CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I personally would have preferred that all the people preferring that the gorilla be saved would be thrown in with the gorillas for 3 days. Now that would be fun to watch.
The Go-rilla needed to die and he is dead now ! But those Progressives are all about compassion and caring until it comes to human life then NOT SO MUCH ! They have displayed that !
Yes, it is very sad that the gorilla died. It should and could have been prevented and right now the main thing the zoo needs to focus on is making sure it doesn't happen again. It's really a lose lose situation for the them. Two things could have happened. They could have tranq'd the gorilla on the small chance that it wouldn't have pissed the it off which could have hurt, possibly killed the boy before it fell asleep, or they could have shot and killed the gorilla. In the interest of saving that kids life they chose the best option and it's sad but it's a fact. As far as the parents are concerned, from what I know the mother had four kids she was taking to the zoo by herself. Now I didn't look further so if that's wrong then let me know but even with TWO kids they can be a handful. She should have gotten help so it is partially her fault that this happened. You can't keep your eyes on your kids all the time, even a second can lead to your kid just wandering off but that kid needs some serious punishment and those parents need to pay a fine.
It's not always an option for a mother of four to have assistance. It seems as though you are insinuating that she should just stay at home with the children unless she has help. The mother should absolutely not be fined. Kids are so quick! I'm a nurse in the ER and had to care for a four year old that ran in front of a pizza delivery driver in an apartment complex. The mother was holding her sons hand, she dropped her keys, let go of his hand for one second to bend down and grab them and her son ran. Unfortunately, the boy did not survive. Do you feel that she should be fined for being an unfit parent?
I think she should know limitations. I know as a parent, having two kids can be difficult to wrangle just as I know they are more than able to scoot off in the blink of an eye. Unfortunate things happen and this is just one of them. That's terrible for the mother who lost her child, she will be reliving that horrific experience for the rest of her life. This mother thankfully will not. I didn't say that she was an unfit parent, I am suggesting however that she not go to the zoo that day if she is unable to take measures to care for all the kids.
I dont see any reason why the guns that shot the gorilla couldnt have been loaded with tranquilizers. Theyre shooting bullets dangerously close to the kid anyways so why cant you shoot high-power tranquilizers and save both of them? I think there are several courses of action that couldve been taken by the zoo staff to rescue both the boy and the gorilla. And all other courses of action aside from killing it shouldve been investigated first considering how endangered the animal was.
If the gorilla would have been shot with a tranquilizer it most likely would have become enraged and ravaged the child. It would have taken around 10 minutes for the dart to take effect. The gorilla seemed to be agitated. I fairly positive it would have attacked the child. Resulting in death. Also, what if the gorilla fell on top of the child? It was wise, but saddening, to shoot the gorilla.
Emotional appeals don't really indicate a logical, thought out stance on a situation. Many parents would harm many, many people in order to protect their children. That doesn't make it alright.
My response states that I feel that it is murder, but that is NOT my stance. I agree that the gorilla should be shot. I must have pressed the wrong button.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "emotional appeals"
Sorry, wasn't trying to say that your stance wasn't logical or thought out, more that appealing to the emotions of a parent and their relationship to their child, which will almost always transcend considerations for anyone and everyone else, isn't exactly going to lead to the most "logical" of outcomes.
I personally do not think the gorilla should have been shot, at least not at the time that it was.
The most logical option is killing the gorilla. Logic is defined as "a particular way of thinking, esp. one that is reasonable and based on good judgment".
It's hard to justify the logic of wasting more time trying to lure the gorilla away or tranquilizing him "hoping" that the small child will be set free.
Let's flip the situation and say they did tranquilize the gorilla, the gorilla became very aggressive and killed the child. A human life is now lost.
I find it extremely disheartening that the value of the life of the gorilla is even considered to be equal to the value of the life of the child.
I don't have any clear distinction between which lives are worth more, or even if they are equal. I am tempted to say that due to the scarcity of gorillas vs the prevalence of humans, deference should have been given to the gorilla, but I'm not even fully convinced of that yet.
Oddly enough no. I probably should be, but after having been raised with a meat-heavy diet, I find myself too weak of character to make the switch, despite moral, economic, and environmental concerns all directing me towards it.
The gorilla wasn't really hurting the kid. Even if he was, I don't see any reason to kill it. Gorillas are actually very protective of their young. That species, in particular, could be violent, but he wasn't hurting the kid.
So foil7 you are implying they should have waited until the gorilla began to attack the child before shooting him? Silverback gorillas have a high potential to attack when threatened or scared. News articles comment on the people yelling, which could absolutely threaten the gorilla.
They should shoot you first if you are so concerned with how many humans there are. Nah, you want your life but the kid could die? What a mindless post!