us nowhere.
I clearly didn't make the choice, the zoo clearly decided it was their best choice after thinking about it. So no my mentality isn't "quick shoot the gorillas" it's more like "quick save the child! Can we spare the gorilla? No the tranq darts would take 15 minutes? Ok then, rip gorilla" lmao I mean if you really want to go argue with the people who took care of it and know it better than either of us be my guest idfk.
Again, yes the zoo obviously tried to make the choice they thought was best. I've said that all along (do you read anyone's posts? :roll. But it's a shame it had to come to this. I'm not arguing for or against what they did. I'm not telling the zoo they should have done something different. What's done is done. I am only wishing it could have been an outcome thay saved them both. And I'm arguing against this happening again. I can only hope that in the 10 minutes the kid was down there they did consider the possibility of getting them both out alive. I hope the thought process considered Harambe as well. And I hope it wasn't filled with 'What won't land us in court?'. Zoos need to learn from this. Humans need to learn from this. Not just to get some better barriers. But to consider why we need breed them in captivity at all. We put them there for our own mistakes. Nobody elses.