Cincinatti Zoo officials shoot and kill gorilla after child falls into enclosure

[Joe Republic]

Wtf?  I know you're a sensitive snowflake these days, but your flabbergasted tone here is arguably more strange than anything I've said here.

What?

I'm pretty sure most people would be equally shocked to hear someone argue that they'd rather see a human child die rather than a gorilla. At least I want to hope so.

I don't recall saying I'd rather see a child die.  But, those who obsess over valuing one sentient species over another tend to become confused and assume that must be the case.

You're still religious, correct?  That probably explains your confusion, and the obsession with a species' value.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't recall saying I'd rather see a child die.

So you'd rather see the gorilla die? Because there was a choice to be made. That's the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't "obsess" over it for the simple reason that I thought, until today, that nobody except a few creeps and mass-murderers would so frontally question the superior moral value of human life. Apparently I was wrong, unless you're in one of those two categories.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't been religious since I was 12 or 13. And what the hell is that "still" doing here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but again I'm pretty sure that the sanctity of human life is a principle that transcends differences in metaphysical beliefs.

[Joe Republic]

I don't recall saying I'd rather see a child die.

So you'd rather see the gorilla die? Because there was a choice to be made. That's the point.

Honestly, I don't overly care about this particular incident.  (I'm more concerned with why he was in a zoo, tbh.)  But it bred an interesting wider discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't "obsess" over it for the simple reason that I thought, until today, that nobody except a few creeps and mass-murderers would so frontally question the superior moral value of human life. Apparently I was wrong, unless you're in one of those two categories.

Bizarre and unnecessary ad hominem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't been religious since I was 12 or 13. And what the hell is that "still" doing here?

K.  Sorry for the insult, I guess?  You just seem to delve into spiritual issues with the fervor of somebody who believes humans were created by some sort of god.  My mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but again I'm pretty sure that the sanctity of human life is a principle that transcends differences in metaphysical beliefs.

I respect the arrogance of your position, but I did say "agree to disagree", did I not?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, I don't overly care about this particular incident.  (I'm more concerned with why he was in a zoo, tbh.)  But it bred an interesting wider discussion.

That's understandable. I didn't care much either when I initially posted, but that was mainly because I thought this was something everybody would agree on.

Again though, regardless of how much you care, I'd still like an answer: If faced with that choice and no alternative option, which of the two beings's death would you rather be responsible for? A human child or a gorilla?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's just an "unless". Maybe my assumptions about human morality are wrong, who knows? Certainly, I'd feel very relieved if I knew for sure you were a deviant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...really?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a humanist who believes that humans are valuable in and of themselves and form the basis for all morality. As far as I know it's a pretty common position among nonbelievers.

And "spiritual issues" can be very fascinating from an agnostic perspective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not a position I'm willing to "agree to disagree" about.

[Joe Republic]

Again though, regardless of how much you care, I'd still like an answer: If faced with that choice and no alternative option, which of the two beings's death would you rather be responsible for? A human child or a gorilla?

Neither, I suppose.  By the time I've finished being forced into your world of placing value in one sentient creature over another, events would probably have already taken over without me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not a position I'm willing to "agree to disagree" about.

Then I think you might need to have the phrase explained to you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Again though, regardless of how much you care, I'd still like an answer: If faced with that choice and no alternative option, which of the two beings's death would you rather be responsible for? A human child or a gorilla?

Neither, I suppose.  By the time I've finished being forced into your world of placing value in one sentient creature over another, events would probably have already taken over without me.

You realize that sometimes these choices have to be made in real life, right? It's pretty hilarious that you're pretending to be the wise, detached one in this discussion, all the while childishly refusing to choose in a very simple binary scenario.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know what this phrase means. Your position is not morally acceptable and as such I can't accept to just leave it there.

[Joe Republic]

Again though, regardless of how much you care, I'd still like an answer: If faced with that choice and no alternative option, which of the two beings's death would you rather be responsible for? A human child or a gorilla?

Neither, I suppose.  By the time I've finished being forced into your world of placing value in one sentient creature over another, events would probably have already taken over without me.

You realize that sometimes these choices have to be made in real life, right? It's pretty hilarious that you're pretending to be the wise, detached one in this discussion, all the while childishly refusing to choose in a very simple binary scenario.

Sigh.  I guess I'll just have to wait until one of these hypotheticals comes true, then I can cross that bridge when I get to it.  Satisfied?  (Probably not.)

Your position is not morally acceptable and as such I can't accept to just leave it there.

Why do I have to abide by your set of morals, random internet person?  That's rather authoritarian of you.


This disagreement is actually quite simple.  You have arbitrarily decided that humans have a value greater than any other species.  I reject that concept.  This isn't as complicated as you make it seem.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sigh.  I guess I'll just have to wait until one of these hypotheticals comes true, then I can cross that bridge when I get to it.  Satisfied?  (Probably not.)

Duh. People are rarely "satisfied" when you dance around instead of answering a very simple question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't force you to abide by anything. I can, however, call you out for having an utterly f**ked up worldview.

[Speed of Sound]

Sigh.  I guess I'll just have to wait until one of these hypotheticals comes true, then I can cross that bridge when I get to it.  Satisfied?  (Probably not.)

Duh. People are rarely "satisfied" when you dance around instead of answering a very simple question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't force you to abide by anything. I can, however, call you out for having an utterly f**ked up worldview.

Joe's renowned sassiness aside, I must say it doesn't look like you came to the table with any interest in actually debating the matter at hand.

[Joe Republic]

I've answered your question as best I can.  You really don't have to be so melodramatic.  If this is really the most controversial opinion you've ever had to face, I sincerely hope you find yourself a nice, comfortable safe space somewhere, for your own sanity.

[Kingpoleon]

I would have preferred a whole bunch of tranquilizer guns if that would have worked. However, I'm sure we can all agree that a child's life ought to be more valued than a gorilla's except for Joe.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

As morbid as it sounds, I could see a situation where if it meant saving a species, the loss of one human life is morally debatable.

[Joe Republic]

However, I'm sure we can all agree that a child's life ought to be more valued than a guerrilla's except for Joe.

Well, it depends if their cause is one you agree with, no?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

From a purely selfish standpoint, it ought not seem strange that we would value "one of our own" over an "other". Our ability to empathize with a gorilla should be limited. But, I admit, a humanist society ought not necessarily be the default view of our society. That said, I suppose the argument could be made that biodiversity is more important to the "broader picture" than a single human life. I don't know the objective value of one member of an endangered species, but I imagine the debate could be made, though I'd, in general, disagree with that assertion.

That said, if we want to take the position that human life is essentially equal to that of a gorilla, it still would not "really matter". We have the weapons, we can assert force across the globe, gorillas can not. So if life has no inherent value, we still have the ability, if not the overt right, to assert the species' will, regardless of morality.

As for my own viewpoint, were I still the good Catholic I was raised to be, I'm sure I would produce some internally coherent, though not necessarily facially true argument stating that the boy's life is worth more than the gorillas. Outside of that, I refer to paragraph 2 and the point that I can empathize more with the boy and his parents than any animal.

[Speed of Sound]

To parts of Joe's point, I don't think "would you kill a human or gorilla?" is the right question. The dominating questions should be "how did a kid get in there?", "why do we cage gorillas in the first place?", "are there better options in the future?", etc. Pontificating about human greatness doesn't help much from stopping this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To parts of Joe's point, I don't think "would you kill a human or gorilla?" is the right question. The dominating questions should be "how did a kid get in there?", "why do we cage gorillas in the first place?", "are there better options in the future?", etc. Pontificating about human greatness doesn't help much from stopping this.

OK, but provided that there was a zoo, that one of its cages had a gorilla in it, that a kid got there somehow, and that he would have died if the gorilla hadn't been killed, isn't this an important moral question to resolve? These things do happen and will sometimes happen. If we can't agree as a society on which of those two lives we value most, that's a serious problem.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This isn't the meme thread I was hoping for.

In all seriousness, I didn't actually want the kid to die, either.*  I'm just an asshole and a pessimist and I own up to that, but I'm not a nihilist.  And it's probably a safe bet to assume that the zoo made the right call simply because they were actually on the scene and had a better understanding of the situation at hand.  There have been cases where gorillas were recorded helping infants and protecting them from harm.  This was not one of those cases, unfortunately.  Let's not reduce this to a trolley exercise.

*This doesn't mean I have to like the kid.  Or kids in general, for that matter.

[This account no longer in use.]

Let's not reduce this to a trolley exercise.

Too late.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm just an asshole and a pessimist and I own up to that,

Ugh, please don't. One Cathcon is enough.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This isn't the meme thread I was hoping for.

Danny Trejo can solve that problem!

[Joe Republic]

If we can't agree as a society on which of those two lives we value most, that's a serious problem.

https://youtu.be/Wi9y5-Vo61w?t=45  [CAUTION: this video contains footage of a conservative politician.  DO NOT watch from inside your safe space.  May cause severe anxiety.]

Your obsession with the comparative value of entire species is a serious problem.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

[Antonio the Sixth]

If we can't agree as a society on which of those two lives we value most, that's a serious problem.

https://youtu.be/Wi9y5-Vo61w?t=45

Your obsession with the comparative value of entire species is a serious problem.

Quoting Ronald Reagan is not a good way to make me respect your "views" more.

And what's a "serious problem" is that apparently we still have creeps like you who only view humanity as a "species" whose population to control rather that as a community of actual people with basic rights and dignity.

[Arturo Belano]

Harambe (just like the real version) is a dead meme.

[Joe Republic]

If we can't agree as a society on which of those two lives we value most, that's a serious problem.

https://youtu.be/Wi9y5-Vo61w?t=45

Your obsession with the comparative value of entire species is a serious problem.

Quoting Ronald Reagan is not a good way to make me respect your "views" more.

Whoops, I forgot to include the #triggerwarning for you.  I've edited it in to my previous post; I just hope it can apply retroactively. 

And what's a "serious problem" is that apparently we still have creeps like you who only view humanity as a "species" whose population to control rather that as a community of actual people with basic rights and dignity.

Hilariously ineffective personal attacks aside, you should probably hurry back over to that other thread where your own views have been mercilessly mocked for three pages and counting.

Edit: never mind, I just saw you've already pathetically backed down.