NationStates Jolt Archive

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.

that sucks.

I got bit by a molerat at the zoo when I was about 3 (parents not paying attention) and I remember having to get a ton of shots, we had to go everyday to the doctors to get another shot, it sucked.

I wonder if they were rabies shots.......

That really sucks. Meerkats are far cooler than children.

Hah, fuzzy little bastards.

I second euthanizing the kid and testing her for rabies.
The zoo should file a lawsuit for reimbursement of all the costs related to rabies checking and replacement of the meerkat exhibit.

Drunk commies deleted - that is outrageous!!! they should have added a by law...stupidity in humans is punished by having to spend 48 hours in the either the big cat or bear environments...

for adults - 72 hours with the hippos.

There really needs to be some sort of "anti-stupidity" act. where retards like this family would be shot......

stuff like this pisses me off.

Drunk commies deleted - that is outrageous!!! they should have added a by law...stupidity in humans is punished by having to spend 48 hours in the either the big cat or bear environments...

for adults - 72 hours with the hippos.


and dont forget not to feed the animals before putting the people in with them. :D

(state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested).
Is there some sort of religious objection to the shot? How freakin' stupid is this? Get the shot or kill the animals? That's the choice? Why don't we expand that...I step out in front of a bicycle, and get hit...either I go to the hospital for my sprained everything, or the bike is sent to the scrap yard after being torn apart to see if it had the potential to sprain my everything?

You know what would be awesome? If the meerkat that bit her did have rabies.
That and the zoo sued for reimbursement of funds.

Grrr I heard about this … originally caught only part of it on the news and thought some wild animal bit a girl so they had it put to death to check for rabies

I was like “Ok” why the big deal if some wild animal bit me I would want to do the same


Now I realize not only was it a was it not a wild animal it was in a zoo and that the parents were neglectful watching their little kid on top of the girl being old enough to know better.

Now I realize what the big deal is about, that girl should have been forced to take those shots.

You know what would be awesome? If the meerkat that bit her did have rabies.

Yeah great, and then she has to get the shots anyway:(

Her parents had Timone killed!

No need to get violent. Don't go for the kill when you can go for the long term trauma.

Explain to the selfish little brat how she murdered all those poor fuzzy creatures, and the show her photos of their little bodies as they're being dissected for testing.

No violence, just horrifying emotional trauma.

Yeah great, and then she has to get the shots anyway:(

Her parents had Timone killed!
Maybe that will teach that 9 year old what the parents obviously neglected to …

You know not to act like a spoiled little brat and break rules just so you can pet the fluffy animal.

It's stupid that the same law that's intended to protect people in case of rabid dogs and stray raccoons is applied in a zoo that has signs and barriers everywhere, constant health treatments for the animals, and the animals are far more exotic than your average squirrel.

I would have had the girl go through the shots just to teach her not to stick her hand in a zoo exhibit. Nothing says "Never do that again!" like six needle jabs to the arm.

That really sucks. Meerkats are far cooler than children.

This is the most truthful statement I have EVER seen on this forum.

I would have had the girl go through the shots just to teach her not to stick her hand in a zoo exhibit. Nothing says "Never do that again!" like six needle jabs to the arm.
Then make her get a tetanus shot "just in case."

Hah, fuzzy little bastards.

Hey! Those "Fuzzy Little Bastards" are very cool and far more important than you!

Learn your place, PEON!

That really sucks. Meerkats are far cooler than children.This is the most truthful statement I have EVER seen on this forum.Absolutely so.

You know what would be awesome? If the meerkat that bit her did have rabies.That would be spectacular. Serve her and her fundamentally unintelligent parents quite right.

You know, every time I see the smallest glimmer of hope for common sense among humanity, I see something like this and it is completely dashed again.

They should make it so the people refusing to get the shots have to pay for and watch the euthanizing of the animals as well as replacement costs.

Am I the only one wondering why they don't just take a blood sample from the meercats and test that for rabies?

Is there a medical reason for the killing of the suject before a rabies test or do Americans just like killing stuff?

They should make it so the people refusing to get the shots have to pay for and watch the euthanizing of the animals as well as replacement costs.

Why?

human child>some squeaky little upright rat.

Am I the only one wondering why they don't just take a blood sample from the meercats and test that for rabies?

Is there a medical reason for the killing of the suject before a rabies test or do Americans just like killing stuff?
I don't know the answer to this...but I do know that for something like Mad Cow Disease, you have to test the brain of the animal (hence, the need to kill it first).

Why?

human child>some squeaky little upright rat.


Was the human child going to be killed because of the Meerkats parents stupidity?

Am I the only one wondering why they don't just take a blood sample from the meercats and test that for rabies?

Is there a medical reason for the killing of the suject before a rabies test or do Americans just like killing stuff?
I think they've got to dissect and examine the brain for evidence of rabies.

Why?

human child>some squeaky little upright rat.
It's more of an upright weasle. It's also probably expensive, and it inconveniences a bunch of zoo visitors who can't see the exhibit. No little kid is worth inconveniencing that many people. She should get the fucking shots and deal with it.

I don't know the answer to this...but I do know that for something like Mad Cow Disease, you have to test the brain of the animal (hence, the need to kill it first).

Found it

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/Diagnosis/diagnosi.htm

Rabies diagnosis in animals
The direct fluorescent antibody test (dFA) is the test most frequently used to diagnose rabies. This test requires brain tissue from animals suspected of being rabid. The test can only be performed post-mortem (after the animal is dead).

Rabies diagnosis in humans
Several tests are necessary to diagnose rabies ante-mortem (before death) in humans; no single test is sufficient. Tests are performed on samples of saliva, serum, spinal fluid, and skin biopsies of hair follicles at the nape of the neck. Saliva can be tested by virus isolation or reverse transcription followed by polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Serum and spinal fluid are tested for antibodies to rabies virus. Skin biopsy specimens are examined for rabies antigen in the cutaneous nerves at the base of hair follicles.

So you can test the animals for rabies without killing them, people are just too lazy. Figures.

Was the human child going to be killed because of the Meerkats parents stupidity?

When it comes down to it, the comfort of a human should be put aboe the life of a small rodent. There're plenty more where those came from, and putting the little furry bastards down is actually serving a purpose.

When it comes down to it, the comfort of a human should be put aboe the life of a small rodent. There're plenty more where those came from, and putting the little furry bastards down is actually serving a purpose.
It's a weasle, not a rodent. There are also plenty of little girls where that one came from. People are just as disposable as meerkats, especially when those people fuck up a whole bunch of other people's entertainment.

Because that kid couldn't take six injections a whole shitload of other kids were disappointed. There is nothing so special about that one little girl that she gets to deprive many other kids of fun and education.

It's a weasle, not a rodent. There are also plenty of little girls where that one came from. People are just as disposable as meerkats, especially when those people fuck up a whole bunch of other people's entertainment.

Because that kid couldn't take six injections a whole shitload of other kids were disappointed. There is nothing so special about that one little girl that she gets to deprive many other kids of fun and education.

Weasel, rodent, whatever. One's just spent more time in the ghetto.

The difference in the disposability of people and meerkats is that we're sapient. Show me a sapient meerkat and I'll completely reverse my position, and attempt to learn meerkatish.

THOSE PEOPLE KILLED MY BRETHREN! FOR THIS THEY SHALL PAY! GRAAAGH!
My nickname's Timon.

When it comes down to it, the comfort of a human should be put aboe the life of a small rodent. There're plenty more where those came from, and putting the little furry bastards down is actually serving a purpose.

Now had the Meerkats actually escaped and caused damage, I might agree w/ you. However, you're trying to argue that the destruction of 6 animals is justifiable for parents not being able to control their children and the callousness they hold in regards to the animals lives.

Putting them down is only serving to reinforce the lesson that people don't need to take responsibility for thier actions. Great lesson for a six year old.

When it comes down to it, the comfort of a human should be put aboe the life of a small rodent. There're plenty more where those came from, and putting the little furry bastards down is actually serving a purpose.
If they find there was a disease in one of them, the girl will have to get the shots anyway. In fact, the parents should have done that just to be safe in the first place. Besides, now the zoo has lost an exhibit and the visitors won't be able to see meerkats there anymore. The choice to have the animals exterminated rather than the child vaccinated was a stupid one.

I would have had the girl go through the shots just to teach her not to stick her hand in a zoo exhibit. Nothing says "Never do that again!" like six needle jabs to the arm.
Actually Rabies shots have large needles and are injected into the Stomach.
Very Painful Large needles.

Why?

human child>some squeaky little upright rat.
Squeeky little upright rats life > The pain of a shot for a spoiled little brat

If we were talking about lives here absolutly but this girl was a spoild little idiot child, her and her parents were compleatly at fault. She does not get a "get out of pain free" card at the cost of the death of a zoo animal specialy when it was her fault

Weasel, rodent, whatever. One's just spent more time in the ghetto.

The difference in the disposability of people and meerkats is that we're sapient. Show me a sapient meerkat and I'll completely reverse my position, and attempt to learn meerkatish.
You're ignoring the fact that this one little brat's comfort was valued above the chance of many other little kids to have fun and learn about nature. Who the fuck is she to deprive other kids of such an opportunity? It's a classic example of people valuing their precious, special little child over every one else's rights. The parent's should have to watch as their kid gets all six injections and then is repeatedly bitten by infected sewer rats and has to get them all over again.. I just want them to know that their kid isn't so special.

The zoo should have found some crap animal, like a dog, which they knew had rabies and got it to bite the fucking asshat.

Then she'd have had to get the injection.

Squeeky little upright rats life > The pain of a shot for a spoiled little brat

If we were talking about lives here absolutly but this girl was a spoild little idiot child, her and her parents were compleatly at fault. She does not get a "get out of pain free" card at the cost of the death of a zoo animal specialy when it was her fault

Six of the worst. :S

state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested

And if they test positive for rabies or whatever, the kid still has to get the shots, only later because they'll have to wait for the test results. What a stupid law, and what stupid parents! I'd have my kid straight to the doctors. (although any kid of mine would be supervised in the first place!)

Actually Rabies shots have large needles and are injected into the Stomach.
Very Painful Large needles.
Alright, I was mistaken. Nothing says "Never do that again!" like six Very Large Painful needle jabs to the stomach.

I suggest that they let nothing happen. If we get lucky, the girl gets rabies, she bites her entire family, and they all die.

Actually Rabies shots have large needles and are injected into the Stomach.
Very Painful Large needles.
What decade are you in?

It is down to 6 shots and in the arm now

Edit I was wrong 5 shots

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/996_rab.html

Under Shot Schedule

What decade are you in?

It is down to 6 shots and in the arm now
You're missing the point, besides for that act, she Deserves getting it in the stomach.

What twats... too bad we don't allow for 'natural selection' to happen. Damn laws protecting stupid people and their spoilt brats...

Why?

human child>some squeaky little upright rat.

I disagree for obvious reasons.

You're ignoring the fact that this one little brat's comfort was valued above the chance of many other little kids to have fun and learn about nature. Who the fuck is she to deprive other kids of such an opportunity? It's a classic example of people valuing their precious, special little child over every one else's rights. The parent's should have to watch as their kid gets all six injections and then is repeatedly bitten by infected sewer rats and has to get them all over again.. I just want them to know that their kid isn't so special.

Totally.

If they refuse to get the shots they should have the inclusion of later shots for rabies in their daughter's health insurance revoked. Then, they can watch their daughter go through the slow, painful, and degrading death of rabies because they were too goddamn stupid to give her a course of 6 fucking shots. Asshats.

I disagree for obvious reasons.

I actually like rats, I have a pet rat. Real rats> children, they make less mess.

But meerkats, what the fuck is the point of a meerkat?

For those interested: the meerkats were all healthy. No rabies.

For those interested: the meerkats were all healthy. No rabies.
The chanse with them being in a zoo was not great to start with ... poor meerkats

I disagree for obvious reasons.
Why? Because you're not upright? :p

The chanse with them being in a zoo was not great to start with ... poor meerkats

Oh well. Stupid little girl, maybe the meerkats had some other infectious disease which wasn't picked up in the tests. There's still hope.

I actually like rats, I have a pet rat. Real rats> children, they make less mess.

But meerkats, what the fuck is the point of a meerkat?
When they stand up on their hind legs it's cute. It's like they think they're people. Also they prey on vermin like scorpions and little kids.

When they stand up on their hind legs it's cute. It's like they think they're people. Also they prey on vermin like scorpions and little kids.
Pffft, toddlers can be trained to eat scorpions and stand on their back legs, with varying degrees of success.

Pffft, toddlers can be trained to eat scorpions and stand on their back legs, with varying degrees of success.

ummm....not too keen on the punishing the little girl....the parents yes...without a doubt but a child...no. not to actually want to see the child be basically killed.

that is just wrong.

Why? Because you're not upright? :p

Why yes - that too ;)
But the idea that humans seem to believe it is perfectly ok to kill me and my family to avoid some discomfort caused by their own stupidity with no blame attached to us scares me. Enough to widdle on the cheese.

Pffft, toddlers can be trained to eat scorpions and stand on their back legs, with varying degrees of success.
Now if only we could train them to kill and eat other toddlers we'd be set.

ummm....not too keen on the punishing the little girl....the parents yes...without a doubt but a child...no. not to actually want to see the child be basically killed.

that is just wrong.

WELCOME TO MY INTERNETS

rly

Oh well. Stupid little girl, maybe the meerkats had some other infectious disease which wasn't picked up in the tests. There's still hope.
The bite getting infected and them having to amputate a finger or something would be great.
She's fucking 9 years old. That's what her parents get for being fuckwits not fit to be parents and probably trying to sue tv for showing Janet Jackson's breast and what she gets for being a spoiled halfwit. From this point, the meerkats will have taught her that she can't do whatever the fuck she wasn't without consequences.

And the zoo better fucking sue for damages. Hell, can I sue for damages and donate it to the zoo? What about the families? Maybe they can get a class action suit for emotional trauma and sue the family then donate the proceeds of th suit to the zoo for another exhibit and free tickets.

God, I hate parents.

The difference in the disposability of people and meerkats is that we're sapient.
Not this girl, she isn't.

The reasonable part of my mind says; Bill the family for the exhibit. Saving their precious little girl a few days of pain(earned by her and their stupidity) is more important than the lives of those meerkats? Fine who am I to argue. But bill the bastards.

Fortunately, the reasonable part of my mind is usually out voted bythe other voices. :)

They hope that somehow the rabies got missed and the girl goes Cujo on her parents and beats them to death with barbie dolls in a fit of adrenaline-fueled berzerk rage. Then she sets the house on fire, steals the family car, drives away from civilization and lives her remaining days in the wilderness in a burrow under the deranged belief that she is a meerkat.

:D

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/Lobbyreal/Timon.jpg
"Those...those bastards!"

Now I want to kill meerkats with my bare fucking hands.

Now I want to kill meerkats with my bare fucking hands.
They'll bite you and then you'll have to get shots.

Now I want to kill meerkats with my bare fucking hands.
Query: Are you merely attempting to be a Devil's Advocate as all others in the thread agree with the original poster? I was considering that, but that drawing was just too good to pass up.

WELCOME TO MY INTERNETS

rly

http://www.njaapt.org/QuarkNet/QuarkNetWebPhotos2002/Rhic%20Tubes.JPG

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.


its so annoying when people sue for something that was their fault. there was this guy a few years ago who put his RV into cruise and went to make some coffee. He won a 2 million dollar suit because the company didnt put in the manual that cruise control doesnt actually drive the RV for you.

The reasonable part of my mind says; Bill the family for the exhibit. Saving their precious little girl a few days of pain(earned by her and their stupidity) is more important than the lives of those meerkats? Fine who am I to argue. But bill the bastards.

Fortunately, the reasonable part of my mind is usually out voted bythe other voices. :)

They hope that somehow the rabies got missed and the girl goes Cujo on her parents and beats them to death with barbie dolls in a fit of adrenaline-fueled berzerk rage. Then she sets the house on fire, steals the family car, drives away from civilization and lives her remaining days in the wilderness in a burrow under the deranged belief that she is a meerkat.

:D
I saw that movie. Linda Blair played the little girl after she grew up, right?

One thing I've never understood about rabies . . .

If you can get rabies from a bite it must be present in the animals saliva, right?









Then why do they have to cut the animals head off and test the brain instead of testing the animals saliva?

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.

.....

Number 1 Threat in the World: Stupid people.

One thing I've never understood about rabies . . .

If you can get rabies from a bite it must be present in the animals saliva, right?

Then why do they have to cut the animals head off and test the brain instead of testing the animals saliva?

My guess would be that the virus isn't in a form that we know how to detect at that point. As a general rule, we don't detect a virus directly - we detect the body's reaction to it. Because rabies is an infection of the central nervous system, the only sure-fire way to detect an infection is to examine the central nervous system. This could be especially true, as there would be no reason for widespread antibodies in the bloodstream - as such antibodies may not be able to cross the blood-brain barrier.

But this is all a guess, really.

I like meerkats, though obviously a childs life is more important. The parents and the child are to blame in this case.
1. if you are 9 then you should know what is a petting zoo and what is not.
2. if your a parent with a 9 year old take notice when she is about to endanger a exzibit at the zoo.

I like meerkats, though obviously a childs life is more important.

It wasn't a matter of a child's life vs. the meerkats' lives. It was a matter of a child getting a few shots (ie. having a small amount of pain) vs. the meerkat's lives. These parents chose to have six meerkats killed and autopsied rather than have their child - who was bitten because of her own actions - get a few shots.

It wasn't a matter of a child's life vs. the meerkats' lives. It was a matter of a child getting a few shots (ie. having a small amount of pain) vs. the meerkat's lives. These parents chose to have six meerkats killed and autopsied rather than have their child - who was bitten because of her own actions - get a few shots.

Grr, that's almost exactly what I was going to say, but *my* jolt froze for about 8 minutes. :mad:

Am I the only one wondering why they don't just take a blood sample from the meercats and test that for rabies?

Is there a medical reason for the killing of the suject before a rabies test or do Americans just like killing stuff?

They can't find what they need with blood, they need brain tissue. Pity the little brat and her idiot parents don't have any brain tissue.

Weasel, rodent, whatever. One's just spent more time in the ghetto.

The difference in the disposability of people and meerkats is that we're sapient. Show me a sapient meerkat and I'll completely reverse my position, and attempt to learn meerkatish.

I have observed meerkat behavior. Strangely, I find it more intelligent than your comments.

I hope the zoo, at least, publicly bans her and her family from visiting there again.
And her teacher does a study about Meerkats, especially how cute they are. And then makes her stand in front of the class and tell them why her parents had a bunch of them killed.

Lol for the rest of her life she and everyone she knows will know that her parents were duchbags and killed a whole family of zoo animals instead of giving her shots

I actualy dont envy her when that comes up

Am I the only one here starting to feel a bit sorry for the girl even if she is a brat? really it was her parents that were the real idiots in this story

Lol for the rest of her life she and everyone she knows will know that her parents were duchbags and killed a whole family of zoo animals instead of giving her shots

I actualy dont envy her when that comes up

Am I the only one here starting to feel a bit sorry for the girl even if she is a brat? really it was her parents that were the real idiots in this story
Every time I start feeling sorry for her, I imagine a 9 year old climbing over various barriers to somehow get in the meerkat enclosure.

Every time I start feeling sorry for her, I imagine a 9 year old climbing over various barriers to somehow get in the meerkat enclosure.
Spoiled brat for sure but again that is at this age another failure of the parents again

There really needs to be some sort of "anti-stupidity" act. where retards like this family would be shot......

stuff like this pisses me off.

Why not just take off all the "Safety" and "Warning" tags and signs off things and let the problem work itself out?

That's not fair to the zoo or the animals.

I would have shoved the little brat and her parents in with the hippos, which are probably the most dangerous animals in the zoo.

No need to get violent. Don't go for the kill when you can go for the long term trauma.

Explain to the selfish little brat how she murdered all those poor fuzzy creatures, and the show her photos of their little bodies as they're being dissected for testing.

No violence, just horrifying emotional trauma.
And I'm the one who supposedly wants little kids traumatised for life. :rolleyes:

Was the girl even told what the consequences to the animals were if she refused the shots? I mean honestly, the girl had no choice in the matter, since minors aren't allowed to make their own medical decisions.

Sure, she should have known better than to reach into the enclosure, but her parents should have been watching their kid. (You know, being parents with their child at the zoo.) What would've happened if they hadn't been watching in the reptile house? You know, with all the poisonous snakes?

Why is it even an option to avoid the rabies shots anyway? I mean sure, they hurt, but isn't this a case of better safe than sorry? If they did have rabies, the girl would need the shots anyway, and isn't it better for you if the treatments are started sooner?

Why is it even an option to avoid the rabies shots anyway? I mean sure, they hurt, but isn't this a case of better safe than sorry? If they did have rabies, the girl would need the shots anyway, and isn't it better for you if the treatments are started sooner?

I assume the option exists to avoid getting unnecessary rabies shots. First show the animal had rabies, then get the shot.
The life of the animals is considered to be unimportant when compared to the small discomfort of a human.

I assume the option exists to avoid getting unnecessary rabies shots. First show the animal had rabies, then get the shot.
The life of the animals is considered to be unimportant when compared to the small discomfort of a human.
It's a policy that makes much more sense in regards to wild animals. Having domesticated (and zoo animals count in this) killed for this purpose is really infringing on the property rights of the owners of those animals. It makes sense if the owners were negligent, but in this case, the girl (actually her parents since the girl was under the legal age of criminal responsibility) was at fault.

I really don't care at all about the lives of any given number of merecats, but this does seem to be a stituation where, assuming the zoo's barriers were up to the standards the law proscribes, the parents' options should have been to either give her the shots, or buy the merecats from the zoo for the purposes of testing. As it stands, they seem to have essentially stolen the zoo's property through legal means.

Don't worry, I solved the problem.

I sold the little brat to a registered sex offender in exchange for some resurrection spells. The meercats and the girl are now both safely in their respective cages.

It's a policy that makes much more sense in regards to wild animals.

Well, in all fairness the chances that the rabies shots would be unnecessary were much higher where these meerkats were concerned than they would have been with a stray dog. I do agree that the parents owe the zoo something though.

Don't worry, I solved the problem.

I sold the little brat to a registered sex offender in exchange for some resurrection spells. The meercats and the girl are now both safely in their respective cages.
Okay, 2 things.

1) Sex offenders have magic powers?
2) You kidnapped a 9 year old girl to sell her into slavery?

Okay, 2 things.

1) Sex offenders have magic powers?
2) You kidnapped a 9 year old girl to sell her into slavery?

Apparently.

They can't find what they need with blood, they need brain tissue. Pity the little brat and her idiot parents don't have any brain tissue.

They can test for it without killing, they're just lazy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11518959&postcount=28

All they need to do is the tests they would for humans on the meercats, it cost more but you don't have to kill the animals and I'm sure you could just bill the parents.

Don't worry, I solved the problem.

I sold the little brat to a registered sex offender in exchange for some resurrection spells. The meercats and the girl are now both safely in their respective cages.

You do realise that if that was anything other than comedic, I'd have to kill you, right?

You do realise that if that was anything other than comedic, I'd have to kill you, right?
I think a lot of us would be feeling quite murderous if said situation had actually occured. I know I would.

I saw that movie. Linda Blair played the little girl after she grew up, right?

:confused:

I call on almighty Wiki!

...

Ha haa! :D

http://www.njaapt.org/QuarkNet/QuarkNetWebPhotos2002/Rhic%20Tubes.JPG
Teh Internet is NOT a series of tubes. No matter what the guy who's in charge of it says. :D

Anyway, somebody should send the girl a copy of "The Lion King", edited of course, and whenever Timon shows up an angry off-screen voice should say: "Your parents killed Timon and his family and it's all your fault!"

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/meerkat.jpg
Time for payback, I say!

I hope the zoo, at least, publicly bans her and her family from visiting there again.

No,no we wouldn't want that! :eek: They should get free passes so they can visit that zoo whenever they want. Then the parents (the kid's genes came from somewhere right?) might try petting the cute lion, or komodo dragons. :D

Maybe the parents will bite an animal and then they will have to be euthanized to see if they carry the stupidity virus. Poor animals will have to get a common sense shot in their arm though. :(

I bet these are the parents who will leave a gun on a table or something and the daughter will shoot one of them (not on purpose of course ;)) Then the parents will sue the company that made the gun.

And to top this post off here is a slightly modified southpark quote:
Psychologist: It seems your daughter is traumatized from the death of the meerkats that died because of her.
Parents:We can't help but feel partly responsible.
Psychologist: It isn't your fault, there was nothing you could do.
Parents: Actaully we took the easy way out and had the meerkats killed instead of just giving our daughter a few shots.
Psychologist: Wow! You guys suck!

They can test for it without killing, they're just lazy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11518959&postcount=28

All they need to do is the tests they would for humans on the meercats, it cost more but you don't have to kill the animals and I'm sure you could just bill the parents.

I don't think it's just a matter of laziness or money. The fact that they need so many tests tells us something - none of the tests alone are adequate. Most likely, none of these tests are particularly conclusive. Thus, the only way to know for sure is to go for the conclusive test. Obviously, in humans, we can't do that, so we try to be as sure as possible by doing lots of tests - none of which is as conclusive as a check of brain tissue.

You do realise that if that was anything other than comedic, I'd have to kill you, right?

You realize I'm able to make jokes like that because my inner-monster makes Vlad 'Dracula' Tepes, Pol Pot, Hitler, Karl Rove, Stalin and Oliver Cromwell feel intimidated, and mildly disgusted. :D

In all honesty, it's the parents fault, and that's why they'd be forced to watch.

That's fucked up. Meerkats are fucking cute.

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.
That is crap.
DEATH TO ALL SURFACERS!
VOTEW MOBRA!

That is crap.
DEATH TO ALL SURFACERS!
VOTEW MOBRA!
Tipo.

Teh Internet is NOT a series of tubes. No matter what the guy who's in charge of it says. :D

Anyway, somebody should send the girl a copy of "The Lion King", edited of course, and whenever Timon shows up an angry off-screen voice should say: "Your parents killed Timon and his family and it's all your fault!"

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/meerkat.jpg
Time for payback, I say!
I love you!
DEATH TO ALL SURFACERS!!!
VOTE MOBRA!

Ok, after reading some on ther internet:
Apparently, the kid first ahd to climb 3ft of rock and then 4 ft of glass barrier just to get in. So she didn't just put er fingers trough some net barrier. You think that the parents (or someone else) should have stopped her before she was able to get in.

Then she had to have hunted them, since they normally don't attack people unless they are threatened. Me thinks she has seen a bit to much Disney movie...

This girl had to go through a lot of effort to attack those meerkats, the slight discomfort of getting 5 injections is negligible to the killing of 6 innocent creatures.

Unless you are a complete blithering idiot, you know better by 9 years old. Her parents should have been watching her better, but she should have known better anyway; there is no excuse for her bad behavior, even a 2 year old can understand that they are not supposed to climb over barriers.

She should be punished for causing the death of these animals. Perhaps she should be made to sit in the meerkat enclosure and occasionally read a public apology explaining exactly why she ruined that exhibit for everyone.

When it comes down to it, the comfort of a human should be put aboe the life of a small rodent. There're plenty more where those came from, and putting the little furry bastards down is actually serving a purpose.

This kid went out of her way to cause trouble, and you think we should be encouraging this sort of appalling behavior? Are you one of those people that think their kid should be able to do anything and everything with no consequences because they are just so pwecious? You know… your pet cat sometimes meows and that bugs me when I have a headache, so it should be killed – after all, the comfort of a human should be put above the life of an animal.

What purpose is there to killing these animals? Reveling in the pointless death of animals shows a rather disturbed psychology. Please seek counseling.

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.

It isn't cheap to get a series of rabies shots either. $1500 - $2500 dollars. Additionally, rabies shots are given because the disease is fatal, over-riding reaction concerns about getting the shots. HOWEVER, people do have reactions to the shots, and some people have allergic reactions to medications that can be fatal as well. It is also a well known fact that children with allergies suffer far worse than adults with allergies.

Now let's reassess; you know nothing about this child you want punished, you know nothing about if she has allergies or not, nor her medical history, nor her parent's financial situation with regard to medical coverage, and you don't know what they were or were not told about the risks inherent to their child being given this series of shots, that she WILL have a reaction to even if she is not allergic to any medications. And yet, you post a thread calling for her and or her parents to be euthanized? :rolleyes:

You sir, and everyone else in this thread that echoed such asinine sentiments that the child should be punished, have a distorted and appalling sense of priorities.

In my support for the parents and the girl, I now recognize that the zoo should be able to assess them a trespassing fine for leaving the areas clearly marked and causing damage via their tresspass. Additionally, the zoo should learn to give their own animals rabies immunology shots so this doesn't have to happen next time. Rabies shots for animals should be manditory, like regular everyday dog owners have to do.

They should have euthanized the little girl or her parents instead.

Yup

Well, you can't really justify euthanizing the kid. But the parents should definitely lose custody.

It isn't cheap to get a series of rabies shots either. $1500 - $2500 dollars.

I can pretty much guarrantee that an entire meerkat display was worth more than that. And the parents should (whether they actually are being required to or not) have to pay for the replacement of each and every animal they had destroyed.

Now let's reassess; you know nothing about this child you want punished,

We know that she climbed over a barrier into an enclosure she was not supposed to enter and got bit by a meerkat. The fact that she bypassed the enclosure is already enough to call for her punishment. The fact that her actions led to the death of every animal in the display even more so.

You sir, and everyone else in this thread that echoed such asinine sentiments that the child should be punished, have a distorted and appalling sense of priorities.

Really? So the child and her parents should take no responsibility for their action?

In my support for the parents and the girl, I now recognize that the zoo should be able to assess them a trespassing fine for leaving the areas clearly marked and causing damage via their tresspass.

Um....that's punishment.

Additionally, the zoo should learn to give their own animals rabies immunology shots so this doesn't have to happen next time. Rabies shots for animals should be manditory, like regular everyday dog owners have to do.

The animals most likely were given rabies shots. Laws like this apply even to animals that have been given the vaccine, as the vaccine is not 100% effective. The way I understand the law in question, this same treatment would apply to a pet dog that bit a human being.

You sir, and everyone else in this thread that echoed such asinine sentiments that the child should be punished, have a distorted and appalling sense of priorities.
The girl was a little spoiled brat who had to go our of her way to get bitten and her parents are incompetent and unfit in such an excessivemanner as they cannot keep up with the little girl they took to the zoo and did not notice her until she had crawled into an enclosure and been bitten.

In my support for the parents and the girl, I now recognize that the zoo should be able to assess them a trespassing fine for leaving the areas clearly marked and causing damage via their tresspass.
They should be fined for damage to property as well as for the cost of rabies testing and replacing the animals.

Additionally, the zoo should learn to give their own animals rabies immunology shots so this doesn't have to happen next time. Rabies shots for animals should be manditory, like regular everyday dog owners have to do.
Regular everyday dogs do not live in glass enclosures separated from every other animal in not only the zoo but the rest of the country, except maybe a bird or something. And I am pretty sure rabies shots are tailored to the animal.

...

To put it plain and simple. You are wrong.

You place value on a small group of animals over the value of a month long ordeal for a child, not mentioning if she can safely be given the immunizations shots or not, it's not known to us.

Most of us will cook and eat more animals in a month than the small group of meerkats that this family had euthanized for testing.

You lack priority.

I already said they should be charged with trespassing and fined accordingly, how is that avoiding punishment for a wrong? It is not. You simply demand too much punishment for a little wrong, a disproportionate overreaction on your part.

It isn't cheap to get a series of rabies shots either. $1500 - $2500 dollars. Additionally, rabies shots are given because the disease is fatal, over-riding reaction concerns about getting the shots. HOWEVER, people do have reactions to the shots, and some people have allergic reactions to medications that can be fatal as well. It is also a well known fact that children with allergies suffer far worse than adults with allergies.

Now let's reassess; you know nothing about this child you want punished, you know nothing about if she has allergies or not, nor her medical history, nor her parent's financial situation with regard to medical coverage, and you don't know what they were or were not told about the risks inherent to their child being given this series of shots, that she WILL have a reaction to even if she is not allergic to any medications. And yet, you post a thread calling for her and or her parents to be euthanized? :rolleyes:

You sir, and everyone else in this thread that echoed such asinine sentiments that the child should be punished, have a distorted and appalling sense of priorities.

In my support for the parents and the girl, I now recognize that the zoo should be able to assess them a trespassing fine for leaving the areas clearly marked and causing damage via their tresspass. Additionally, the zoo should learn to give their own animals rabies immunology shots so this doesn't have to happen next time. Rabies shots for animals should be manditory, like regular everyday dog owners have to do.The zoo animals probably are immunized against rabies, and I don't care if the little moron dies. Matter of fact, I'm sure that life would go on just as well, if not a little better if we eliminated those idiots from the gene pool.

Most of us will cook and eat more animals in a month than the small group of meerkats that this family had euthanized for testing.
You find me a farm that domestically raises hundreds if not more meerkats a year and you win this debate.


You lack priority.
You lack perspective.

I already said they should be charged with trespassing and fined accordingly, how is that avoiding punishment for a wrong? It is not. You simply demand too much punishment for a little wrong, a disproportionate overreaction on your part.
Trespassing was the least of which they should be fined for.

To put it plain and simple. You are wrong.

You place value on a small group of animals over the value of a month long ordeal for a child, not mentioning if she can safely be given the immunizations shots or not, it's not known to us.

Most of us will cook and eat more animals in a month than the small group of meerkats that this family had euthanized for testing.

You lack priority.

I already said they should be charged with trespassing and fined accordingly, how is that avoiding punishment for a wrong? It is not. You simply demand too much punishment for a little wrong, a disproportionate overreaction on your part.No, you're wrong. You're putting too little value on the meerkats. The meerkat's value is not in their status as living things. We kill living things every day. They have a monetary value to the zoo. Zoos are expensive to maintain, and replacing a family of meerkats is just one more added expense to the taxpayers and the zoo visitors. Also the meerkats have entertainment and educational value. Zoo visitors were deprived of that entertainment and education because of this one idiotic, irresponsible family. Give the kid the goddamned shots. Consider the "ordeal" punishment for breaking the rules.

The girl was a little spoiled brat who had to go our of her way to get bitten and her parents are incompetent and unfit in such an excessivemanner as they cannot keep up with the little girl they took to the zoo and did not notice her until she had crawled into an enclosure and been bitten.

You know nothing about this girl. You name call and make ridiculous accusations to demonize your target.


They should be fined for damage to property as well as for the cost of rabies testing and replacing the animals.

They should be fined for trespassing, and if ALL of the children who trespass at zoos are equally punished, then the zoos will all be rich and the animals will be able to eat caviar everyday...[/sarcasm]

I think zoos need to be designed with small trespassing children in mind.


Regular everyday dogs do not live in glass enclosures separated from every other animal in not only the zoo but the rest of the country, except maybe a bird or something. And I am pretty sure rabies shots are tailored to the animal.

All zoo animals should be vaccinated, this sort of event needs to be anticipated.

To put it plain and simple. You are wrong.

You place value on a small group of animals over the value of a month long ordeal for a child, not mentioning if she can safely be given the immunizations shots or not, it's not known to us.

No, unlike you, I expect a child to be learning to take responsibility for her actions. That "month-long ordeal" is a direct result of the child's own actions. I don't think she should get out of it - especially not in such a way that six very expensive animals that provide pleasure to countless other people have to be destroyed. As it is, what are we teaching this child? "You are so important that you can do whatever you want, even if it is stupid and dangerous, and nothing bad will happen to you."

Most of us will cook and eat more animals in a month than the small group of meerkats that this family had euthanized for testing.

Killing animals for food is a little different than killing animals because some little brat decided to do something stupid and doesn't want to get a few shots (that she would have had to get anyway if anything had shown up in the testing).

I already said they should be charged with trespassing and fined accordingly, how is that avoiding punishment for a wrong? It is not. You simply demand too much punishment for a little wrong, a disproportionate overreaction on your part.

The fine isn't enough. They should have to pay for the replacement of each animal, as well as the time the zoo spends without its display. The fact that you think they should just get a little fine is ridiculous, especially considering that I'm sure you would call for them to fully replace any non-living property that was destroyed.

Meanwhile, fines, etc. do nothing whatsoever to teach the child. She is completely insulated from anything at this point. She had a small amount of pain from a bite - a pain that probably went away instantly. There is nothing to dissuade her from doing it again the next time she's near an animal enclosure.

Meanwhile, I was never advocating rabies shots as punishment. They are a precautionary measure - one that should have been taken simply because she was stupid enough to climb over a barrier into an animal enclosure and get herself bitten. But I don't buy your whole, "OMFG! It'll hurt her a little bit and that is so very important that we should kill off an entire zoo display!" The chances of this girl having any major adverse reaction to the shots is miniscule.

No, you're wrong. You're putting too little value on the meerkats. The meerkat's value is not in their status as living things. We kill living things every day. They have a monetary value to the zoo. Zoos are expensive to maintain, and replacing a family of meerkats is just one more added expense to the taxpayers and the zoo visitors. Also the meerkats have entertainment and educational value. Zoo visitors were deprived of that entertainment and education because of this one idiotic, irresponsible family. Give the kid the goddamned shots. Consider the "ordeal" punishment for breaking the rules.

How can you say taxpayers? Which zoo are you talking about. The Minnesota Zoo charges for admission and the Como zoo works with donations and grants.

The meerkats are small animals, bred in captivity like any other animal on a farm.

You know nothing about this girl. You name call and make ridiculous accusations to demonize your target.
I know she was 9 years old.
I know she is coordinated and healthy enough to climb over multiple barriers.
I know she is capable of cornering a meerkat in order to induce it to bite.
I know her parents did not stop her.
She is a spoiled little brat and her parents are unfit.


They should be fined for trespassing, and if ALL of the children who trespass at zoos are equally punished, then the zoos will all be rich and the animals will be able to eat caviar everyday...[/sarcasm]
Because 10 year old children routinely climb into enclosures over various obstacles.

They should be fined for damage to property and be required to reimburse the zoo for testing and replacement of the animals.

All zoo animals should be vaccinated, this sort of event needs to be anticipated.
When was the last time you have your guinea pig vaccinated for rabies?

The meerkats are small animals, bred in captivity like any other animal on a farm.
Zoos arn't farms, or did you fail third grade?

How can you say taxpayers? Which zoo are you talking about. The Minnesota Zoo charges for admission and the Como zoo works with donations and grants.

The meerkats are small animals, bred in captivity like any other animal on a farm.
Some zoos are partially funded by tax dollars. I don't know the status of this one. Still, zoo visitors are now paying the same money for fewer exhibits because of this selfish little **** and her arrogant twat parents.

The meerkats are expensive small animals. I'm sure they cost thousands each. The cost of replacing them should be passed on to the parents, and the kid needs to learn that there are consequences for stupid actions.

How the hell can you stand up for a family that is so arrogant that they'd rather let the zoo destroy thousands of dollars worth of property and deprive other zoo visitors of their right to see the meerkats in order to spare their precious little future pole dancer a few injections?

You know nothing about this girl. You name call and make ridiculous accusations to demonize your target.

What is ridiculous about them? The "accusations" come directly from what actually happened. The girl had to climb over a large barrier to get into the enclosure. This can only happen two ways:

(a) No one was watching her
(b) They saw it and didn't stop her.

If it is (a), then the parents obviously weren't paying attention to their child. Thus, the accusation is true. If it is (b), then the parents are even more incompetent, because they just let her do it.

They should be fined for trespassing,

If I break into your house and break your TV, should I be fined only for trespassing? Or should I have to replace your TV?

and if ALL of the children who trespass at zoos are equally punished, then the zoos will all be rich and the animals will be able to eat caviar everyday...[/sarcasm]

All children who trespass at a zoo don't cause the destruction of an entire display.

I think zoos need to be designed with small trespassing children in mind.

They are. Of course, you can get into anything if you try hard enough. As discussed earlier in the thread:

Ok, after reading some on ther internet:
Apparently, the kid first ahd to climb 3ft of rock and then 4 ft of glass barrier just to get in.

3ft of rock and 4ft of glass. I'm pretty sure that the zoo did their part here.

All zoo animals should be vaccinated, this sort of event needs to be anticipated.

You ignore the fact that all zoo animals most likely are vaccinated. It still won't stop the laws that require testing, however.

Of course, a reasonable person wouldn't expect anyone to climb over 7 ft. of barriers to get into an enclosure that is clearly not the petting zoo.

....

No, unlike you, I don't call little children I don't know "brats" and accuse families I don't know of not teaching their children discipline because, "OMFG! they killed a small group meerkats!" :rolleyes:

No, unlike you, I don't call little children I don't know "brats" and accuse families I don't know of not teaching their children discipline because, "OMFG! they killed a small group meerkats!" :rolleyes:
More like OMFG they destroyed thousands of dollars worth of property and inconvenienced hundreds of zoo visitors because they can't be bothered to keep an eye on their precious little baby and can't stand to see her go through the "ordeal" of a few injections. The zoo should sue them for the cost of the meerkats and for punitive damages because they deprived zoo visitors of the chance to see the meerkats.

No, unlike you, I don't call little children I don't know "brats" and accuse families I don't know of not teaching their children discipline because, "OMFG! they killed a small group meerkats!" :rolleyes:

The fact that the child climbed over the enclosure in the first place demonstrates that the "brat" label is accurate. A well-behaved child who knew that she can't have everything she wants would not have attempted it.

The fact that the child somehow managed to get into the enclosure - something that would have taken quite a while given the barriers she had to get past - demonstrates that her parents don't take care of her well, considering that the only way she could have gotten in is if they weren't watching or purposefully didn't stop her. And, once again, a child who had been taught discipline wouldn't have climbed into the enclosure in the first place.

And I highly doubt that parents who decided to forego a few shots and have 6 animals killed instead (for no use whatsoever) actually told their precious little girl what she had caused.

She was nine? Should have a bit more sense than that. The stupidity of kids today is unbelievable. I guess the stupidity of their parents rubs off on them. Seriously my sister told me that at the riding school she goes to one of the girls (about 8 years old) was terrorising another girl at pony camp for days by calling her a fat bitch. When they told the brat's mother what she'd been doing, the mother responded by saying that it was 'a good insult' but that maybe she shouldn't do it again.

Bitten in the finger isn't that bad. She's lucky they were only meerkats. I remember a few weeks ago a teenage girl's arm got mauled at Dublin Zoo by a tiger, but again I think she trespassed.

What is ridiculous about them? The "accusations" come directly from what actually happened. The girl had to climb over a large barrier to get into the enclosure. This can only happen two ways:

(a) No one was watching her
(b) They saw it and didn't stop her.

If it is (a), then the parents obviously weren't paying attention to their child. Thus, the accusation is true. If it is (b), then the parents are even more incompetent, because they just let her do it.

If I break into your house and break your TV, should I be fined only for trespassing? Or should I have to replace your TV?

All children who trespass at a zoo don't cause the destruction of an entire display.

They are. Of course, you can get into anything if you try hard enough. As discussed earlier in the thread:

3ft of rock and 4ft of glass. I'm pretty sure that the zoo did their part here.

You ignore the fact that all zoo animals most likely are vaccinated. It still won't stop the laws that require testing, however.

Of course, a reasonable person wouldn't expect anyone to climb over 7 ft. of barriers to get into an enclosure that is clearly not the petting zoo.

Oh my goodness. It's a zoo, they need to 'anticipate' children and children's antics. AND parents need to watch their children, no one said they shouldn't.

Oh my goodness. It's a zoo, they need to 'anticipate' children and children's antics. AND parents need to watch their children, no one said they shouldn't.

The term "children's antics" could cover reaching through a net/throwing food/etc. It does not cover climbing over 7 ft. of rock and glass and then cornering an animal.

However, when we're talking about 7 ft. of barrier between the people and the animals, I'm pretty sure the zoo has done it's part. Most people aren't stupid enough to try and bypass that.

Meanwhile, if you have a house, you should anticipate someone trying to break in and possibly damaging your property. Does that mean that someone who does so shouldn't have to pay for it?

As for, "parents need to watch their children...." Every time someone has brought up the fact that the parents were clearly negligent, your answer has been, "OMFG! HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE THE PARENTS OF ANYTHING!!?? YOU DON'T KNOW THEM!!!"

No, unlike you, I don't call little children I don't know "brats" and accuse families I don't know of not teaching their children discipline because, "OMFG! they killed a small group meerkats!" :rolleyes:
Apparently PootWaddle is this kid's grandmother because no one would defend her or the parents like this without being related.
The parents are unfit because they either let their 9 yr old child climb into a zoo enclosure or they were not watching their child at the zoo. I don't know how many kids they brought, but if they are all under 10, they should be keeping a god damn eye on them.

The child is a brat because she believed she had the right to crawl into a zoo enclosures to play with the meerkats. You have to be pretty damn determined to get into a zoo enclosure, especially for small animals because they are designed to keep the small animals from getting out while letting people see in - they are inherently designed to be hard to get into and out of.

...
Bitten in the finger isn't that bad. She's lucky they were only meerkats. I remember a few weeks ago a teenage girl's arm got mauled at Dublin Zoo by a tiger, but again I think she trespassed.

Well, if she's treated anything like this other little girl around here, then, I think we'll be asking for her to have to pay for the tiger’s dentistry check-up to make sure he didn't break any teeth, the poor baby. [/sarcasm]

Well, if she's treated anything like this other little girl around here, then, I think we'll be asking for her to have to pay for the tiger’s dentistry check-up to make sure he didn't break any teeth, the poor baby. [/sarcasm]
No, she should just be sued for the price of a new tiger if it has to be euthanized. I'll bet tigers are expensive. Like mortgage the house expensive.

Oh my goodness. It's a zoo, they need to 'anticipate' children and children's antics.
They did, one has to be one pretty fucking determined little kid to get into a god damn small animal enclosure. Small animal enclosures are made to prevent small animals from getting out - must have no bars and must be several times the jumping height of the creature.

Apparently PootWaddle is this kid's grandmother because no one would defend her or the parents like this without being related.
The parents are unfit because they either let their 9 yr old child climb into a zoo enclosure or they were not watching their child at the zoo. I don't know how many kids they brought, but if they are all under 10, they should be keeping a god damn eye on them.

The child is a brat because she believed she had the right to crawl into a zoo enclosures to play with the meerkats. You have to be pretty damn determined to get into a zoo enclosure, especially for small animals because they are designed to keep the small animals from getting out while letting people see in - they are inherently designed to be hard to get into and out of.


I'm not related, I have what they call empathy. I have empathy for other human beings, I value them over the value I place on animals we use for entertainment.

I'm not related, I have what they call empathy. I have empathy for other human beings, I value them over the value I place on animals we use for entertainment.

To the degree that the prevention of discomfort of a child that deserves punishment is more important than the lives of the innocent animals ?

Actually I've found a link for that tiger incident. Fortunately tigers' lives are worth more than meerkats'. Not sure if they were 16 or 19 (articles vary) but they mustn't have been too bright to do it.

http://www.itv.com/news/world_deee045968e23f492d904846cb1b5b16.html

They had reason to believe that she'd been drinking. Just shows that it's not a good idea to go to a zoo when you're drunk. Maybe that's what happened to the 9 year old?

To the degree that the prevention of discomfort of a child that deserves punishment is more important than the lives of the innocent animals ?

Discomfort? You advocate a month long ordeal of having reaction causing medications injected into a child for a minor infraction, you lack perspective.

You know, I find it hilarious that the person who thinks a woman should go out of her way to avoid breastfeeding in public because it might be an inconvenience to others also thinks that a family who has caused the destruction of thousands of dollars of animals and the inconvenience of those who run the zoo and countless visitors to the zoo, all in order to avoid a little discomfort, are somehow in the right.

LOL.

Discomfort? You advocate a month long ordeal of having reaction causing medications injected into a child for a minor infraction, you lack perspective.

Any major reaction is incredibly unlikely to happen. The likely case is that the girl would simply have the slight pain associated with getting a shot - 5 times. That's it.

Meanwhile, those injections come as a direct result of that "minor infraction." If she had cut herself on a nail while climbing the wooden part of the enclosure, should she not have to get the Tetanus shot because climbing it was just a 'minor infraction'?"

Getting a few shots is unlikely to be an "ordeal" at all. And even if it is, it would be an "ordeal" that was a result of the girl's own actions. And someone needs to teach her to take responsibility for her actions. Maybe then she won't do things that are so incredibly stupid. Seriously, what if she had decided to climb into the lion enclosure instead? What if that's the next one she tries?

Any major reaction is incredibly unlikely to happen. The likely case is that the girl would simply have the slight pain associated with getting a shot - 5 times. That's it.

Meanwhile, those injections come as a direct result of that "minor infraction." If she had cut herself on a nail while climbing the wooden part of the enclosure, should she not have to get the Tetanus shot because climbing it was just a 'minor infraction'?"

Getting a few shots is unlikely to be an "ordeal" at all. And even if it is, it would be an "ordeal" that was a result of the girl's own actions. And someone needs to teach her to take responsibility for her actions. Maybe then she won't do things that are so incredibly stupid. Seriously, what if she had decided to climb into the lion enclosure instead? What if that's the next one she tries?

Rabies shots cause flu like symptoms that last for days in adults with no allergies. You minimize her pain. Shame on you.

Rabies shots cause flu like symptoms that last for days in adults with no allergies. You minimize her pain. Shame on you.

So it would have been be a valuable life lesson.
However, what would YOU consider a decent punishment for her then ? She did cause the death of innocent animals, cost the zoo a lot of money and upset many visitors. Confiscating pocket money as a symbolic gesture to pay the zoo back ?

Weasel, rodent, whatever. One's just spent more time in the ghetto.

The difference in the disposability of people and meerkats is that we're sapient. Show me a sapient meerkat and I'll completely reverse my position, and attempt to learn meerkatish.

If the decision were kill the meerkats or kill the little girl, I would agree with you. However, killing the meerkats or giving the little girl rabies shots? Look at it this way. If one of the meerkats does have rabies, the kid gets the shots anyways. If none of them do, the little kid learns that it's all right to touch the animals at zoos.

Besides, why do they need to kill all of them if only one bit her? Are they not sure which one it was or something?

You know, I find it hilarious that the person who thinks a woman should go out of her way to avoid breastfeeding in public because it might be an inconvenience to others also thinks that a family who has caused the destruction of thousands of dollars of animals and the inconvenience of those who run the zoo and countless visitors to the zoo, all in order to avoid a little discomfort, are somehow in the right.

LOL.


If you can sit there, and just assume, that the child has no sympathy for animals already, and assume that she doesn't care that the animals were killedand that she is the cause of it, and that she does so with no remorse and still needs to be taught a lesson, then I say you assume too much and you nothing or have forgotten everything you ever knew about nine year old girls.

From all of the 9 year old girls I’ve known through my own daughter and her friends etc., will feel so incredibly sorry and remorseful beyond justification even, that she caused the death of these animals, that she will likely need comfort and support for many months, not condemnations and wrathful judgments by the unsympathetic general public, the likes of which you have chosen to represent.

Rabies shots cause flu like symptoms that last for days in adults with no allergies. You minimize her pain. Shame on you.

Oh noes! Flu-like symptoms! Sniffly-sneezy and a scratchy throat!

You're right, that's an "ordeal".

Meanwhile, WHO lists no problems with flu-like symptoms. They list itching and redness at the site of injection (which'll happen with just about any shot) and a possible low-grade fever. They even point out that a rabies vaccination is safe for a pregnant woman, so all your yammering about how bad it is going to be for a child is pretty much completely unfounded. Allergic reactions are very rare.

http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/rabies.shtml#vaccines

It would seem that you are trying to greatly exaggerate the problems associated so that you can label this as an "ordeal". As I pointed out before, and have now backed up with a source, the chances of this being an undue "ordeal" are incredibly low.

If you can sit there, and just assume, that the child has no sympathy for animals already, and assume that she doesn't care that the animals were killedand that she is the cause of it, and that she does so with no remorse and still needs to be taught a lesson, then I say you assume too much and you nothing or have forgotten everything you ever knew about nine year old girls.

Actually, I find it to be incredibly likely that no one even told this precious little girl that the animals were destroyed. Even if they did, however, it doesn't justify anything. The girl could have had rabies shots and she wouldn't have had to deal with the (EXTREMELY JUSTIFED) guilt she may be feeling. If the girl does know about the animals being killed, and does feel guilty about it, then it is a direct result of the parents' decision to have the animals destroyed. She could have simply gone through the rabies vaccinations - which would have been herself and her parents taking on the responsibility for their actions - and no guilt would have been incurred.

From all of the 9 year old girls I’ve known through my own daughter and her friends etc., will feel so incredibly sorry and remorseful beyond justification even, that she caused the death of these animals, that she will likely need comfort and support for many months, not condemnations and wrathful judgments by the unsympathetic general public, the likes of which you have chosen to represent.

Any guilt that she is feeling is guilt she SHOULD be feeling. Her behavior did cause the needless deaths of these animals. Telling her, "Oh, that's alright. Don't worry about it," would be extremely irresponsible - and would simply convey the idea that she doesn't need to take responsibilty for her actions.

...
It would seem that you are trying to greatly exaggerate the problems associated so that you can label this as an "ordeal". As I pointed out before, and have now backed up with a source, the chances of this being an undue "ordeal" are incredibly low.

You greatly exaggerate the value of meerkats over the health of children you don't know. You say allergies are rare? How rare is rabies in the first place?

You know nothing about this child's medical situation and yet you propose that you can make better choices for her than her own parents, and any medical professionals that gave those parents advice, might be able to do. Good for you, oh clairvoyant one.

...
Any guilt that she is feeling is guilt she SHOULD be feeling. Her behavior did cause the needless deaths of these animals. Telling her, "Oh, that's alright. Don't worry about it," would be extremely irresponsible - and would simply convey the idea that she doesn't need to take responsibilty for her actions.

You're right, I changed my mind. I think the other people at the zoo should have just beaten her with sticks and stones immediately when she was bit. She had it coming and someone has to teach her a lesson... :rolleyes:

Where did you learn child discipline methodology? The Iranian school for misogynist?

You greatly exaggerate the value of meerkats over the health of children you don't know.

The risk to her health is negligible. I'm not placing meerkats over the health of a child, I am placing the exhibit above the discomfort of a child.

You say allergies are rare? How rare is rabies in the first place?

Allergies are not rare. Allergic reactions to rabies shots are.

You know nothing about this child's medical situation and yet you propose that you can make better choices for her than her own parents, and any medical professionals that gave those parents advice, might be able to do. Good for you, oh clairvoyant one.

We're talking about parents who let their child spend the time to climb over 7ft. of barrier to dangle her hand into a meerkat's mouth either without supervision or watching her do it. Yes, I can probably make better decisions than they can.

Meanwhile, if there were medical contraindications to her having the shots, the parents would most likely have made that very clear. As it is, considering the rarity of any such contraindications, we have absolutely no reason to believe this was anything other than them deciding that it would be too much of an inconvenience.

You're right, I changed my mind. I think the other people at the zoo should have just beaten her with sticks and stones immediately when she was bit. She had it coming and someone has to teach her a lesson...

Your exaggeration is cute, but I haven't suggested anything like that. I simply said that she should take responsibility for her actions and the results of those actions. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.

Where did you learn child discipline methodology? The Iranian school for misogynist?

What does this have to do with misogyny? I am simply stating that the girl should take responsibility for her actions (and the parents for theirs). This child's actions resulted in five animals being needlessly destroyed. I don't think she should be sheltered from that, nor do I think we should sugar-coat it so she doesn't feel bad about it. She SHOULD feel bad about it. She did something wrong, and the results of her actions are something she should deal with.

Of course, the parents could have completely avoided those feelings of guilt.....

You're right, I changed my mind. I think the other people at the zoo should have just beaten her with sticks and stones immediately when she was bit. She had it coming and someone has to teach her a lesson... :rolleyes:

Where did you learn child discipline methodology? The Iranian school for misogynist?

I cannot help noticing that you carefully avoided the question on what you would have considered appropiate punishment.

You're right, I changed my mind. I think the other people at the zoo should have just beaten her with sticks and stones immediately when she was bit. She had it coming and someone has to teach her a lesson... :rolleyes:

Where did you learn child discipline methodology? The Iranian school for misogynist?
I learned it in the real world where kids were disciplined in proportion to how bad they fucked up doing whatever they wanted.

I learned it in the real world where kids were disciplined in proportion to how bad they fucked up doing whatever they wanted.

But causing the destruction of an entire zoo exhibit - five animals total - is just a small thing. Surely that's no worse than riding her bike on the wrong side of the road, right?

But causing the destruction of an entire zoo exhibit - five animals total - is just a small thing. Surely that's no worse than riding her bike on the wrong side of the road, right?

No worse than having a five mink fur shawl made, or five chickens in a pot, or five pigs for breakfast, or five cow hides for a leather sofa, or five meerkats to avoid a couple thousand dollars spent on five doctor visits of inoculations spread over the span of a single month…

Drunk commies deleted - that is outrageous!!! they should have added a by law...stupidity in humans is punished by having to spend 48 hours in the either the big cat or bear environments...

for adults - 72 hours with the hippos.
I think the adults can spend 24 hours with a gorrilla thats been fed some viagra :)

No worse than having a five mink fur shawl made, or five chickens in a pot, or five pigs for breakfast, or five cow hides for a leather sofa, or five meerkats to avoid a couple thousand dollars spent on five doctor visits of inoculations spread over the span of a single month…

The difference is that food, clothing, etc. are human necessities. Climbing over a 7ft. barrier to get bitten by a meerkat is not. Those meerkats were not used for food. They were not used for clothing. They were never meant for these uses and were, while alive, providing educational and entertainment value to zoo visitors every day. They were destroyed completely needlessly all for the sake of the comfort of one little 9-year old, and at the expense of the zoo and every visitor that comes through it.

Meanwhile, as I already pointed out, the cost of the damages that little girl caused is much higher than anything her parents would have paid out for the vaccination. And the parents should be held criminally liable for said costs. The parents *should* have to pay for the cost of euthanizing the animals, the cost of the rabies tests carried out on the animals, the replacement of every animal destroyed, and an estimated value of how much money the empty exhibit caused the zoo until it can be repopulated. After all, it was their negiligence that caused each and every one of those costs. As such, the relatively small cost of a rabies vaccination becomes a moot point. The parents, if we were to have them actually take responsibility for their actions, would spend much, much, much more.

No worse than having a five mink fur shawl made, or five chickens in a pot, or five pigs for breakfast, or five cow hides for a leather sofa, or five meerkats to avoid a couple thousand dollars spent on five doctor visits of inoculations spread over the span of a single month…
Most of your post doesn't make sense.
But most health insurance covers vaccines, to counter your only argument.

I think the adults can spend 24 hours with a gorrilla thats been fed some viagra :)
Gorillas aren't hung very well. That's why they're always charging humans. They're compensating.

Compared to other primates, even larger primates such as the gorilla, the male human genitalia are remarkably large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_size

I think the adults can spend 24 hours with a gorrilla thats been fed some viagra :)
Gorillas do not try to have sex with any moving object.
I don't think the hard-on makes much difference to them either.

...
We're talking about parents who let their child spend the time to climb over 7ft. of barrier to dangle her hand into a meerkat's mouth either without supervision or watching her do it. Yes, I can probably make better decisions than they can.
...

Well let's see shall we, instead of reading your clairvoyant analyses, about little nine year old girls scaling sheer walls and castles motes, what is actually at the zoo…

It's unfortunate," Fisher said. "But we understand we have to do that. We want to make sure that people are safe."

Meerkats are a highly social relative of the mongoose and are native to the African desert. They were popularized in the Disney animated movie "The Lion King" and have been on display at the zoo for about four years.

The 9-year-old girl had climbed atop 3 feet of rock work and reached over a 4-foot glass barrier Wednesday afternoon when she was bitten, Fisher said.

The rock work is designed to allow kids to climb up for a better view, he said.

The girl and her parents were not identified.

Zoo staff members were notified soon after the incident. The exhibit will remain closed until crews can lower the rock work to prevent anyone else from reaching over the glass, Fisher said.

A second group of meerkats will be moved from an indoor exhibit to the outdoor one when the modifications are complete, he said, adding that the time frame is unknown.

The entire family of meerkats was destroyed because it is unknown which one bit the girl, Fisher said, adding that there is little to no chance that the animals carried the disease.

Fisher said he could not recall the last time a visitor was bitten by an animal, but added that minor bites by domestic animals like goats and rabbits have occurred in the past. Those are less serious because the animals are not exotic wild animals, which have a less proven history with the rabies vaccine, he said.

Meerkats are curious, bold animals, traits that make them highly popular at zoos, Fisher said, but they are still wild.

"We handle them with thick leather gloves," he said. "They're not pets."

Incidents of visitors trying to pet animals or even scaling barriers for a closer view are not uncommon, he said.
link (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/594696.html)

Well, it sure looks like your hypothetical extremism is just that, rather nonsensical.

The entire event is call 'unfortunate' (which it is), but nothing more. The mountain climbing child and negligent parents you describe did not occur, as the stone wall you so frrequently cry about was designed and intended for small children to stand on, the glass wall is reachable and the girl wasn’t anywhere that she wasn’t supposed to be.

The exhibit is not lost, they will bring more meerkats out from the indoor exhibit after safety modifications are made to the exhibit because incidents of visitor trying to pet the animals is not uncommon… exactly like I said from the beginning. Your disdain for the family and your contempt for the girl is unfounded and without merit.

Gorillas do not try to have sex with any moving object.
I don't think the hard-on makes much difference to them either.

All males of any species try to have sex with any moving object. It's what makes us so predictable :p

Well let's see shall we, instead of reading your clairvoyant analyses, about little nine year old girls scaling sheer walls and castles motes, what is actually at the zoo…

Your insults are cute, but entirely unfounded. I was going on the numerous accounts I had read. You have brought one that has more detail. It makes things a little less bad, but doesn't completely do away with the issue (as you seem to claim). The main difference between that and every other account given is that they say the purpose of the rocks was standing on them. Ok, so that means that the child only had to reach over a 4ft wall down to the level of a meerkat.

Of course, how tall do you think the average nine-year old is? The average 9-year old is 52 inches tall. Now, to reach down to the level of a meerkat, (about a foot tall if standing on its hind legs) over a 4-ft wall, she would have had to be on top of the wall hanging down. I'm 5'10", and I'd have trouble reaching them. This leads me to believe one of two things:

(a) She climbed up and balanced on the wall to reach over it. (rather difficult considering how smooth glass and the fact that it probably isn't all that thick)
(b) Some adult idiot held her over the wall so that she could reach down and pet the animals.

Suddenly, the parents don't just look negligent, they look like they intentionally put their child in danger. Even worse!

Meanwhile, let's look at the parts of the article you conveniently left out:

The meerkats -- two mates and their three offspring born this spring -- had been vaccinated for rabies, but were ordered killed by the state Department of Health because the girl's parents didn't want her to have to undergo a series of rabies shots, said zoo

So, (a) your repeated assertions that the zoo "should have vaccinated their animals," were, as I already pointed out, unfounded. The animals were vaccinated.

(b) This really is just a matter of, "We don't want our little girl to go through vaccinations." It wasn't, "OMFG! SHE'S ALLERGIC AND GOING TO DIE!"

And, at the end of the article, let's quote the entire comment, shall we?

Incidents of visitors trying to pet animals or even scaling barriers for a closer view are not uncommon, he said.

"People want to have contact with these animals when they shouldn't," Fisher said. "It's just not safe. Don't try to push the barriers and touch the animals because it's the animal that ultimately suffers."

In other words, while lots of people may try to pet animals and scale barriers, they are stupid. The parents never should have allowed it, and their negligence (and the little girls stupid actions) caused the loss of these animals. And from your new and updated description of the zoo, it looks like the parents were probably actually *helping* her do it, which would go beyond negligence.

As for the fact that they have more meerkats, good. It means that they will spend less time without their exhibit. It does not, however, change the fact that destroying the animals in question is costly to the zoo. Those animals were worth quite a bit of money, whether there are others or not.

The entire event is call 'unfortunate' (which it is), but nothing more. The mountain climbing child and negligent parents you describe did not occur,

Even reaching over a 4-foot wall down to the level of a meerkat is quite a stretch. The moutain climbing (or parents holding her up there) still occurred. All you've done is removed the rocks as a barrier and made them part of the display. And the parents still had to have not noticed, allowed, or helped, all of which are negligent actions.

the glass wall is reachable and the girl wasn’t anywhere that she wasn’t supposed to be.

If the girl "wasn't anywhere that she wasn't supposed to be," she wouldn't have been bitten in the first place, since she wasn't supposed to be anywhere that she could actually come in contact with the animals - ie. inside the enclosure.

The exhibit is not lost,

The exhibit that they had absolutely is lost. There were five animals on display. Five animals were destroyed. The entire exhibit was destroyed. The fact that they have other animals is fortunate, but does not recoop the cost of the animals destroyed.

because incidents of visitor trying to pet the animals is not uncommon…

Of course, you conveniently left out the rest - that clearly explains that it isn't safe, no matter how common it is. It isn't uncommon for someone to walk into the street without looking both ways, but it's pretty stupid to do so.

Your disdain for the family and your contempt for the girl is unfounded and without merit.

No, it isn't. No matter how you look at it, the little girl caused all of this with her misbehavior. The parents allowed such behavior, and then compounded the problem by having all five animals destroyed rather than have their child go through a small amount of discomfort. And the property damage has been caused - damage that, according to you, the parents shouldn't have to repay.

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.
I have four kids.
A soon to be 11 year old and a Soon to be 9 year old among them, if they ignored and evaded my attempts to stop them from doing what this poor child did, they would get the shots--no doubt.

I call the child, "poor child" because it is completely obvious this child only acts the way it is allowed too--not knowing any better it has no concept it can be wrong. The parents continue this thought pattern by forcing the animals --who actually are the ones who did nothing wrong -- to die rather then let their broken minded offspring endure a little pain for their actions--in truth to endure a little bit of consequences.

The most unfortunate part isnt the death of the animals, it is the knowledge that more then likely this child will breed and be an even less effective parent then her/his own.

Thin the herd.

...
No, it isn't. No matter how you look at it, the little girl caused all of this with her misbehavior. The parents allowed such behavior, and then compounded the problem by having all five animals destroyed rather than have their child go through a small amount of discomfort. And the property damage has been caused - damage that, according to you, the parents shouldn't have to repay.

Your entire post can be summed up with that -- assuming everyone recognizes that your post was full of speculations and assumptions and theory-craft that is hypothesis, NOT substantiated facts.

You have NO reason besides your own speculation to think and propose the idea that the child did anything wrong at all. She reached to a height of four feet high and was bit, that’s all the article says (an article from the home town of the incident by the way, not some internet hearsay article created by people looking to embellish the story for public interest). Your speculations to any other specifics are just that, speculations drawn from your own imagination.

No where in that article did it say that the little girl ever did anything outside of what every other nine year old does at that display.

Your anger has made you irrational and your are spiting bile and venom at a family you do not know, at a display you have not seen and about animals that are easily replaced.

The error here could entirely lie on a badly designed animal exhibit at the zoo, but you won't hear of it. No, you want blood and vengeance.

Well, you can take your hatred and your anger and keep it, it's ridiculous.

The parents of some 9 year old kid caused the death of a Meerkat family through their inability to control their kid and their reluctance to let their precious little baby go through the pain of six injections. They ignored their kid as she climbed over several obstacles and reached her hand over a plexiglass wall into the meerkat enclosure at the zoo. She got bit. No surprise there. Instead of letting their kid get rabies shots, the parents forced the zoo to euthanize all of it's meerkats (state law says either the bite victim gets the shots or the animals get euthanized and tested). I don't know how much a meerkat costs, but they can't be cheap. Plus it disappointed many other zoo visitors who couldn't see the meerkat exhibit.
...

:(

there are times when I wonder if Humans do deserve to be at the top of the ladder...

Drunk commies deleted - that is outrageous!!! they should have added a by law...stupidity in humans is punished by having to spend 48 hours in the either the big cat or bear environments...

for adults - 72 hours with the hippos.
I worked at a fair where we had some Bengal Tigers on display. one day, over the radio we hear the following conversation...
1: "we have the parents of a lost 5 yr old. they say they last saw the child in the tiger pens. over"
...
2: "repeat please... was that IN the tiger pens? over."
...
1: "Correction... Near the Tiger pens. over."

and dont forget not to feed the animals before putting the people in with them. :D
so... you are for poisening the animals then?

THOSE PEOPLE KILLED MY BRETHREN! FOR THIS THEY SHALL PAY! GRAAAGH!
My nickname's Timon.
oh Willard! You're needed!

That really sucks. Meerkats are far cooler than children.
I second that.

You're right, I changed my mind. I think the other people at the zoo should have just beaten her with sticks and stones immediately when she was bit. She had it coming and someone has to teach her a lesson... :rolleyes:

Where did you learn child discipline methodology? The Iranian school for misogynist?

Don't worry, once I find her name I'll tell her nothing's wrong, and give her a plush Pumba the warthog. And when she asks where Timon is, I'll tell her she murdered him and his wife and their babies.

Your entire post can be summed up with that -- assuming everyone recognizes that your post was full of speculations and assumptions and theory-craft that is hypothesis, NOT substantiated facts.

You have NO reason besides your own speculation to think and propose the idea that the child did anything wrong at all. She reached to a height of four feet high and was bit, that’s all the article says (an article from the home town of the incident by the way, not some internet hearsay article created by people looking to embellish the story for public interest). Your speculations to any other specifics are just that, speculations drawn from your own imagination.

No where in that article did it say that the little girl ever did anything outside of what every other nine year old does at that display.

Your anger has made you irrational and your are spiting bile and venom at a family you do not know, at a display you have not seen and about animals that are easily replaced.

The error here could entirely lie on a badly designed animal exhibit at the zoo, but you won't hear of it. No, you want blood and vengeance.

Well, you can take your hatred and your anger and keep it, it's ridiculous.

Oh please, I read his "speculation" and it seemed more likely than a meerkat jumping 6 feet (taking one off for the height of the meerkat) The child was not supposed to be reaching into the meerkat pen, we both know that, please don't try and deny it. Most exhibits (at least at my zoo) have signs saying WARNING: DO NOT TRY TO TOUCH ANIMALS in big red letters. You also make no points as to why the zoo should not be recompensated for the death of their meerkats. Just because there's more meerkats doesn't mean they didn't lose the other ones. If you had two identical cars and some1 crashed one of them you would certainly want them to pay you back for the other one.

I haven't read nething suggesting he "hates" this family. He just thinks their idiots (as do i), are to blame for the incident, and should have to pay up for it. no hatred involved there.

Your entire post can be summed up with that -- assuming everyone recognizes that your post was full of speculations and assumptions and theory-craft that is hypothesis, NOT substantiated facts.

Actually, I was just going off the facts. Your average 9-year old is about 4'3". A meerkat is about a foot tall if standing up. In order to reach a meerkat over a four-foot wall, you have to reach three feet down over the wall. These are simple facts.

You have NO reason besides your own speculation to think and propose the idea that the child did anything wrong at all. She reached to a height of four feet high and was bit, that’s all the article says (an article from the home town of the incident by the way, not some internet hearsay article created by people looking to embellish the story for public interest).

Wrong. The article says that the wall was four feet high and that she reached over it, not to that height. Your own article demonstrates that you are portraying things innaccurately.

This means that the girl had to reach OVER the wall to reach the meerkats. Since it is a known fact that meerkats are only about a foot high, this means she had to hang over the wall to reach them.

In fact:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15202942.htm
The girl had to work to get her hand inside the enclosure. Zoo officials said she must have crawled over a driftwood barrier, climbed up more than 3 feet of artificial rock and reached over 4 feet of Plexiglas to get her arm into the exhibit.

Because meerkats stand just a foot tall on their hind legs, she had to have dangled her hand low for an animal to bite her finger, they said.

"The barriers seemed fairly obvious to us and we've gone five years where nothing happened," zoo communications director Sue Gergen said. "But kids are braver and the animals are cute."

Yes, "all" she did is reach up to a height of four feet. Never mind that she had to reach over a four-foot wall down to the height of one foot. No, lets ignore the facts. Obviously, if you reach to the height of a wall, that is the same thing as reaching over the wall, three feet down - something that a nine year old would have to be pretty much sitting on the wall to do.

In fact, lets have a look at the exhibit:
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_216072203.html

Watch the video to the right. A grown man had to make a concentrated effort to be able to reach into the exhibit, and even then it doesn't look like he's necessarily reaching far enough down to touch a meerkat. Now imagine a little girl who is roughly the height of the glass managing it.

If the little girl wanted to get closer to the animals, she could have crawled into the little tube in the middle. But no, she had to *pet* the animals, despite the fact that she obviously was not supposed to.

No where in that article did it say that the little girl ever did anything outside of what every other nine year old does at that display.

Yes, that's why the person at the zoo kept talking about how people do things to try and get closer to the animals than they should - because the girl was just standing there looking through the glass like a normal person and somehow the meerkat jumped through the glass and bit her.

Your anger has made you irrational and your are spiting bile and venom at a family you do not know, at a display you have not seen and about animals that are easily replaced.

Easily replaced? In other words, "They've got extra so they're easily replaced." Last time I checked, you can't get a meerkat at the corner pet store. In fact, their habitat is in Africa.

And now I have seen the display. It is actually more secure than many zoo and aquarium displays I've been to. It wasn't badly designed. This was, as I've said all along, simply a little girl who thought she could get what she wanted and is now being taught that she doesn't have to take responsibility for the harm her actions caused.

I'm not the one who is irrational here. You are trying to claim that reaching over a four-foot barrier is the same as only reaching up to four feet. You are trying to claim that expensive animals from Africa are "easily replaced." You are trying to claim that rabies shots are practically going to kill the girl, when they carry no more risk than any other vaccination. And you are doing all of this to try and claim that the parents of this child shouldn't take responsibility for the damages they chose to cause.

And I don't care about knowing the family. The zoo enclosure (even according to your own source) was designed to keep people the hell out of it. Looking at it on the video, it's pretty damn obvious that no one should be reaching in. That little girl had to go out of her way and stretch down into the enclosure to even possibly get bitten. The fact that you are so eager to try and get around this fact demonstrates that you aren't really interested in the facts of the case.

The error here could entirely lie on a badly designed animal exhibit at the zoo, but you won't hear of it. No, you want blood and vengeance.

No, blood is what the parents of this little girl caused. I don't want blood. I don't want vengeance. I want people to take responsibility for their own actions. In this case, that means that the parents of this child should pay for the killing and testing of these animals, as well as their replacement. If they don't like it, it they shouldn't have tried so hard to avoid a little discomfort for their precious little girl.

And the little girl should be well aware of what her actions caused, although the parents could have avoided any guilt she now feels by simply getting her vaccinated.

Meanwhile, surprise surprise, the zoo exhibit looks pretty much like zoo exhibits *everywhere*. This one even had a way to get closer to the animals without trying to reach over a four-foot tall piece of glass to pet them!

I haven't read nething suggesting he "hates" this family. He just thinks their idiots (as do i), are to blame for the incident, and should have to pay up for it. no hatred involved there.

Ahem, *she*. =)

But this is pretty much spot-on. I don't hate anyone. But to try and deny that the damage was caused, and that it should be paid for by those who caused it, is ludicrous - especially when they could have avoided the damage altogether.

I'll have to say that looking at the exhibit, it doesn't look like the parents could have held her up, because that would have involved the parent climbing up the rock while holding the girl and not falling off.
I'd say it's more likely that the girl climbed to the top of the rocks, grabbed the top of the glass, and pulled herself over.
Even so, that would take a lot of effort for a nine year old and her parents really could (and should) have stopped her.
Even discarding that, the rabies shots really aren't that bad, especially compared to killing five meerkats.

I'll have to say that looking at the exhibit, it doesn't look like the parents could have held her up, because that would have involved the parent climbing up the rock while holding the girl and not falling off.

It might be possible to the side of the rocks he climbed up on (the don't show a head-on shot), but no, they probably weren't actually holding her up. The reporter even says that she climbed up herself. However, he looks to be at least 6 feet tall and he obviously finds it difficult to reach over. Unless the 9-year old is freakishly tall, she's a great deal shorter than him - most likely about the height of the glass itself.

I'd say it's more likely that the girl climbed to the top of the rocks, grabbed the top of the glass, and pulled herself over.

Even so, that would take a lot of effort for a nine year old and her parents really could (and should) have stopped her.

Indeed.

Even discarding that, the rabies shots really aren't that bad, especially compared to killing five meerkats.

Indeed. Of course, I am simply contending that, if their choice was to have the animals destroyed rather than have their daughter take the shots, they should take responsibility for that - by paying for the damages caused.

... And you are doing all of this to try and claim that the parents of this child shouldn't take responsibility for the damages they chose to cause.
...

Is that what I’ve been saying? That I don’t think they should be held responsible for their part in this incident? Really? Well lets just take a look back and see what I’ve been saying all along…

From my FIRST post in this thread:
...
In my support for the parents and the girl, I now recognize that the zoo should be able to assess them a trespassing fine for leaving the areas clearly marked and causing damage via their tresspass. Additionally, the zoo should learn to give their own animals rabies immunology shots so this doesn't have to happen next time. Rabies shots for animals should be manditory, like regular everyday dog owners have to do.
*note: it has now been shown that rabies immunizations were given to the meerkats but the department of health judged that the tests had to be done anyway since the vaccinations for wild animals is not 100% whereas the disease, if contacted, IS nearly 100% fatal…

What else did I say about being held accountable?
...
I already said they should be charged with trespassing and fined accordingly, how is that avoiding punishment for a wrong? It is not. You simply demand too much punishment for a little wrong, a disproportionate overreaction on your part.

Or this:
... They should be fined for damage to property as well as for the cost of rabies testing and replacing the animals.

They should be fined for trespassing, and if ALL of the children who trespass at zoos are equally punished, then the zoos will all be rich and the animals will be able to eat caviar everyday...[/sarcasm]

I think zoos need to be designed with small trespassing children in mind.

All zoo animals should be vaccinated, this sort of event needs to be anticipated.

Or maybe sometime later in the thread I started saying parents don’t need to watch their kids…
Oh my goodness. It's a zoo, they need to 'anticipate' children and children's antics. AND parents need to watch their children, no one said they shouldn't.

Well gee, it looks like I’ve been saying they do need to watch and they do need to be held responsible for their actions, I guess you’re just making stuff about what I’ve said. I think they call that a straw man, building up an argument I didn’t actually make, then saying it’s mine, and then attacking that instead of what I’ve actually said, yup, that’s what you were doing there.

...
Indeed. Of course, I am simply contending that, if their choice was to have the animals destroyed rather than have their daughter take the shots, they should take responsibility for that - by paying for the damages caused.

In the end, the remedy to this situation came from actually FIXING the exhibit so that children can’t reach into it anymore. The solution was found in CHANGING the display.

The zoo knows that if it tried to sue the family for the price of the animals and supposed damages caused, et-al, then more than likely some smart ass lawyer will counter sue the zoo for the original display design that made it possible for nine year old girls to reach over the top and come in contact with animals the zoo knew in advance would be likely to bite.

The original display was designed in such a way that it allowed this to happen in the first place. The altered display now, the alterations made before reopening the exhibit, took only a short time to accomplish and additionally shows what the zoo management thinks the problem was and they fixed it.

But please, do feel free to continue your lynch mob rally, which is what this thread is, trying to raise a mob to bring medieval justice down on the head of that nine year old girl and her negligent and haughty parents … they must of had it coming, after all :rolleyes:

Whatever. Can I interest you in buying some pitchforks and torches?

You can't fine them for trespassing because they wern't fucking trespassing. Learn what the hell you are talking about. They should and can be fined for damage to property which will ring up alot fucking hire than some idiotic, imaginary trespassing charge.


In the end, the remedy to this situation came from actually FIXING the exhibit so that children can’t reach into it anymore.
WTFV - Watch the fucking video
Some guy who is probably about six foot reached his arm in as far as it would go with him partially leaning over the glass and his fingertips barely reached the total height of a meerkat. Unless there was some other place where the wall was lower or the girl has giantism or something, there is no way she could have reached in so far as to agitate a meerkat into biting without basically getting into the enclosure by crawling over the wall itself. It is physically impossible for her to have just reached an arm over and been close enough to a meerkat to make it bite - my arms arn't even that long.

Who the fuck expects a 9 year old to crawl over a fucking wall to play with the meerkats? No god damn one. Her parents should be investigated by Child Services for negligence.

The zoo knows that if it tried to sue the family for the price of the animals and supposed damages caused, et-al, then more than likely some smart ass lawyer will counter sue the zoo for the original display design that made it possible for nine year old girls to reach over the top and come in contact with animals the zoo knew in advance would be likely to bite.
The original display design made it unlikely to the point of extreme improbability that anyone, much less a child shorter than 5 feet, could get into the enclosure and close enough to a meerkat to provoke it to bite.
WTFV

You can't fine them for trespassing because they wern't fucking trespassing. Learn what the hell you are talking about. They should and can be fined for damage to property which will ring up alot fucking hire than some idiotic, imaginary trespassing charge.

If the child wasn't tresspassing then she was in a place she was allowed and expected to be in. In which case, you are now saying she did nothing wrong?

No of course not. What crime are you accusing her of doing if not entering an area she was not authorized to be in? And BTW: that's called tresspassing.

WTFV - Watch the fucking video
Some guy who is probably about six foot reached his arm in as far as it would go with him partially leaning over the glass and his fingertips barely reached the total height of a meerkat. Unless there was some other place where the wall was lower or the girl has giantism or something, there is no way she could have reached in so far as to agitate a meerkat into biting without basically getting into the enclosure by crawling over the wall itself. It is physically impossible for her to have just reached an arm over and been close enough to a meerkat to make it bite - my arms arn't even that long.

Lets see what they say:

The Meerkats of the Kalahari exhibit reopened Thursday morning at the Minnesota Zoo.

The outdoor exhibit was closed while crews made safety modifications. The four males had been living inside with an aardvark but they are now outside.

"We've made some modifications to our exhibit to make it harder for kids to climb over the barriers, and climb up on the barriers", said exhibit coordinator Tony Fisher. "Even if they do go in places they're not supposed to, we're making it pretty much impossible for them to reach over."
link (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=131949)

Or more to the point, here’s a question and answer about rabies and the law:
Q The only way to check wild animals for rabies is to kill them. Why wouldn't the victim get the vaccine instead?
A I can say that was a very difficult decision. The family and the doctor decided that it was best for the child, and the child's health had to come first.

Q How might it endanger the child's health?
A There are many factors that can come into play: the severity of the injury, the underlying health of the child. [Scheftel would not comment on this case specifically.] The risk is not zero from the shots, so we only want to give them when it's necessary. ... People are making this a little bit more simplistic than it really is.

Q Why would the type of injury be a factor?
A [One shot, an immune serum, is given near the bite wound. That, she said, could add to an already painful injury.] There's just no question that the health of this child had to be considered foremost. ... That's the law.

Q Why, in this case, were five meerkats in the same cage euthanized and checked for rabies? [The tests were negative.]
A It was impossible to know which one bit the child.
link (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/605744.html)


Who the fuck expects a 9 year old to crawl over a fucking wall to play with the meerkats? No god damn one. Her parents should be investigated by Child Services for negligence.
Well let's see what other people thought...

But Eden Prairie mom Liz Schewe said she wasn't surprised the exhibit's barriers were bridged. She called herself an "overprotective mom" but said she has wondered about the exhibit's safety.

"It's definitely given me pause in the past," Schewe said. "My 4-year-old is a monkey, and he could probably climb right over."
Link (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/15202942.htm?source=rss&channel=twincities_local)


The original display design made it unlikely to the point of extreme improbability that anyone, much less a child shorter than 5 feet, could get into the enclosure and close enough to a meerkat to provoke it to bite.
WTFV

Obviously, your assement is wrong, as shown by the actual actions taken by the zoo itself in response to this incident.

If the child wasn't tresspassing then she was in a place she was allowed and expected to be in. In which case, you are now saying she did nothing wrong?
Do you often headbutt walls are you just naturally that dense?

No of course not. What crime are you accusing her of doing if not entering an area she was not authorized to be in? And BTW: that's called tresspassing.
Damage to property.
PS. No, it's not. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tresspassing




Obviously, your assement is wrong, as shown by the actual actions taken by the zoo itself in response to this incident.
Mumbo jumbo used to prevent legal action. The child had to physicall throw her body over the barrier to get close enough to a meerkat, if not get in the enclosure itself. My arms are not long enough to just lean over and put an arm in and have it close enough to the full height of a meerkat to get a bite even on the tip of my finger.
WFTV.

In the end, the remedy to this situation came from actually FIXING the exhibit so that children can’t reach into it anymore. The solution was found in CHANGING the display.

The zoo knows that if it tried to sue the family for the price of the animals and supposed damages caused, et-al, then more than likely some smart ass lawyer will counter sue the zoo for the original display design that made it possible for nine year old girls to reach over the top and come in contact with animals the zoo knew in advance would be likely to bite.

The original display was designed in such a way that it allowed this to happen in the first place. The altered display now, the alterations made before reopening the exhibit, took only a short time to accomplish and additionally shows what the zoo management thinks the problem was and they fixed it.

But please, do feel free to continue your lynch mob rally, which is what this thread is, trying to raise a mob to bring medieval justice down on the head of that nine year old girl and her negligent and haughty parents … they must of had it coming, after all :rolleyes:

Whatever. Can I interest you in buying some pitchforks and torches?

Woooo. Woooo. Woooo.

That's the sound of my bullshit alarm going off. That's like saying that if I break into your house and steal something, again, it's your own damn fault because your house was designed to be able to be broken into. Which I don't think you'd buy in a court of law, would you?

It's really simple.

The girl went out of her way, effectively, to see these meerkats. She ignored signs and barriers on her path to get bitten (or see them, whatever, but the end result is that she got bitten).

The parents were selfish enough to have the meerkat display destroyed rather than inconvenience their little darling.

But we can't have that. Oh no. I sincerely hope you're playing Devil's Advocate.

If the child wasn't tresspassing then she was in a place she was allowed and expected to be in. In which case, you are now saying she did nothing wrong?

No of course not. What crime are you accusing her of doing if not entering an area she was not authorized to be in? And BTW: that's called tresspassing.

And what do you think would be an appropiate punishment for that ?
Let us change the scenario somewhat. A little girl looks through the window of people she doesn't know and sees a pretty cuddly toy lying on the table. She forces the window open, crawls in and grabs the toy. At that moment the owners guard dog bites the little burglar.
Is it right that the dog gets euthanised to avoid the girl the misery of rabies shots ?
Should the girl be punished or is her misery caused by the bite and subsequent killing of the dog enough ?

In my view this scenario is completely equivalent.

...
The parents were selfish enough to have the meerkat display destroyed rather than inconvenience their little darling.

But we can't have that. Oh no. I sincerely hope you're playing Devil's Advocate.

*hands Nureonia a pitchfork and torch so they can join the rest of the lynch mob*

And what do you think would be an appropiate punishment for that ?
Let us change the scenario somewhat. A little girl looks through the window of people she doesn't know and sees a pretty cuddly toy lying on the table. She forces the window open, crawls in and grabs the toy. At that moment the owners guard dog bites the little burglar.
Is it right that the dog gets euthanised to avoid the girl the misery of rabies shots ?
Should the girl be punished or is her misery caused by the bite and subsequent killing of the dog enough ?

In my view this scenario is completely equivalent.

If those scenarios are equivalent in your view then you view is short-sighted or blind.

The zoo should 'expect' the child to be looking and trying to touch the animal. the neighbor does NOT expect people to be peeking in their windows, that’s illegal already.

The zoo should 'expect' the child to be looking and trying to touch the animal. the neighbor does NOT expect people to be peeking in their windows, that’s illegal already.

Nice way to avoid answering the questions.
What do you consider appropiate punishment for the girl ?
Did the meerkats deserve to die ?

*hands Nureonia a pitchfork and torch so they can join the rest of the lynch mob*

Way to evade the argument instead of actually addressing it.

Way to evade the argument instead of actually addressing it.

Your argument was invalid. Where the child went and how she got there and if she was expected to be there are all parts of the ongoing discussion already. You said nothing new. Your argument was already addressed on this page and the page before it... So I handed you your membership materials for the side you've chosen.

If those scenarios are equivalent in your view then you view is short-sighted or blind.

The zoo should 'expect' the child to be looking and trying to touch the animal. the neighbor does NOT expect people to be peeking in their windows, that’s illegal already.
Well, shouldn't toy stores expect kids to want to take the toys? I guess that means it's the store owners' fault if a kid shop-lifts, right? Guess the store owners should face a fine if a kid gets hurt trying to rip off a new bike, since the store should have known that little kids love new bikes.

Nice way to avoid answering the questions.
What do you consider appropiate punishment for the girl ?
Did the meerkats deserve to die ?
According to the Vet in the Q and A session, yes, they needed to die, but it was a tough decision to make. (already linked to above)

Your argument was invalid. Where the child went and how she got there and if she was expected to be there are all parts of the ongoing discussion already. You said nothing new. Your argument was already addressed on this page and the page before it... So I handed you your membership materials for the side you've chosen.

No you didn't. Show me where you addressed that. It quite clearly was designed for her to NOT be able to enter there, and yet you continue to use that argument of "it was poorly designed, so it's the zoo's fault".

Either address the argument or sit down and shush.

Well, shouldn't toy stores expect kids to want to take the toys? I guess that means it's the store owners' fault if a kid shop-lifts, right? Guess the store owners should face a fine if a kid gets hurt trying to rip off a new bike, since the store should have known that little kids love new bikes.

If a toy store leaves a half assembled rocking horse on display in the middle of the walk-way and puts a sign on it that says Don't Sit on the Horse... Then a little kid sits on the horse and it falls apart and the kid is hurt,

Who get's to pay for the broken rocking horse? The store or the parents?

Perhaps the store should have just assembled the rocking horse in a place that the kid couldn't sit on it OR assemble it properly so it didn't fail when used.

If a toy store leaves a half assembled rocking horse on display in the middle of the walk-way and puts a sign on it that says Don't Sit on the Horse... Then a little kid sits on the horse and it falls apart and the kid is hurt,

Who get's to pay for the broken rocking horse? The store or the parents?

Perhaps the store should have just assembled the rocking horse in a place that the kid couldn't sit on it OR assemble it properly so it didn't fail when used.

Invalid argument. You're making the argument that the zoo's display was somehow "broken". Given the amount of work (shown from the other sources posted here) that the girl would have had to go through in order to access the meerkats, it certainly wasn't "broken".

Also, I'd say that the parents would have to. It says "don't sit on the horse" pretty damn clearly. If I did that with a half-assembled store display, I know I'd be paying for it.

If a toy store leaves a half assembled rocking horse on display in the middle of the walk-way and puts a sign on it that says Don't Sit on the Horse... Then a little kid sits on the horse and it falls apart and the kid is hurt,

Who get's to pay for the broken rocking horse? The store or the parents?

The parents. Just like how if a store puts up a "Caution, Wet Floor" sign, they aren't liable if some parents let their kids go running around on the wet floor until the kids slip and fall.


Perhaps the store should have just assembled the rocking horse in a place that the kid couldn't sit on it OR assemble it properly so it didn't fail when used.
Or perhaps people shouldn't expect the entire world to accomodate their selfishness. Your kids are YOUR responsibility.

Not to mention the fact that this case is more like the kid sneaking into the back room to play with broken toys, despite clearly-posted signs instructing them not to do so. These animals were not roaming about in the middle of the kid's path; they were inside a carefully-walled enclosure that this child went to a great deal of trouble to penetrate.

...
Not to mention the fact that this case is more like the kid sneaking into the back room to play with broken toys, despite clearly-posted signs instructing them not to do so. These animals were not roaming about in the middle of the kid's path; they were inside a carefully-walled enclosure that this child went to a great deal of trouble to penetrate.

Great deal of trouble for the zoo to fix? Not. Two or three logs and the problem was solved. They should have done that BEFORE any child was bit. If people can touch the animals, they will, sign or no sign, and the zoo management should have (and did) know that.

But the back-room analogy is incorrect, zoo's do have back rooms, the child did not go there. The child approached the barrier to keep her out, the child touched and reached over the fence intended to keep her out.

The border design failed, it allowed the zoo patron to touch the zoo animal.

No you didn't. Show me where you addressed that. It quite clearly was designed for her to NOT be able to enter there, and yet you continue to use that argument of "it was poorly designed, so it's the zoo's fault".

Either address the argument or sit down and shush.


It's unfortunate," Fisher said. "But we understand we have to do that. We want to make sure that people are safe."

Meerkats are a highly social relative of the mongoose and are native to the African desert. They were popularized in the Disney animated movie "The Lion King" and have been on display at the zoo for about four years.

The 9-year-old girl had climbed atop 3 feet of rock work and reached over a 4-foot glass barrier Wednesday afternoon when she was bitten, Fisher said.

The rock work is designed to allow kids to climb up for a better view, he said. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11560483&postcount=154

You can shush yourself if you like.

Invalid argument. You're making the argument that the zoo's display was somehow "broken"....

The zoo display was broken, the zoo management spent a few days and fixed it. They said they made safety modifications...

It's unfortunate," Fisher said. "But we understand we have to do that. We want to make sure that people are safe."

Meerkats are a highly social relative of the mongoose and are native to the African desert. They were popularized in the Disney animated movie "The Lion King" and have been on display at the zoo for about four years.

The 9-year-old girl had climbed atop 3 feet of rock work and reached over a 4-foot glass barrier Wednesday afternoon when she was bitten, Fisher said.

The rock work is designed to allow kids to climb up for a better view, he said. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11560483&postcount=154

You can shush yourself if you like.

Four feet of glass stops kids who aren't stupid. She went out of her way to do this, as has been discussed several times. It takes a lot to go over four feet of a glass wall at 9 years old.

It was designed to keep her out. You still haven't addressed my analogy about someone breaking into your house.

The zoo display was broken, the zoo management spent a few days and fixed it. They said they made safety modifications...

Just because it was made safer doesn't mean it was broken before. When color TVs came out, did that mean all black and white TVs were broken?

PROPOSAL: Until a child can show an understanding of "do not trespass", they ought to be mandated to wear a leash and be kept on the leash at all times and with their parents. If the parents fail to keep the child on a leash, they shall then be summarily paraded before a crowd and ridiculed as being unable to teach the child about the dangers of trespassing into a wild animal's enclave.

If an adult trespass, the zoo authorities may escort them to the staulks and provide soft nerf balls for the patrons to throw at the moron.

All the offending parties will then be photographed and have their photos put on a wall of "Infamy".

Four feet of glass stops kids who aren't stupid. She went out of her way to do this, as has been discussed several times. It takes a lot to go over four feet of a glass wall at 9 years old.

So your argument consists in implying this girl is stupid? That's sad.

It was designed to keep her out. You still haven't addressed my analogy about someone breaking into your house.

Sure I did. I said it didn't compare beause a house doesn't 'expect' people to be looking into the windows and it's illegal if they do. Additionally, The house example only works if they are in the middle of hosting a Open House and pedestrians are expected.

Just because it was made safer doesn't mean it was broken before. When color TVs came out, did that mean all black and white TVs were broken?

The border design failed, it allowed the zoo patron to touch the zoo exhibit/animal. It failed = broken.

Sure I did. I said it didn't compare beause a house doesn't 'expect' people to be looking into the windows and it's illegal if they do.

You live somewhere where houses that have their windows next to the public walkway do not exist and it is illegal to look through windows ?

Wow. I did not know such places existed.

You live somewhere where houses that have their windows next to the public walkway do not exist and it is illegal to look through windows ?

Wow. I did not know such places existed.

Peeping Tom laws are rare? Then yes, I live in a very restrictive place :rolleyes:

Sure I did. I said it didn't compare beause a house doesn't 'expect' people to be looking into the windows and it's illegal if they do. Additionally, The house example only works if they are in the middle of hosting a Open House and pedestrians are expected.

Which is a fallacy. The zoo designers don't "expect" girls to try and go over a four foot glass wall to try and touch meerkats. You don't "expect" people to try to break in. The house example works perfectly if you don't try to twist it like you just did.

NO response to my leash proposal? (see page 13)

Is that what I’ve been saying? That I don’t think they should be held responsible for their part in this incident? Really? Well lets just take a look back and see what I’ve been saying all along…

Paying a trespassing fine isn't taking responsiblity for the actions. Your "taking responsibility" is a slap on the wrist that doesn't even begin to cover the damages they caused. It is the equivalent of me destroying a display of TVs in an electronics store and then being asked to pay a small fine. No, sorry, they'd make me replace all the TVs.

Well gee, it looks like I’ve been saying they do need to watch and they do need to be held responsible for their actions, I guess you’re just making stuff about what I’ve said. I think they call that a straw man, building up an argument I didn’t actually make, then saying it’s mine, and then attacking that instead of what I’ve actually said, yup, that’s what you were doing there.

Saying, "They need to take responsibility for their actions but they shouldn't have to pay for it," doesn't make logical sense. You have been arguing much more strongly for the, "Just give them a small fine," line of argument which logically equates to, "Don't make them take responsibility for their actions."

In the end, the remedy to this situation came from actually FIXING the exhibit so that children can’t reach into it anymore. The solution was found in CHANGING the display.

You didn't watch the video, did you? The display was perfectly safe, unless you have an idiot who hangs over the glass to try and touch the animals. Hell, the exhibit even included a glass tube in which the children could basically be in the middle of the exhibit - very close to the meerkats. But no, this little girl tried to climb into the exhibit.

The zoo is fixing the exhibit, not because it was at all unsafe, but because they have to deal with stupid people who cause the destruction of their animals.

But please, do feel free to continue your lynch mob rally, which is what this thread is, trying to raise a mob to bring medieval justice down on the head of that nine year old girl and her negligent and haughty parents … they must of had it coming, after all :rolleyes:

Would you like some milk to go with all that cereal?

No one is talking about medieval justice. No one is trying to come up with a lynch mob.

NO response to my leash proposal? (see page 13)

I propose we take her to see the leopards. Then pass your proposal.

Well let's see what other people thought...

Yes, lets:

"They shouldn't have died," Gerodie Tangen, 9, said. "Just look at them and take pictures if you have a camera, pretty much."

Look! Some 9 year olds know better than to climb over four feet of glass and hang down, sticking their fingers in meerkat's mouths!

"It's our job as parents to make sure the kids stay where they should and they don't climb over partitions where they shouldn't go," Susan Tangen of Inver Grove Heights, Minn. said

Ooh! Look! An actual responsible parent!

"It's terrible she was bitten but I think it's the responsibility of the adult to watch them," Apple Valley, Minn. resident Kim Meisinger said.

Another responsible adult!


"People want to have contact with these animals when they shouldn't," Fisher said. "It's just not safe. Don't try to push the barriers and touch the animals because it's the animal that ultimately suffers."

A zoo official who makes an obvious point: This was the fault of the idiots trying to touch dangerous animals.

"This is a hard day. This was frustrating, sad and totally avoidable," said Tony Fisher, zoo collections manager. "People need to respect the barriers we put up to keep the public back. Instead, they try to climb over them, under them and around them."

Another zoo official who makes it clear that the fault lies with the people who don't respect the views.

Of course, there's the one quote from this mom:
But Eden Prairie mom Liz Schewe said she wasn't surprised the exhibit's barriers were bridged. She called herself an "overprotective mom" but said she has wondered about the exhibit's safety.

"It's definitely given me pause in the past," Schewe said. "My 4-year-old is a monkey, and he could probably climb right over."

If she's so "overprotective", she should keep an eye on her kids. She's basically saying, "My kid might misuse this, so other people should take care of him for me." It's kind of like the parents who sue when their children stick toys up their noses or figure out how to turn on the oven.

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_216072203.html
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15202942.htm

The first link, by the way, has the video again. It is obvious that you still haven't watched it and looked at the enclosure for yourself.

According to the Vet in the Q and A session, yes, they needed to die, but it was a tough decision to make. (already linked to above)

Wow, you and your strawmen. The Vet doesn't say that the animals had to die. He says that the little girl's health had to come first. Interestingly enough, the only health issue he brings up is, "They have to give an injection at the site of the bite and that can hurt." So his commentary pretty much demonstrates exactly what we've been saying: The parents had the animals killed so that their daughter would not experience discomfort.

Wow, you and your strawmen. The Vet doesn't say that the animals had to die. He says that the little girl's health had to come first. Interestingly enough, the only health issue he brings up is, "They have to give an injection at the site of the bite and that can hurt." So his commentary pretty much demonstrates exactly what we've been saying: The parents had the animals killed so that their daughter would not experience discomfort.
I believe rabies shots are six... 5 and one at the bite site.

I believe rabies shots are six... 5 and one at the bite site.

A shot per life and one for the trespassing ?
Sounds like a fair trade.

If those scenarios are equivalent in your view then you view is short-sighted or blind.

The zoo should 'expect' the child to be looking and trying to touch the animal. the neighbor does NOT expect people to be peeking in their windows, that’s illegal already.
That's why there is a 4' plexiglass wall, a small opening at the top for air flow I assume and a bunch of rocks on the ground for separation. Not to mention the little tube in the middle of the enclosure.

I believe rabies shots are six... 5 and one at the bite site.

Indeed, but with the possible exception of the one at the site of the bite, the shots don't hurt any more than any other shot. The interview PW was talking about listed the only health issue as "One of the shots has to be at the site of the bite. That can be painful."

From the beginning of your post directed at my defense of the family posts (me defending their right to choose their own medical response to this situation and attacking the blind rage against them posts), you have found it necessary to insult the nine year old little girl and her family as a part of representing your position to the contrary….

should have been taken simply because she was stupid enough to climb over a barrier into an animal enclosure and get herself bitten.
The fact that the child climbed over the enclosure in the first place demonstrates that the "brat" label is accurate.
Maybe then she won't do things that are so incredibly stupid. Seriously, what if she had decided to climb into the lion enclosure instead? What if that's the next one she tries?

Then I said something about calling children stupid was a basis for only a bad argument, and you stopped for awhile, but here you are at it again…

In other words, while lots of people may try to pet animals and scale barriers, they are stupid.
The display was perfectly safe, unless you have an idiot who hangs over the glass to try and touch the animals.

It’s ridiculous and it’s a piss poor debate style as well. Your name calling against a little girl that can’t defend herself because her identity is withheld is sorry. You take advantage of it though and use it as an opportunity to paint the picture of her in any strawman analogy you choose, and that method of attacking her really simply shows the rest of us that you simply lack compassion and rationality in your position.

Congratulations, you win the most pathetic excuse for a defense of a position argument award. You should be ashamed, it’s disturbingly sad, sick even.


And this last topic:
No one is talking about medieval justice. No one is trying to come up with a lynch mob.

Yes, yes you are.

From the beginning of your psost directed at my defense of the family posts (me defending their right to choose their own medical response to this situation and attacking the blind rage against them posts), you have found it necessary to insult the nine year old little girl and her family as a part of representing your position to the contrary….





Then I said something about calling children stupid was a basis for only a bad argument, and you stopped for awhile, but here you are at it again…




It’s ridiculous and it’s a piss poor debate style as well. Your name calling against a little girl that can’t defend herself because her identity is withheld is sorry. You take advantage of it though and use it as an opportunity to paint the picture of her in any strawman analogy you choose, and that method of attacking her really simply shows the rest of us that you simply lack compassion and rationality in your position.

Congratulations, you win the most pathetic excuse for a defense of a position argument award. You should be ashamed, it’s disturbingly sad, sick even.


And this last topic:


Yes, yes you are.

PootWaddle, it's not nice to flame someone like this, especially seeing as how you've only been here for a couple of months. You might want to think about what you're saying before you shoot your mouth off like this again.

PootWaddle, it's not nice to flame someone like this, especially seeing as how you've only been here for a couple of months. You might want to think about what you're saying before you shoot your mouth off like this again.

Hey, watch what you say, after all, if you hurt his feelings, your cat might have to die. Animals lives are worth less then even a trivial amount of human suffering.

Hey, watch what you say, after all, if you hurt his feelings, your cat might have to die. Animals lives are worth less then even a trivial amount of human suffering.

Oh you're right. My bad. :rolleyes:

Blah blah blah stop calling the girl stupid blah blah poor debate tactic blah blah I'm not actually addressing any of the arguments so I'll try and change the subject to your debate style rather than bring up any sort of rational defense blah blah blah.

Fixed.

PootWaddle, it's not nice to flame someone like this, especially seeing as how you've only been here for a couple of months. You might want to think about what you're saying before you shoot your mouth off like this again.

Interesting. I showed five quotes of her calling a nine year old girl names, as a major aspect of her argument against understanding the child’s actions, and you accuse me of being the one flaming?

Interesting.

From the beginning of your post directed at my defense of the family posts (me defending their right to choose their own medical response to this situation and attacking the blind rage against them posts), you have found it necessary to insult the nine year old little girl and her family as a part of representing your position to the contrary….





Then I said something about calling children stupid was a basis for only a bad argument, and you stopped for awhile, but here you are at it again…




It’s ridiculous and it’s a piss poor debate style as well. Your name calling against a little girl that can’t defend herself because her identity is withheld is sorry. You take advantage of it though and use it as an opportunity to paint the picture of her in any strawman analogy you choose, and that method of attacking her really simply shows the rest of us that you simply lack compassion and rationality in your position.

Congratulations, you win the most pathetic excuse for a defense of a position argument award. You should be ashamed, it’s disturbingly sad, sick even.


And this last topic:


Yes, yes you are.
Ad hominem on ad hominem is still a logical fallacy.

Ad hominem on ad hominem is still a logical fallacy.

So then I take it that you are agreeing with me in saying Dem should NOT be "Attacking" the child personally instead of the issue itself?

The Ad Hominem attack here (attacking the person instead of the issue) is the fact that a nine year old girl keeps being called names in a thread by a bunch of people that have none, zero, zip, zilcho, personal information about her or her medical situation and yet they base their argument on the premise of calling her 'stupid and idiotic,' etc.

So then I take it that you are agreeing with me in saying Dem should NOT be "Attacking" the child personally instead of the issue itself?

The Ad Hominem attack here (attacking the person instead of the issue) is the fact that a nine year old girl keeps being called names in a thread by a bunch of people that have none, zero, zip, zilcho, personal information about her or her medical situation and yet they base their argument on the premise of calling her 'stupid and idiotic,' etc.
The attacks aren't ad hominems, they're not challenging the credibility of another arguer. You were assuming that they were and using that as an excuse for your own ad hominems.

One would assume that if it was a medical condition at least one news agency would have said something about it.
Not only that, but the names are valid, because the girl clearly showed a lack of judgement in climbing over the wall to get to the meerkats. No other information is required to call someone stupid.

...
Not only that, but the names are valid, because the girl clearly showed a lack of judgement in climbing over the wall to get to the meerkats. No other information is required to call someone stupid.

Ah. Okay then. Now we understand what you are saying... Since YOU agree with the names the child is being called, stupid and idiotic etc., the name calling isn't name calling and attacking this particular child that you don't know, instead of attacking the issues themselves, doesn't count as a bad thing. Interesting.

*hands Sheni a pitchfork and torch so they can join the lynch mob as well"

Ah. Okay then. Now we understand what you are saying... Since YOU agree with the names the child is being called, stupid and idiotic etc., the name calling isn't name calling and attacking this particular child that you don't know, instead of attacking the issues themselves, doesn't count as a bad thing. Interesting.

*hands Sheni a pitchfork and torch so they can join the lynch mob as well"
First of all, the lynch mob thing is an ad hominem, and so will be completely ignored.
Secondly, what issues? Pretty simple case here.
Thirdly, what information would you need to call this girl stupid? Just out of curiosity.

First of all, the lynch mob thing is an ad hominem, and so will be completely ignored.
Secondly, what issues? Pretty simple case here.
Thirdly, what information would you need to call this girl stupid? Just out of curiosity.

Are you kidding? You're really trying to justify calling a nine year old girl stupid and idiotic for the simple purpose of validating your argument? And you want me to corroborate that?

I think, instead, that it would be better to not call her names at all. I think a nine year girl is going to act like all the other nine year olds in the world, and there is a reason that we don’t hold them responsible for their actions in criminal courts of law.

If she was trespassing and pressing the boundaries of her legal limits, then so be it. But I submit that she is NINE years old. She’s not even in fifth grade yet… Only three years ago or so she was still watching Sesame Street and barely reading, and now she’s going into fourth or fifth grade and YOU are calling her stupid and supporting other people that call her an Idiot.

She is NOW getting old enough to learn the lessons you think she is stupid and idiotic for not knowing already… I say you are harsh and unsympathetic and unrealistic and you have irrational demands on those you don’t approve of.

Okay fine, good for you, please continue with your lynch mob approach to resolving this problem. Beat the hell out of her and her parents, they must of had it coming. God forbid that someone might look away for a few minutes and let some little girl reach over the top of a badly implemented fence to keep children away from the animals (that was modified and fixed so this won’t happen again), and allow themselves or their child to be bit. They should be punished and punished now damnit. :rolleyes:


Can I interest you in any matches? Perhaps you’ll need some when you corner her into some windmill and you want to burn it down with her in it…

Are you kidding? You're really trying to justify calling a nine year old girl stupid and idiotic for the simple purpose of validating your argument? And you want me to corroborate that?

If she shows a lack of judgement then she has fulfilled the definition of stupid and so may be called stupid.

I think, instead, that it would be better to not call her names at all. I think a nine year girl is going to act like all the other nine year olds in the world, and there is a reason that we don’t hold them responsible for their actions in criminal courts of law.

But all the other nine year olds don't act like that. Heck, most FIVE year olds don't act like that.
And we do hold them responsible. Just not to the extent that we hold adults responsible.

If she was trespassing and pressing the boundaries of her legal limits, then so be it. But I submit that she is NINE years old. She’s not even in fifth grade yet… Only three years ago or so she was still watching Sesame Street and barely reading, and now she’s going into fourth or fifth grade and YOU are calling her stupid and supporting other people that call her an Idiot.

Nine year olds certainly know not to climb over a wall to get into a meerkat exhibit.
Again, most FIVE year olds know not to do that.

She is NOW getting old enough to learn the lessons you think she is stupid and idiotic for not knowing already… I say you are harsh and unsympathetic and unrealistic and you have irrational demands on those you don’t approve of.

Unrealistic? A quote from another 9 year old from the article: "They shouldn't have died," Gerodie Tangen, 9, said. "Just look at them and take pictures if you have a camera, pretty much."
Obviously, this nine year old knows not to climb over a four foot glass wall to see the meerkats.
I would say that you are underestimating the intelligence of the average nine year old.

Okay fine, good for you, please continue with your lynch mob approach to resolving this problem. Beat the hell out of her and her parents, they must of had it coming. God forbid that someone might look away for a few minutes and let some little girl reach over the top of a badly implemented fence to keep children away from the animals (that was modified and fixed so this won’t happen again), and allow themselves or their child to be bit. They should be punished and punished now damnit. :rolleyes:

Reach over?!? Have you even seen that fence? She'd have to pull herself up and fall into the meerkat pen. And there's not much space at the top either.
I'd say it would take quite a bit more then looking away for a few minutes to not notice a girl struggling to pull herself over a glass wall.

And we're not forming any kind of lynch mob here. We're saying that they should have paid for all damages to the zoo caused by not having the shots.


Can I interest you in any matches? Perhaps you’ll need some when you corner her into some windmill and you want to burn it down with her in it…
No, I'll let you take care of that.

...*snipped a lot of excuses for calling a little girl stupid and trying to get away with it*...

Reach over?!? Have you even seen that fence? She'd have to pull herself up and fall into the meerkat pen. And there's not much space at the top either.
I'd say it would take quite a bit more then looking away for a few minutes to not notice a girl struggling to pull herself over a glass wall.

Really? Perhaps you would like to find the article that says the girl was actually IN the exhibit area. Because by the accounts of the ten or so article I've read NONE of them said she fell into the interior in order to be bit. ALL of them say she reached over the top and was bit.

You exaggerated. You seem to be wrong.

And we're not forming any kind of lynch mob here. We're saying that they should have paid for all damages to the zoo caused by not having the shots.


Sure, right after the family sues the Zoo for having a bad fence that allowed the meerkats to be touched by a nine year old girl in the first place, the family will have enough money to buy the zoo some meerkats.

Really? Perhaps you would like to find the article that says the girl was actually IN the exhibit area. Because by the accounts of the ten or so article I've read NONE of them said she fell into the interior in order to be bit. ALL of them say she reached over the top and was bit.

You exaggerated. You seem to be wrong.

Have you actually seen said fence - in real life, on a foto or in the video that was posted here ?
Do you believe, based on that observation, that getting bit while merely reaching over is possible ?

Have you actually seen said fence - in real life, on a foto or in the video that was posted here ?
Do you believe, based on that observation, that getting bit while merely reaching over is possible ?


What we do know is that in response to this incident the zoo management decided to modify the exhibit for safety reasons. They increased the level of the barrier so kids can't reach over it anymore.

Sounds like something that should have been done BEFORE the incident occurred, THAT would have saved the meerkats form being able to bite anyone at all and their lives would still be alive and in that 'modified' pen today, IF it had been modified BEFORE this was allowed to happen.

Really? Perhaps you would like to find the article that says the girl was actually IN the exhibit area. Because by the accounts of the ten or so article I've read NONE of them said she fell into the interior in order to be bit. ALL of them say she reached over the top and was bit.

You exaggerated. You seem to be wrong.



Sure, right after the family sues the Zoo for having a bad fence that allowed the meerkats to be touched by a nine year old girl in the first place, the family will have enough money to buy the zoo some meerkats.
None of them said anything about where she was when she got bit. It's simple math figuring it out:
The glass wall(not counting the rock work even) is 4ft tall.
A meerkat is 1ft tall.
Therefore, the girl's arm must have been 3ft long to reach down there, which no nine year old's arm is.
So she wasn't on top of the wall when it happened.
She must therefore have been in the meerkat pen.

And the fence wasn't bad. There's 3 inchs of space at the top of a 4ft glass wall. Anyone trying to get over the thing should be stopped by someone else in the 10 or so minutes it would have to take to get over the thing.
Of course, that's assuming they ignored the signs that are everywhere in every zoo that say "DO NOT CLIMB OVER THE FENCE!"

What we do know is that in response to this incident the zoo management decided to modify the exhibit for safety reasons. They increased the level of the barrier so kids can't reach over it anymore.

Sounds like something that should have been done BEFORE the incident occurred, THAT would have saved the meerkats form being able to bite anyone at all and their lives would still be alive and in that 'modified' pen today, IF it had been modified BEFORE this was allowed to happen.
Also would have put the exhibit out of commission for a while.
Betting time and money against a very small chance someone will climb the fence, most people would leave the fence as is.

...
And the fence wasn't bad. There's 3 inchs of space at the top of a 4ft glass wall. Anyone trying to get over the thing should be stopped by someone else in the 10 or so minutes it would have to take to get over the thing.
Of course, that's assuming they ignored the signs that are everywhere in every zoo that say "DO NOT CLIMB OVER THE FENCE!"

And if the fence wasn't bad, they didn't need to modify it. But they DID modify it. So it must have been bad.

Stop confusing yourself, look at what they did to change it. They added some logs across the top of the window so it can't be reached over anymore.

It shouldn't have been possible to reach over it at all before. They flubbed it, they were lucky that no one had been bit before this, and now, they got stuck by it.

Now it's fixed. Buy you and some others here want to blame the victim... Nice :rolleyes:

And if the fence wasn't bad, they didn't need to modify it. But they DID modify it. So it must have been bad.

Stop confusing yourself, look at what they did to change it. They added some logs across the top of the window so it can't be reached over anymore.

Or climbed over. The "flaw" in the fence could have been that it was possible to climb over it if one was really determined. That is why I suggest actually looking at the thing directly, instead of playing guessing games based on articles.

Or climbed over. The "flaw" in the fence could have been that it was possible to climb over it if one was really determined. That is why I suggest actually looking at the thing directly, instead of playing guessing games based on articles.

If a nine year old girl can climb over it without falling into it, they flubbed it. It was a bad fence. If a fence can't keep a normal nine year old girl out it's not a very good fence.

*Snip*
Now it's fixed. Buy you and some others here want to blame the victim... Nice :rolleyes:
If you had to do something that nobody in their right mind would do in order to cause the injury, then you are not a victim. Closer to Darwin Awards winner.
If afterwards you refuse some relatively easy shots just because you don't want to get hurt and kill 5 meerkats because of it, then you aren't even in the catagory of Darwin Award winner. Nearer to jerk, actually.

If a nine year old girl can climb over it without falling into it, they flubbed it. It was a bad fence. If a fence can't keep a normal nine year old girl out it's not a very good fence.
Really, it shouldn't have to.
It should be expected to keep 3-year-olds and below out, because they can't be expected to have the judgement not to climb over the fence. And it did that fine.
And it's almost certain that she did fall into it, because there's no other good explanation of how a meerkat got close enough to her to bite her.

If you had to do something that nobody in their right mind would do in order to cause the injury, then you are not a victim. Closer to Darwin Awards winner.
If afterwards you refuse some relatively easy shots just because you don't want to get hurt and kill 5 meerkats because of it, then you aren't even in the catagory of Darwin Award winner. Nearer to jerk, actually.


Good for you. Thats the way to attack a nine year old girl...

Perhaps you want some boxing gloves? Wouldn't want to hurt your knuckles while you're beating up that little fourth grade girl...

...
And it's almost certain that she did fall into it, because there's no other good explanation of how a meerkat got close enough to her to bite her.


You are making stuff up. You INVENTED the evidence. No report, NONE, said she had to be rescued from the exhibit.

NONE of them said she was IN the exhibit.

You are simply strawman creating as fast as you can to justify your irrational attacks against a nine year old girl.... :rolleyes:


The truth is though, tha the "Good explination that alludes you" is that she could reach over the top and was bit, exactly as it is reported. The fence wasn't high enough to stop a nine year old from coming in physical contact with a 1 foot tall meerkat. In other words, they flubbed the fence design.

Good for you. Thats the way to attack a nine year old girl...

Perhaps you want some boxing gloves? Wouldn't want to hurt your knuckles while you're beating up that little fourth grade girl...
Ad hominem eh?
I think I'm going to start counting your logical fallacys from now on.

You are making stuff up. You INVENTED the evidence. No report, NONE, said she had to be rescued from the exhibit.

NONE of them said she was IN the exhibit.

You are simply strawman creating as fast as you can to justify your irrational attacks against a nine year old girl.... :rolleyes:
Ok, then how do you propose she got bitten by a meerkat that was at least three feet away from her?

Ad hominem eh?
I think I'm going to start counting your logical fallacys from now on.

Perhaps I should start counting how many times you can personally insult a nine year old girl.

Ok, then how do you propose she got bitten by a meerkat that was at least three feet away from her?

As posted above:

The truth is that the "explination that alludes you" is that she "could" reach over the top and was bit, exactly as it is reported. The fence wasn't high enough to stop a nine year old from coming in physical contact with a 1 foot tall meerkat. In other words, they flubbed the fence design.

As posted above:

The truth is that the "explination that alludes you" is that she "could" reach over the top and was bit, exactly as it is reported. The fence wasn't high enough to stop a nine year old from coming in physical contact with a 1 foot tall meerkat. In other words, they flubbed the fence design.
You still haven't dealt with my math there.
A meerkat is one foot tall.
A 9-year-olds arm is roughly 2 feet long.
That's 3 feet.
The wall is seven feet tall, including the rock.
You have failed to explain 4 feet of wall in your explanation.

And I've counted 12 ad hominems so far. Do us a favor and stop, you're not helping anyone.

Ok, then how do you propose she got bitten by a meerkat that was at least three feet away from her?

Easy. The zoo did not know the difference between kangaroos and meerkats.

You still haven't dealt with my math there.
A meerkat is one foot tall.
A 9-year-olds arm is roughly 2 feet long.
That's 3 feet.
The wall is seven feet tall, including the rock.
You have failed to explain 4 feet of wall in your explanation.

And I've counted 12 ad hominems so far. Do us a favor and stop, you're not helping anyone.


Your math is a distraction, an allusion, a strawman designed to draw attention away from the real issue.

Your math is wrong. The zoo management DID (not speculation) change the exhibit, they altered the height of the fence to make it impossible for kids to reach over it anymore in the future.

Even if the kids were not intended to reach over it in the past, they could. The zoo has now fixed it, by their own admission.

YOUR math is irrelevant and pointless if it comes to a conclusion different than the zoo managements conclusion (and they concluded that the fence would be modified).

Easy. The zoo did not know the difference between kangaroos and meerkats.

Sure, there you go, invent stuff to pretend like you have a point.

The meerkats were reachable, even a nine year old girl could do it...

...
And I've counted 12 ad hominems so far. Do us a favor and stop, you're not helping anyone.


Aww, you don't like the way I post? That's too bad :(

But at least it makes us even and that’s fair. I don't like the way you attack little girls and forget to use rationale judgments when you make the decision to attack even after being presented with the facts...

Sure, there you go, invent stuff to pretend like you have a point.

That was actually a joke.
I am wondering however why you are refusing to look at the fence yourself and keep referring to articles. Firsthand information is better than second or thirdhand.

Still going.:)

And if the fence wasn't bad, they didn't need to modify it. But they DID modify it. So it must have been bad.

Stop confusing yourself, look at what they did to change it. They added some logs across the top of the window so it can't be reached over anymore.

It shouldn't have been possible to reach over it at all before. They flubbed it, they were lucky that no one had been bit before this, and now, they got stuck by it.

Now it's fixed. Buy you and some others here want to blame the victim... Nice :rolleyes:

Yes, I blame the victim whenever their injury is the resultant consequence of their own voluntary action.... She and her parents are directly responsible for her own injuries and the consequencial death of the animals, the parents however possessing the greater culpability; and more so over the death (since it was a result of their voluntary act to not have rabies treatments administered which led to the death of the animals).

That was actually a joke.
I am wondering however why you are refusing to look at the fence yourself and keep referring to articles. Firsthand information is better than second or thirdhand.

Because it does not mesh with his/her crusade in defense of parental irresponsibility and total denial of personal culpability...

This is the type of person who would be on the side of the "poor victim" after they lifted their two-year-old over the posted barrier of a bear enclosure.... Or on the side of the "poor victim" who reaches out and grabs the running blade of a band-saw... IOW they do not believe in personal culpability, and think it is the duty of the entire planet to watch out for them and/or their own children, because they themselves cannot be bothered to do so....

Wild animals will say wild for ever. That's normal if they bite kids when they come too close.

I don't know in Usa but here, it's the responsibility of parents to make their children respect the rules. I suppose that, somewhere in the zoo, there was writen somewhere "Don't come too close from animals".

That sucks...

Poor animals...I hate children. They're stupid. No, i hate stupid children's parents because they don't do anything to give their kid a good education...I know clever 6 year old kids. But, God knows why, they have clever parents...Yeah, that's it, I hate parents...
Sorry...hum hum

not ussually pro animal rights but meerkats are cute. the zoo in my city its really easy to steall the meerkats. you just get a stick, they grab it and you put them in your bag.

Sure I did. I said it didn't compare beause a house doesn't 'expect' people to be looking into the windows and it's illegal if they do. Additionally, The house example only works if they are in the middle of hosting a Open House and pedestrians are expected.

Ok then, let us use this handily provided example!

You are hosting an Open Day - you have a collection of very rare porceline dolls, collected from all over the world. You have them in a display case that is 7 feet from the floor, with locked glass doors. When people enter the house to inspect it, you hand them flyers which, along with informative information about your house, ask them to please be aware of your collection, and to please not touch it. In addition, you have signs below and on the doll display case itself, to the same tune: "Please, no touching". Also in the room (which is a large living room - not JUST a display case for dolls) is various furniture, because you want your house to look nice for all the visiting people.

One of the families brings along a nine year old girl. While walking through your house, these parents neglect to notice that their child is in your living room, dragging a chair over to the display case, in order to stand up and break into it.

The girl breaks one of your very expensive dolls - cutting herself in the process. (And here the analogy unfortunately has to veer into the realm of 'not exactly parallel') - for some reason, the parents have a choice - get their daughter medical treatment involving shots, or the physical destruction of your entire collection.

----

If you seriously think that the family in this case wouldn't be 100% responsible for BOTH their daughter, her behaviour, and the consequences OF her behaviour, then I seriously hope you never plan on having children - the resulting legal bills would drive you into abject poverty so fast, you probably wouldn't notice it until the sewer rats had gnawed off an arm.

And hell, even if it isn't their 'responsibility' by some sick, twisted logic... don't you think that the family should make some TOKEN GESTURE of paying the zoo *something*? Don't you think they should themselves have the self-awareness to REALISE that it was entirely their own fault (ie, that the whole ordeal was UNDENIABLY AVOIDABLE, just by the parents watching their child), and to take some responsibility for that?

Sometimes you can't just say "well, legally I don't need to do shit all" without looking like a complete, self-obsessed moron. If the parents of that girl don't want to be called self-obsessed morons, they should stop ACTING like they are.

And another thing: People who do idiotic things get called idiots. If the little girl didn't want the label, she could have strived not to earn it, instead of doing EXACTLY the opposite. So instead of throwing a huge hissy fit any time anyone insults the IDIOT (defined as: someone who does something IDIOTIC, like trying to pet wild animals) - well... I suggest you go and defend people who aren't idiots instead. You'll find it much more personally satisfying.

Double post due to two lost posts addressing different points. I don't expect either will make much difference, since this poster has a very obvious bias somewhere along the way. Maybe she's actually a nine year old - it would explain a lot, no?

Your math is a distraction, an allusion, a strawman designed to draw attention away from the real issue.

distraction: "A condition or state of mind in which the attention is diverted from an original focus or interest."

Nope - one of the very first things people were discussing in this thread was the mathimatics of the fence.

Allusion: "The act of alluding; indirect reference"

Certainly not - there's absolutely NOTHING indirect about his maths; it is direct, to the point, and presented clearly.

Straw man: "An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."

He is not trying to set up an argument to refute - he is expressing HIS argument: that mathematically, it is impossible for that girl to have had anything but the greatest difficulty in doing what she did; futhermore, that her parents should have had ample time to stop her; furthemore, that the zoo was not in any way negligent in there design.

I suggest that you have a seriously tenuous grasp of 'the real issue'. In fact, you seem to be missing all the main issues.

Your math is wrong.

Substantiate this claim, rather than using it as the topic sentence of a paragraph entirely unrelated (and unsupporting) of it. Had you bothered looking at the FACTS of the matter (photos and the video), you would see that his maths is NOT wrong, and that it is in fact your version of the story that is not supported by the evidence.

The zoo management DID (not speculation) change the exhibit, they altered the height of the fence to make it impossible for kids to reach over it any more in the future.

The zoo blocked up a three inch gap left above 4 feet of glass as ventilation for the benefit of guests. They did NOT alter the fence in any way - they simply removed a feature previously left for the comfort of others.

Regardless, the zoo should not have HAD to 'fix' the 'fence' because the child should have been supervised by her parents if she wasn't mature enough to follow the rules of the establishment.

Even if the kids were not intended to reach over it in the past, they could. The zoo has now fixed it, by their own admission.

Children were not just 'not intended' to reach over the fence: they were specifically cautioned and entreatied NOT to! The zoo has 'fixed' the 'problem' (ah, quotation marks) - this does not remove the onus on the family to pay for the damage they caused.

YOUR math is irrelevant and pointless if it comes to a conclusion different than the zoo managements conclusion (and they concluded that the fence would be modified).

They concluded that the ventilation slat should be covered - how does that invaildate the maths involved here? His maths says NOTHING at all about 'whether the ventilation slat should be removed or not'. His maths is there to prove that the girl went considerably out of her way to break the rules of the zoo, and that her parents had ample time to stop her, and did not.

This makes them responsible for the cost of the damages, regardless of what the zoo did or did not do about the ventilation slat.

Your math is a distraction, an allusion, a strawman designed to draw attention away from the real issue.
The math is a fact of the matter. I could not reach far enough over a 4' plexiglass wall to get close enough to a meerkat to provoke it to bite me even on the very tip of my finger. A child less than 5' tall could in no way get close enough to a meerkat to provoke it to bite without climbing over the glass.

Good for you. Thats the way to attack a nine year old girl...
Well a 9 year old child shouldn't have the same mental capacity of a 4 year old. And if she did, her parents should keep a fucking a lot closer of an eye on her. The only way this isn't the child' fault is if she is mentally handicapped.

That really sucks. Meerkats are far cooler than children.

Meerkat Mannor on Animal Planet anyone?
The zoo should respond by suing the parents for not watching their child. I assume they have signs up saying children must be watched at all times. I hate parents like that who don't disipline thier kids and set boundaries. Also isn't it funny that the zoo probably has to have some form of lisence for all of the animals but no one has to have a lisence for their kids?

hearing stuff like this makes me hate people more and more.

i think i seriously hate a majority of humans