Yes, I know gorillas are animals and the keepers probably did the best they could in the situation.

People are angry because a rare and highly endangered animal had to be destroyed because of human negligence.

It's possible the mom did something stupid to allow or even cause her child to fall into the enclosure. It's also entirely possible the zoo was negligent and didn't provide enough safeguards to prevent accidents like this. It could even be a combination of the two.

I'm withholding judgement until the facts come out.

When I first saw the footage and he yanked the child through the water, I immediately reacted by considering the gorilla expendable.

Also, the Cincinnati Zoo is one of the most depressing places I've ever been. Fuck zoos.

StanleyPain did a great job explaining some of the basic facts about this situation.

People are angry because they love to get their ignorant rage on. That's it. That's the only reason.

He was only twenty years away from retirement. :(

APE SHALL NOT KILL APE!

What's the matter with them?

I guess you might say, they just joined the human race.

Could be, the human race has run.

No, no, it's a quote from Battle For the Planet of the Apes. After ape kills ape (specifically, when Aldo the Evil Ape kills Cornelius the Child Ape), the humans realize that the surviving apes are becoming more human.

One line only, Holden.

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. The great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take 'good', for instance. If you have a word like 'good', what need is there for a word like 'bad'? 'Ungood' will do just as well - better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of 'good', what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like 'excellent' and 'splendid' and all the rest of them? 'Plusgood' covers the meaning; or 'doubleplusgood' if you want something stronger still. In the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. The whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word."

One thousand words, without a punchline.

"Brevity is the soul of wit."
-Oscar Wilde(cat)-

We went over that in a previous video, Mr Wildcat! That very quote was the one I alluded to when I said brevity was not my strong point. I naturally gravitate towards thorough, pedantic analyses, rather than the punchy witticisms that degenerative media and poor public education have accustomed us to.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is neither the soul of logic nor reason.

If you can limp, then limp well Holden.

Define "limp well". How would you quantify something like that?

It's what you do when one of your two legs isn't working.

Can you really have rascism with only one rascal?

i see two, and the rapscallion parent/guardians who drunkenly threw him down there in the first place. jim norton freaked out about this

Speciesism. Race is a human construct with no scientific basis or definition. Not to say people from different areas don't have clear genetic differences, but people from the same areas also have clear genetic differences.

You should get your dna profiled by one of the services that does that now for a reasonable fee. I'm sure you will find something you thought wasn't possible.

i'm originally from south american, most likely peruvian stock

There's really only one way to find out if that's the case.

...except it *was* a black child...

Exactly blase, that's why it was hilarious.

Because not everyone can afford a globe trekking safari to expose their kids to wildlife?

I'm not going to defend zoos, but I do think they're a necessary evil that helps instill environmentalism at an early age and overall are a net positive.

"helps instill environmentalism at an early age"


Do they, though?



And why exactly does everything have to be available to be seen or experienced by humans just be cause it can be?

That's actually a good question.

Lots of people claim that seeing the animals as a kid made them realize the importance of global environmentalism, but that doesn't mean those claims are actually true.

I dunno. Has anyone done a study investigating zoos & commitment to environmentalism?

I don't know.

But I do know a lot of very dedicated and passionate people work and volunteer at zoos, and a hands-on animal exhibit or show led by someone with an infectious optimism probably has a much bigger impact than sitting your kids down in front of the TV and forcing them to watch Planet Earth.

Exactly.

I find zoos horribly depressing as well, but for a lot of people they do a great job at making a certain kind of environmentalism tangible & necessary.

Is that worth the cost to the animals in the zoo? For that matter, what *is* the cost to the animals in the zoo? I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'm hesitant to advocate banning something just because it makes me feel uncomfortable & slightly depressed.

I know the zoos protect my species,
they give me food, collect my feces.
But I can't help it, I miss the past.
I'll never again, see outside this cold glass.

The claim that zoos protect species is a bold one and reeks of rationalizing the conditioning were exposed to as children. The processes that lead to species endangerment seem to have little to do with zoo visitors. I've never been able to associate non-token measures to protect species with zoo visits. Just think of the first megafauna that come to mind, what have zoos done for them? Wouldn't conservation efforts be more successful if run without the confoundung effects of gawking humans outside cages?

Just look at SeaWorld. I hear all the misguided passion the workers have for the animals...but none of the anti blackfish statements have suggested any other purpose other than to make SeaWorld owners rich and livings for employees. Unless those animals had been (politely) conditioned to be there they would fucking leave. Let them go and enjoy a well shot documentary.

What protection is afforded is entirely due to the fact that they can't be as easily killed in the cage as they can be in the wild. Otherwise, it is a prison for the innocent. Nothing could be more heartbreaking, and I wonder sometimes if extinction would be preferrable. I hate zoos.

I honestly think the documentary is better, since it forces humans to go and film the animal in its environment. This provides way more information than just how it behaves in captivity.

inferring that SeaWorld is an accurate representation of most Zoos is very sketchy.

SeaWorld is a theme park, with animal attractions. Nothing more.

The other end of that spectrum is the San Diego Zoo, which is run by a non-profit with the buildings and animals being owned by the city. It breeds endangered species and reintroduces the offspring into the wild.

You say that both zoos and SeaWold are on the same continuum but that comparing the two is "sketchy"...they aren't all that different:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/share/why-some-seaworld-opponen ts-still-love-the-zoo/

A zoo's primary mission is entertaining the public, all conservation effort is secondary. Do you see any gorillas, polar bears, tigers or elephants on this list?

https://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/endangeredspecies/capbreedpops /default.cfm

I didn't say zoos and seaward are the same, you did.

And just because zoos aren't breeding your favorite poster animal doesn't mean they're useless.

(And breeding some of those animals in a zoo environment would be pointless too...you don't want to be producing large carnivorous animals that are used to humans and expect to be fed by them)

Doh. See reply below.

Zoos might be better if they provided substantially more space for the animals, although that isn't as cost effective. But I think after so many televised documentaries, many people realize that seeing animals as they behave in the wild is more interesting than seeing them cooped up in small enclosures, either asleep or acting confined.

Comparing things means they are the same, got it.