Re: The Gorilla They Killed at Cincinnati Zoo

AngusandBuddhasMom · ‎03-10-2010

@KentuckyWoman wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@KentuckyWoman wrote:
@birkin baby wrote:
I didn't read all the posts here so please excuse me if this is a repeat. I did read that the child told his mother he wanted to go in the gorilla habitat. At that point the mom should have kept a literal hand on that child. She wrote on her Facebook page about how God protected her kid. Well with all due respect to God,and religious people who say this, why wasn't the child protected to not go into the gorilla habitat? Oh, right, that is why God gave that kid PARENTS!!! It's too easy to claim God's protection after the fact so the blame is diverted from the parents. To the mom I say I doubt very seriously that God wanted one of his endangered (by HUMANS) glorious animals gunned down to save your son because of your CARELESS actions. The parents should,at the least, be responsible for costs, have to do community service , and maybe take some classes about parenting. I would have charged them with child endangerment and animal cruelty. Their non-action by failing to keep a hand on their young child,after they knew his desire to enter the habitat, constitutes both .
For those who are familiar with the Bible, Mary and Joseph lost Jesus in the Temple and didn't realize he was missing for one day. Just saying maybe we shouldn't judge or condemn others when we may not have all the facts.
I'm sorry - did I miss the part where Jesus told them he was going to do something dangerous and after Mary said No he did it anyway and Mary was too busy with other things to notice?

And wasn't Jesus 12 - not 4 at the time- and already exhibiting the maturity of his divine nature?
Yes he was and that wasn't my point but whatever. I wonder what his Divine Nature would think of some of the names many have called the parents and zoo officials. Something to think about isn't it?

Did I miss where this became a Christian thread that non Christians who have no clue what your pushing can't reply?

Say Nay · ‎03-12-2010

@febe1 wrote:
@The Monkey on My Back wrote:
@febe1 wrote:
@The Monkey on My Back wrote:
@febe1 wrote:

It was reported on the news: Even if this didn't happen, Harambe dragging the boy thru the water like a rag doll was a sign of aggression and antagonism. The Zoo made the correct decision.
Wouldn't this be your interpretation of what occurred? I have not read anything from an animal specialist that the gorilla's behavior was "a sign of aggression and antagonism". Did you read this somewhere?
No, the zoo's manager has been all over the news reporting this. You need to find out what has happened and what is being reported....
I asked you if you read this somewhere. If you don't have a source that's okay.

ETA This is a direct quote from Maynard taken from CNN:

“The child wasn’t under attack, but all sorts of things could happen in a situation like that,” Maynard said. “So he certainly was at risk.”
The gorilla dragged the boy through the water, and the boy suffered head damage from hitting the concrete. And I gave you the source. No, the gorilla wasn't eating the boy, but it would only have taken a split second for him to kill the boy. You don't hesitate under those circumstances.