August 28, 2016

"We are not amused by the memes, petitions and signs about Harambe.... Our zoo family is still healing..."

"... and the constant mention of Harambe makes moving forward more difficult for us," said Thane Maynard, director of the Cincinnati Zoo.
For example, replying to a Twitter post about zebras and their unique stripes, one user wrote: “U had a unique way of killing Harambe.”

On a post celebrating Elephant Day, another wrote: “Harambe loved elephants.”
Maynard's request for sympathy for the humans only encouraged the memesters, and Thane and the Zoo ended up deleting their Twitter accounts. 
Depending on how the meme is used, #JusticeforHarambe can either be associated with a petition with nearly 500,000 signatures that seeks to hold the boy’s parents responsible for his wandering into the exhibit, or serve as a launching pad for jokes that lampoon activism, according to Ryan Milner, an assistant professor of communications at the College of Charleston and the author of the coming book “The World Made Meme.”
Ironically, "The World Made Meme" is only available in hardcover. It is "invaluable to internet scholars" — did you know such creatures roam the earth? — according to the author of "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things/Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture."

91 comments:

Darrell said...

Harambe would have been amused.
Until you killed him.

Sydney said...

It's amazing how many people have more sympathy for a gorilla than a little boy.

tim in vermont said...

I admire trolls sometimes, they are the ones hiding under the bridge and won't let you pass until you answer certain questions, often questions you would rather avoid. Other times they are just jerks. However, I would not want to be the one in charge of deciding which was which, not would I trust anybody else for that job. Twitter is a flawed concept that will live on in its crippled, but not dead state for a long time.

rhhardin said...

They don't have any animals with a sense of humor either.

Rob said...

Harambe would have been amused. He could find pleasure in the simplest things: a banana, a ball, dragging a child around by the foot.

Wilbur said...

Sydney said...
It's amazing how many people have more sympathy for a gorilla than a little boy.

Is it really? Many people deem the gorilla to be a blameless victim here, not unreasonably. The little boy is deemed not blameless; indeed he is a stand-in for all the misbehaving, spoiled children people see in public, whether true or not.

People's reactions involve much more than just the stark facts of what happened here. This event is used as a symbol for other stuff going on, rightly or wrongly.

Michael McClain said...

Meh. First World problem.

Adamsunderground said...

If guns were taken off the streets, sweet Harambe would still be with us today.

Fernandinande said...

Rob said...
He could find pleasure in the simplest things: a banana, a ball, dragging a child around by the foot.


Don't we all?

Curious George said...

I wonder what Cecil would think about all this Harambe crap.

rhhardin said...

Tim Blair and Joe Hildebrand cover Cecil the Lion and the dentist menace in their podcast.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Gorilla Lives Matter!

iowan2 said...

people know Harambe is an animal, right?
There are 10's of thousands of dogs and cats being euthanized as we speak. And tomorrow and the next day, and the next...

EDH said...

My mother told me Harambe went to live on a big farm with lots of land and animal friends where he'd always be happy.

No?

Lem said...

Moses got upset too...

Exodus 32:19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain.

20 And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

21 He said to Aaron, “What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?”

22 “Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone these people are to evil.

23 They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’

24 So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”

Oso Negro said...

Perhaps some of them are second-to-last-category alt-right, who, though they can't profess their racism, see Harambe in a more sympathetic light, than the small Negro boy who will probably grow up to be a worthless little shit.

Adamsunderground said...

There are 10's of thousands of dogs and cats being euthanized as we speak. And tomorrow and the next day, and the next...

Who speaks for them? In protest, let's apply duct tape across their mouths to wake people up to their plight!

Lucien said...

How tone deaf does one have to be to use the phrase "We are not amused" without irony?

It invites the audience to mock one in Pythonesque falsetto.

Laslo Spatula said...

A Dino De Laurentiis quote about his Seventies "King Kong" movie, as printed by “Time” magazine:

“No one cry when Jaws die,” Dino says, his voice rising in passion as he develops his theme. “But when the monkey die, people gonna cry."

He understood.

I am Laslo.

Bob Boyd said...

“No one cry when Jaws die,”

Lawyers cried when Jaws died.

Fernandinande said...

Laslo Spatula said...
“No one cry when Jaws die,”


Not "Jaws", but I was kinda bummed out when the stupid dogs killed a horny toad. When they kill a brown-eyed mammalian mouse I don't care.

Unknown said...

Harambe deserves his own tag. This is at least the second post.

Milwaukee said...

G.K. Chesterton nailed it years ago. We live in a culture of death (Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta will be canonized next week end. She was totally awesome. But I digress.)

"There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals: and the nearest definition of the difference is that the unhealthy love of animals is serious. I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions: he is, doubtless, a delightful father to the young rhinoceroses. But I will not promise not to laugh at a rhinoceros. . . . I will not worship an animal. That is, I will not take an animal quite seriously: and I know why. Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of historical experience. — G. K. Chesterton, “On Seriousness,” The Uses of Diversity (1920).

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421961/wherever-there-animal-worship-there-human-sacrifice-nicholas-frankovich"


We have an unhealthy love of animals and human sacrifice. Little unborn baby, mothers sacrifice you to convenience and money. So our society has ignored big moral issues and aggrandized little moral issues. We are sick.

My suggestion is to receive the Sacraments as often as you can and pray the Rosary daily.

Milwaukee said...

Wasn't "Jaws" that big guy in an early Bond movie, with braces, who could chomp down on stuff and do serious damage? Of course we cheered on his passing. He was one dangerous deranged dude.

Unknown said...

And the "ape" tag is too general. Humans are classified as Apes, along with gorillas and other species. Harambe knew that as he tried to protect that little ape boy. Had harambe been treated like one of his fellow human apes he would still be with us.

Milwaukee said...

Being "not amused" is problematic. I once lived in a country with three distinct, and sizable, ethnic groups. Really, different races and religions. One group was said to be lazy, the other drunks and the third, horror of horrors, was said to be humorless. Right there next to lazy and drunks, was humorless. They would have been better off not saying anything and just closing the account.

Anglelyne said...

It's morally wrong not to razz people who are capable of writing the phrase "our zoo family is still healing".

John said...

"Our zoo family is still healing"

Made me laugh. Thanks, Ann.

re Cecil the lion, just read an interesting book about big game hunting in Africa. The guy was a professional hunter there in the 50s and 60s.

Chapters on different kinds of animals and how dangerous they are. I was amazed how dangerous lions, even the supposedly tame ones of Born Free fame are.

Death in the Long Grass by Peter Capstick. Interesting read except that the author seems to have gotten a special price on a carload lot adjectives and is determined to use them all in one book.

John Henry

MadisonMan said...

I had forgotten all about Harambe, including the name, so #JusticeForHarambe just caused puzzlement in me.

I guess it's really important, though, and I should be paying it more attention.

Or not.

Fernandinande said...

Milwaukee said...
We live in a culture of death


No "we" don't.

(Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta

Funny you should mentioned her right after writing "culture of death", or specifically here. She was into death and suffering - for other people.

G. K. Chesterton, “On Seriousness,”

A nice example of some guy talking out of his ass (complete rant here). Where there is human sacrifice there is also animal sacrifice. Check it out

We have an unhealthy love of animals and human sacrifice.

No "we" don't. (I guessing psychological projection.)

Fernandinande said...

rhhardin said...
Tim Blair and Joe Hildebrand cover Cecil the Lion and the dentist menace in their podcast.


I haven't seen a good lion-gorilla fight in ages.

Milwaukee said...

"No "we" don't. (I guessing psychological projection.)"

Or deflection, or denial. Look at the lavish amounts people spend on pets for cancer, diabetes, and other illnesses.

Years ago, maybe 20, I recall visiting California right after a mountain lion had attacked and killed a jogger. Turns out, both were mothers. Both had funds established to care for the now motherless offspring. The account for the cubs of the mountain lion had significantly more money in it than the account for the children.

We have individuals who will slow down or stop in traffic for ducks or kittens or some such, causing accidents, injury and human death. Really? Cause a human to lose their life because the driver is going to stop her car on a freeway for a duck.

Given the the availability of abortion, and the way children, elderly, and infirm are neglected in this society, or the way we have violent crime with ensuing loss of life, looks to me like we aren't all that big on promoting life, and pretty accepting of death.

mockturtle said...

We have individuals who will slow down or stop in traffic for ducks or kittens or some such, causing accidents,

This happened just recently when I was in western Oregon at a Walmart parking lot. A guy stopped for a duck crossing the road then almost ran me down in the crosswalk.

William said...

I bet the mother had her child when she was a teenager. Such mothers don't know how to properly look after children......I'm always a day late and a meme short.

Roughcoat said...

My love for animals is entirely healthy. I don't distinguish between love for animals and love for humans. They go hand in hand -- or hand in paw, if you will. People who treat animals brutishly will likely treat other people brutishly too. Same goes for entire societies. Anyway, I can't help loving animals. It's my nature. "The love of Arda was put in me by Eru, and He does not plant to no purpose."

mockturtle said...

Roughcoat, I love my dog more than I love most people but do not value his life as equal to that of a human being. To do so, IMHO, is not healthy.

Freeman Hunt said...

While there are many darkly funny Harambe memes, that isn't nice to send them to the zookeepers. No one would send memes about someone's dog dying to him if he had to put his dog down. I'm sure the keepers loved Harambe, and people should take that into consideration before sending these things to them.

I think the Internet makes people feel like those on the other end of their communications have no feelings.

Freeman Hunt said...

People in the news become character people in the popular imagination, not people people.

n.n said...

Whatever happened to #CecileTheCannibal? The "Good American" phenomenon.

Trans-species orientation. Some people have a weird love of animals that subordinates rather than complements human lives.

Human sacrifice (e.g. one-child, selective-child) and even clinical cannibalism (e.g. Planned Parenthood) have been normalized (and legalized), or rather universal human rights are unprofitable. The evolutionary process (i.e. chaos) is politically profitable until wealth, pleasure, leisure, democratic leverage, and taxable commodities are at stake. Ironically, or predictably, the worst offenders of human rights historically are people who believe in evolutionary creationism (i.e. atheists), including conflation through correlation, and pull their religious/moral philosophy out of the twilight zone. Survival of an unqualified "fittest", I suppose. Obama/Clinton's Islamic State are poor competitors to the progressive liberals' Pro-Choice Church extraordinary tally of heads. Sacrifices will be necessary for their greater good.

There is an unhealthy worship of class diversity that misses the individual for the class, a human life for a colorful clump of cells, etc.

Fernandinande said...

We have individuals who will slow down or stop in traffic for ducks or kittens or some such, causing accidents, injury and human death. Really? Cause a human to lose their life because the driver is going to stop her car on a freeway for a duck.

Funny that you should bring this up in a thread about sacrificing an animal to reduce the chance of a human getting hurt or killed, literally the opposite of your thesis.

"Cause a human to lose their life": not on purpose, which sacrifice requires by definition, and technically it's the fault of the other drivers following too closely. Nobody sacrificed people to save a duck.

Roughcoat said...
People who treat animals brutishly will likely treat other people brutishly too. Same goes for entire societies.


Quite true. G.K. Chesterton is an fact-free blowhard.

mockturtle said...

Freeman Hunt said I think the Internet makes people feel like those on the other end of their communications have no feelings.

And, much as we love it, it may be our downfall.

Tarrou said...

I say Harambe deserved it. Especially after he got Milo banned from Twitter.

Fernandinande said...

Just a thought about "Mother" Theresa: the main symbol of her religion is a person being tortured to death.

The people who are reproducing the most are also the people who practice human sacrifice.

Roughcoat said...

Re: "I love my dog more than I love most people but do not value his life as equal to that of a human being."

Depends on the human being, I should think. I don't know most human beings. I do know my dogs. There are primordial forces at work here. Bonding emotionally with members of the pack and suchlike. Loyalty and love. I know what I'm supposed to think and I know what I do think -- and feel. It is what it is. No apologies. I certainly value the lives of my dog way more than I'll value the lives of the ISIS fighters I may encounter next month when I'm in Iraq. To repeat: no apologies.

rehajm said...

...and Thane and the Zoo ended up deleting their Twitter accounts.

This is an excellent example for everyone to 'follow'.

Lem said...

Dr. Jill Stein Verified account ‏@DrJillStein

"The killing of Harambe 3 months ago today reminds us to be a voice for the voiceless."

This is gold Jerry. Gold!

rehajm said...

Nobody will demand #JusticeforYourTwitterAccount if you kill it.

Fernandinande said...

Roughcoat said...
I certainly value the lives of my dog way more than I'll value the lives of the ISIS fighters I may encounter next month when I'm in Iraq.


As you should. What are you doing with the dogs while you're gone?

"After reading my story about the dead monkey, an old colleague emailed me a nasty picture of two Pakistani boys beating a small puppy to death on a roadside. He wrote under it, "Remember?" I did remember the savagery with which Pakistanis treated animals, especially dogs. They showed no sympathy or empathy for the suffering of animals, and seemed to enjoy inflicting needless pain and death on them. This, of course, was also a society in which women were treated not much better than these animals."

Fernandinande said...

To continue -

"I, however, hate cruelty and despise people who abuse animals or other humans just because they have the power to do so. That was a big problem I had in my service in Muslim countries; one had to turn a blind eye to the big and little savageries of daily life there. Those were quite common in Pakistan. One saw animals, children, and women beaten. I remember a crowd in Peshawar stoning a confused dog to death while children laughed and cheered. Our maid, a Christian widow with a young daughter, had been forced to undergo sterilization by her previous Muslim employer as a condition of her employment. He assumed Christian women were of loose morals, and didn't want her to get pregnant."

G. K. Chesterton, my ass.

Anthony said...

Someone call them a waaaaahmbulance.

The Godfather said...

When I read the headline I couldn't remember what species Harambe was: A lion, an elephant, what? You've reminded me it was a gorilla. I pray that, if a gorilla ever drags me away by my foot, the guy with the gun doesn't pause to worry about how the gorilla will feel about it.

Music Album said...

I love animals, especially dogs

5 Smartest Dog Breeds Chosen by Veterinary Professionals

The Godfather said...

By the way, I have stopped my car to allow a duck or goose and its chicks (or whatever they're called) to cross a road, but I've never done so under circumstances that risked the lives of other drivers or pedestrians, and I find it hard to imagine how stopping for a couple of minutes would do so (obviously not on a freeway; I've never seen ducks or geese try to cross a freeway -- I'm sure they don't try again). Where I live we have a fair number of deer. Drivers ought to stop for them, not only out of consideration for the deer, but for consideration of their cars; hitting a deer can do mucho damage to your car.

mockturtle said...

Of course, nearly everyone would stop for a critter of any kind [although some men claim to aim for cats :-(]. The argument was--I think--whether you treat humans with the same respect. A lot of people don't.

Roughcoat said...

What are you doing with the dogs while you're gone?

My wife will take care of them, even as they take care of her. I will miss all three tremendously. Fingers crossed, I won't be gone too long. Not sure yet.

Your comments about Pakistan are illuminating. I maintain that one can tell a lot about a society by how it treats its animals. I'll lay odds that a society in which dogs are brutally mistreated dogs will see brutal mistreatment of women as well. And, for that matter, brutal mistreatment of prisoners of war.

Roughcoat said...

God will judge us in part by how we treat the most weakest and most vulnerable among us, i.e. women, children, the elderly, the damaged and infirm, dogs and all other animals, and, of course, unborn children.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I pray that, if a gorilla ever drags me away by my foot, the guy with the gun doesn't pause to worry about how the gorilla will feel about it.

Than I suggest you not purposely jump into the enclosure at the zoo where the animal is being kept prisoner. This incident could easily have been avoided by proper parenting and a better behaved child. The Gorilla was not dangerous until the humans interfered. It is also debatable if the Gorilla was dangerous at all at the time.

Don't go into the woods where there are lions tiger and bears...oh my.

You should probably avoid the ocean too while you are at it. cue....JAW'S music. Dum dum dah duuuum!

Roughcoat said...

The argument was--I think--whether you treat humans with the same respect.

I try, but not always successfully; it's hard. There's that original sin thing operating. People can be bad. It's part of our nature. Animals are not bad. They are innocent of sin. They act entirely according to their nature which is God-given. They may hurt you but they will not do so out of or with evil intent. I trust them to act according to their nature. Likewise I trust people to do the same, which means, unfortunately, that they may act upon their propensity to be bad, which is part of our nature along with the propensity for to be good. There's that original sin thing again. We are not innocent (in the Christian theological sense), none of us. Ergo, I am wary of people. I am also wary of animals but not in the same way.

mockturtle said...

I agree: People ARE a pain in the ass! One reason why I'm planning to go back to Alaska next summer. [I went last summer--loved it!]. Fewer people. :-) More bears! :-)

Doug said...

"Healing" ... god, what a nation of pussies this has become!

Roughcoat said...

Mammals and birds have complex emotional lives. They feel joy, pain, sorrow, affection. They dream complex dreams. They play and have a sense of humor. Some -- dogs, elephants, crows, e.g. -- are capable of deep emotions and attachments that can and must be interpreted as love. Many have extraordinary cognitive and problem-solving skills which are linked to emotional complexity. This is no longer a matter of conjecture. Technological breakthroughs in measuring, identifying, and interpreting brain activity have revealed as much. Dogs, in particular, have been trained to lie still while so that scientists might perform brain scans on them. During the scanning the dogs are subjected to varying stimuli. It has been found that they react to the same stimuli in the same way as humans, and in related parts of their brains. They laugh, they cry, they feel affection (accompanied, e.g., by massive releases of oxytocin). In the past animal behaviorists often cautioned against anthropomorphizing our dogs. Now, increasingly, they are telling us we may not be anthropomorphizing them enough.

And yet they are not evil, not even capable of it. How, I ask you, can we not value them highly?

mockturtle said...

Crows have been shown to be more intelligent than chimpanzees.

John said...

Fewer people. :-) More bears! :-)

Or perhaps tastier people = more bears?

John Henry

n.n said...

It can be observed that human life is capable of greater freedom of motion and expression than other forms of life. Of course [individual] diversity (i.e. constellation of biases) will be a source of conflict. Thanks to scientific mysticism, we cannot even agree that human life evolves from conception. Thanks to the Pro-Choice religion, we cannot even reach a consensus that individual human lives have a unique dignity and intrinsic value. The combination of faith and amorality has been used to rationalize resumption of abortion of human life when it is uniquely vulnerable in a "final solution", and class diversity schemes to selectively deny human and, at present, civil rights. The simple equivalence of human life and other forms of life was easily propagated through scientific mysticism's (a.k.a. "post-normal" science) conflation through correlation.

The scientific mystics and Pro-Choice acolytes lament the preservation of a human life in self-defense, and stand defiantly to defend and promote the abortion of over one million human lives annually in America alone for trivial and juvenile causes.

mockturtle said...

Or perhaps tastier people = more bears?

Yep, supply & demand. More bears, fewer people, people more in demand by bears. If I get eaten by a bear in AK, it's my own bloody fault. And, hey! What a story for my grandchildren to tell!

Roughcoat said...

Crows have been shown to be more intelligent than chimpanzees.

Likewise the cognitive and problem-solving skills of border collies are in certain way quite superior to those of the great apes. You can point at sheep (or anything else for that matter) and the BC will look at what you're pointing to; what's more, the BC will, upon command, perform whatever task with the sheep it has been trained to associate with your pointing gesture. This is all representative of a highly advanced cognitive skills and development. Apes cannot respond in this manner. They will not look at what you are pointing to. They won't because they can't.

mockturtle said...

Yes, apes have been horribly overrated--mainly because they are thought to be our ancestors.

Fritz said...


“No one cry when Jaws die,”

Lawyers cried when Jaws died.


Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.

Roughcoat said...

Apes are not our ancestors. Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor.

chr1 said...

My brother volunteered at the Woodley Park Zoo. Gorillas were in pens, with barred door entries connected by a hallway. If you got too close to the bars, they could always grab you.

He once witnessed a male grab a 200 +lb weighted play barrel and fling it with only the wrist and forearm. That's how strong they are.

They're also very sensitive to direct eye-contact as a territorial threat, and generally pretty shy, and there was always at least one visitor who would mess with the gorillas, staring, chest-pounding etc. Day-in and day-out.

Gorilla nature and Human Nature maybe haven't changed all that much...

Fritz said...

Roughcoat said...

Apes are not our ancestors. Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor.


And that ancestor was an ape. Don't worry about it.

narciso said...

seriously we are nearing peak vizzini,


http://www.dailywire.com/news/8713/anti-vaxxer-jill-stein-values-harambe-gorilla-over-joshua-yasmeh

Big Mike said...

I think that people who blame the mother and/or child have never had little kids of their own. It's unbelievable how fast they can get into trouble -- seconds are all it takes. I blame the zoo for not totally child-proofing the enclosure. They lost a valuable animal, one they loved. They got off cheap.

Achilles said...

Studying the feeling of sympathy/empathy various people feel for various people/things would be interesting. I spend inordinate amounts of time trying to save spiders and snakes from murderous family members. I even hesitate with rodents. Given the split second choice between the child and the gorilla I would have been sad but would not have hesitated.

I would put much down on a bet that almost everyone bitching about the gorillas death is childless. I cannot even claim my kid would never be able to get away from me and she is not prone to moving away like other kids I know. Most people who actually raise their children know this could happen to them.

Rusty said...


Chapters on different kinds of animals and how dangerous they are. I was amazed how dangerous lions, even the supposedly tame ones of Born Free fame are.

Hence the 600 Nitro Express double rifles. Not just meant to kill, but to stop it in its tracks.

Quaestor said...

My main gripe about the Harambe debacle is the lack of entertainment value. The CZ staff squandered a golden opportunity.

Fernandinande said...

Crows have been shown to be more intelligent than chimpanzees

And chimpanzees have been shown to be smarter than people.
Youtubes of the chimps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkNV0rSndJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0
It's really pretty amazing.

But some S. American monkeys are smarter than chimps in regard to tool use and, difference species, range of vocal communication.

Roughcoat said...
Likewise the cognitive and problem-solving skills of border collies are in certain way quite superior to those of the great apes. You can point at sheep


They've been bred to respond to pointing. Wolves are smarter than dogs at some things, but they don't look at humans for guidance and don't react to pointing any more than a person would look at in direction that a bird is pointing it's wings. They'd likely treat the pointing as some kind of threat display.

Point I'm trying to make is: you can't really compare the general intelligence of animals to that of other animals because they specialize in difference ways.

Which mammals are "smart" enough to do what wasps and bees do?

Fernandinande said...

And chimpanzees have been shown to be smarter than people.
Link:
http://www.livescience.com/7444-chimps-numbers-humans.html

Fernandinande said...

n.n said...
The scientific mystics ...


Just shut up, crazy guy.

n.n said...

The juxtaposition of people for the ethical treatment of animals: #JusticeforHarambe, #CecilTheLion, and people for the mass abortion of wholly innocent human lives for trivial causes reveals the craziness of scientific mysticism and the Pro-Choice religion.

Fernandinande:

You really don't understand the limits of the scientific domain encouraged by the scientific method. You should consider the logic of the method, and the liberal assumptions of uniformity, independence, and linearity necessary to make scientific mysticism work. Many theists separate logical domains (e.g. science, faith). Most atheists conflate logical domains (e.g. unstated assertions and axioms). There are few people who consistently respect the narrow limits of the scientific domain in both time and space. Modern [political] science (e.g. catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, evolutionary creationism) is opportunistic.

Roughcoat said...

Point I'm trying to make is: you can't really compare the general intelligence of animals to that of other animals because they specialize in difference ways.

You might as well say that every creature is smart, everyone is beautiful (in his own way!), all the children are above average. And everyone gets a cookie and a prize.

I agree with you re n.n. Hoo-hah, do I ever agree with you.

Roughcoat said...

Some animal species are dumber than others. Just like people. Wasps and bees are not smart. They have no cognition i.e. cognitive processes. They are programmed. That's not being smart. Yeah, I know: the counterargument is, "aren't we programmed too." Short answer: no.

Thorley Winston said...

I think Wilbur pretty much nailed it:

Is it really? Many people deem the gorilla to be a blameless victim here, not unreasonably. The little boy is deemed not blameless; indeed he is a stand-in for all the misbehaving, spoiled children people see in public, whether true or not.

People's reactions involve much more than just the stark facts of what happened here. This event is used as a symbol for other stuff going on, rightly or wrongly.


That and parents who allow their misbehaving, spoiled children to run wild in public areas with no regards to the other people who use them.

LCB said...

Dust Bunny Queen said:
Than I suggest you not purposely jump into the enclosure at the zoo where the animal is being kept prisoner. This incident could easily have been avoided by proper parenting and a better behaved child. The Gorilla was not dangerous until the humans interfered. It is also debatable if the Gorilla was dangerous at all at the time.

Every Gorilla expert interviewed said that based on how Harambe dragged the child through the water he was absolutely dangerous. He may have started in "protective mode", but the crowd yelling at him changed everything.

The parents are to blame for losing track of the child, despite the fact that all of us parents at one time or another lose or have lost track of our childrens, even if for just a moment. The child is to blame for going where he was told not to go, even though that's what children his age are want to do. And the zoo is to blame because years ago when the exhibit was built they didn't anticipate a child doing what this child did.

In other words, sometimes shite happens despite the best efforts of everyone involved...and sadly, this time a noble animal paid the price. But for some reason we HAVE to have someone to blame for everything!!!

Fernandinande said...

Roughcoat said...
Some animal species are dumber than others.


Yes. And the rank order of their intelligence depends how you measure it.

Check out those chimps - they get 9 numbers almost immediately without any hesitation and I could only get one or two, if I was lucky. But I can do calculus and they can't.

Just like people. Wasps and bees are not smart. They have no cognition i.e. cognitive processes.

How do you know they have no cognition? (I'm not saying they do, just that the behavior is the only thing we can see).

They are programmed. That's not being smart. Yeah, I know: the counterargument is, "aren't we programmed too." Short answer: no.

We're just programmed less and differently.

As far as the border collies and pointing, our wild (Indian res) border collie, who showed up grown but had never been on a leash, or in a car or house, always reacted pretty strongly to pointing (our other dog just looks at your hand - like a wolf, not programmed for a human "pointing"), but didn't seem to grasp that it meant a direction; we'd say "Go get it!" and point at a toy, and he'd run around, sometimes growling, looking for something to kill and ignoring the toy.

He had to learn that pointing meant a direction. Now when we're walking (off leash) he'll go where I point with a cane, and he'll finally chase a ball but runs off and buries it...

If, say in some other society, pointing meant "Don't go there, it's dangerous!" then a border collie's programming to go where someone points would indicate stupidity.

Martin said...

The real question raised by this post is why anyone would care what someone who is obviously as a**hole whom they don't know and never will, writes on Twitter.

THAT is worth a dissertation or two.

Roughcoat said...

How do you know they have no cognition? (I'm not saying they do, just that the behavior is the only thing we can see).

No you're just showing off.

We're just programmed less and differently.

Sophistry.

our other dog just looks at your hand - like a wolf, not programmed for a human "pointing"), but didn't seem to grasp that it meant a direction.... etc.

That dog is dumber than your other dog. Bell curve and all that.

Jonathan Graehl said...

what kind of idiot tries to negotiate with memes?

Rusty said...

So.
I take it gorilla season is closed?

Fernandinande said...

Roughcoat said...
"We're just programmed less and differently."
Sophistry.


Nope. There are no "blank slates" in any (semi-)higher animals, they're all programmed to react in certain ways to certain stimuli.

"our other dog just looks at your hand - like a wolf, not programmed for a human "pointing"), but didn't seem to grasp that it meant a direction.... etc."
That dog is dumber than your other dog. Bell curve and all that.


If I'm holding food in my hand and extend my arm, the hand-looking dog suddenly becomes smarter: looks where the food is, instead of where I'm not really pointing at anything.

Milwaukee said...

Let's you and him fight.

""Cause a human to lose their life": not on purpose, which sacrifice requires by definition, and technically it's the fault of the other drivers following too closely. Nobody sacrificed people to save a duck.

Roughcoat said...
People who treat animals brutishly will likely treat other people brutishly too. Same goes for entire societies.

Quite true. G.K. Chesterton is an fact-free blowhard. "


The driver would sacrifice another driver for the cat, or duck, or kitten. The driver isn't sacrificing their own self, but somebody else. It isn't that some driver says, Oh, I'll die for that duck. More like they say, You can die for that duck.

Speaking of "fact-free blowhards", can you give an example, or is this something you have made up? Other quotes you've seen, have you read anything by Chesterton?

Aren't you the one who quickly identifies "projection"?