NationStates Jolt Archive

Any "state" that euthanizes an entire colony of animals because ONE bites an aggressor, doesn't deserve to have a zoo.

Unnecessary, extreme reaction to a predictable response by wild animals to an aggressive intruder. Even half assed "experts" know that the behavior of the animals was not attributable to any disease.

In case I was too subtle before, THIS STATE DOESN'T DESERVE TO HAVE A ZOO, an animal park or pet shop. No one there knows what the hell they are doing.

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.simple. the girl isn't posting. she is one of those involved with the incident. so calling her stupid is ok, but flaming another poster is not.

Any "state" that euthanizes an entire colony of animals because ONE bites an aggressor, doesn't deserve to have a zoo.

Unnecessary, extreme reaction to a predictable response by wild animals to an aggressive intruder. Even half assed "experts" know that the behavior of the animals was not attributable to any disease.

In case I was too subtle before, THIS STATE DOESN'T DESERVE TO HAVE A ZOO, an animal park or pet shop. No one there knows what the hell they are doing.
the law is that the animal has to be tested for rabies if the victim decides not to undergo the rabies shots. the family didn't want that so the meerkat had to be put down. now they didn't know which one did the biting so the whole family had to be killed (which needed to be done for the testing to occure) even tho records show that the meerkats had been given rabies preventive shots earlier.

the Zoo was forced to comply with the law. the family used the law to 'spare' their little girl more pain.

I agree, the law should be changed tho.

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.
No design is flawless, no matter how seemingly perfect the math behind the engineering is. Humans are determined creatures who will find a way to break unbreakable glass if given the chance.

All it takes is one ignorant person to do something that compromised the integrity of the design for the makers to rethink and remodel it so that it is safer.

Nothing is perfect and can always be improved, even if it is stellar.

They did it not because they care about children, but because it is for the safety of their visitors young and old, and to protect the animals from unscrupolous humans.

They could've fixed it without an incident to prompt it.

yes euthanize the parents and child...damn bastard human supremacists....poor meercats

*snip*
I agree, the law should be changed tho.
Yeah, let's make it so they have to get the rabies shots if they don't have a sound reason not to(mostly health reasons, but religious etc. would be admitted too.)
Of course, I don't know of any religion that prevents you from getting shots permanently.

I'm not sure if they should've forced the parents to make the kid take the shot.... but they definatly shouldn've killed the critters. Stupid Law, needs to be changed. And the zoo might think of requiring children to be put on some sort of leash seeing as how the parents/guardians can't or won't control them.

I'm not sure if they should've forced the parents to make the kid take the shot.... but they definatly shouldn've killed the critters. Stupid Law, needs to be changed.
That has the possibility of somebody getting rabies.

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

I don't think it's a "distraction," given that it applies directly to the heart of the topic. Was the wall high enough, initially, to prevent a child from simply reaching over and touching the animals? Would a child have to go to a great deal of trouble to break the rules, or was it a simple matter of dangling her fingers into danger?


Your math is wrong.

The numbers add up to me. Can you explain how the math is wrong, please?


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).
The fact that the zoo has further modified the exhibit reflects their desire to not be victims of parental incompetance in the future.

This child's parents expended significantly more energy in helping their kid get away with misbehavior than they did in trying to prevent her from engaging in it, and in so doing managed to ruin an exhibit for every other visitor at that zoo. It sucks, but there are assholes like that in the world today. There are some very selfish people who can manage to ruin it for the rest of us. The zoo has done what most of us eventually have to do: become resigned to the fact that you have to baby-proof the entire world to keep some dumbasses from finding a way to hurt themselves and blame you for it.

I don't think it's a "distraction," given that it applies directly to the heart of the topic. Was the wall high enough, initially, to prevent a child from simply reaching over and touching the animals? Would a child have to go to a great deal of trouble to break the rules, or was it a simple matter of dangling her fingers into danger?

The numbers add up to me. Can you explain how the math is wrong, please?

The fact that the zoo has further modified the exhibit reflects their desire to not be victims of parental incompetance in the future.

This child's parents expended significantly more energy in helping their kid get away with misbehavior than they did in trying to prevent her from engaging in it, and in so doing managed to ruin an exhibit for every other visitor at that zoo. It sucks, but there are assholes like that in the world today. There are some very selfish people who can manage to ruin it for the rest of us. The zoo has done what most of us eventually have to do: become resigned to the fact that you have to baby-proof the entire world to keep some dumbasses from finding a way to hurt themselves and blame you for it.

The proof is in the pudding. The fact remains that a four foot Plexiglas wall on top of an artificial stone structure (a stone structure 'designed to be climbed on' mind you) was incapable of separating a nine year old girl from the exhibit animals. The opening shouldn't have been there in the first place, we are talking about an outdoor exhibit with an enclosed viewing area and the enclosed viewing area was designed to encourage climbing and exploring, with tunnels and climbing areas built for children to crawl through and on, intended to encourage the children to get closer to the exhibit...

The design flaw here was revealed when the child was bit. The Zoo was simply lucky that a child wasn't bitten before. Nobody claimed other children never reached over the top before, they only showed that the Meerkats never bit any of them before this incident.

The problem was fixed with twenty dollars worth of lumber/logs and a few bolts. It should have been 'fixed' before the incident took place. If anything, the ease of fixing the exhibit will be evidence that the child’s family lawyer will use to make the case that the Zoo was negligent (or unlucky) when the exhibit passed safety inspections that it obviously should not have passed before. That is, if the family decides to sue the zoo for failing to close a ‘hole’ in the parameter design of the exhibit and they have had enough of the public slander and defamation of character against them in the media caused by the zoo when it publicly implied that the child and parent were at fault instead of taking the blame like they should have in the first place.

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….

I never said they can't choose their own medical response. That is absolutely their right, even if I think they made the wrong choice. I just think that they should be held *completely* responsible for the results of that choice, while you think they should get a little fine and be sent on their way.

Meanwhile, something isn't really an insult when it is true. Do you really think that climbing over a wall at a zoo is the smart thing to do?

Let's look at the definition, shall we?

Main Entry: 1stu·pid
Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS <a stupid decision>
4 a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <the stupid car won't start>

The bolded all apply in this situation

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…

Of course, I have made no argument for which "calling children stupid" is a basis. You seem to be rather fond of the strawman.

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.

The definition clearly fits. You don't like it because, what? You actually think an intelligent, well-behaved child would actually try to climb over a wall into a meerkat enclosure?

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.

Point out any strawman. Go ahead.

Meanwhile, I'm not the one who absolutely refuses to look at the exhibit. I've seen it. You haven't. And yet you still keep trying to argue from that point of view even though it would be incredibly easy for you to look at it. You also argue that a person should not have to take responsibility for the result of their actions. Somehow, it seems that I am not the irrational one here.

The fact that the zoo has further modified the exhibit reflects their desire to not be victims of parental incompetance in the future.

Exactly. The zoo is modifying the exihbit, not because it was at all unsafe, but because people do stupid things.

The proof is in the pudding. The fact remains that a four foot Plexiglas wall on top of an artificial stone structure (a stone structure 'designed to be climbed on' mind you) was incapable of separating a nine year old girl from the exhibit animals.

If a person is determined enough, they can get around a barrier.

The design flaw here was revealed when the child was bit. The Zoo was simply lucky that a child wasn't bitten before. Nobody claimed other children never reached over the top before, they only showed that the Meerkats never bit any of them before this incident.

Reached over the top and climbed over the top are two different things. It has been clearly shown that the girl would have had to climb pretty much completely over to even be able to reach the animals. Considering that most parents are responsible enough to watch their children and discourage such behavior, it probably hadn't been a problem before.

The problem was fixed with twenty dollars worth of lumber/logs and a few bolts. It should have been 'fixed' before the incident took place. If anything, the ease of fixing the exhibit will be evidence that the child’s family lawyer will use to make the case that the Zoo was negligent (or unlucky) when the exhibit passed safety inspections that it obviously should not have passed before. That is, if the family decides to sue the zoo for failing to close a ‘hole’ in the parameter design of the exhibit and they have had enough of the public slander and defamation of character against them in the media caused by the zoo when it publicly implied that the child and parent were at fault instead of taking the blame like they should have in the first place.

Still haven't watched the video, have you?

I never said they can't choose their own medical response. That is absolutely their right, even if I think they made the wrong choice. I just think that they should be held *completely* responsible for the results of that choice, while you think they should get a little fine and be sent on their way.

Meanwhile, something isn't really an insult when it is true. Do you really think that climbing over a wall at a zoo is the smart thing to do?

The wall is in a climbing section of the exhibit…

Let's look at the definition, shall we?

The bolded all apply in this situation

Of course, I have made no argument for which "calling children stupid" is a basis. You seem to be rather fond of the strawman.

The definition clearly fits. You don't like it because, what? You actually think an intelligent, well-behaved child would actually try to climb over a wall into a meerkat enclosure?


You didn’t even hide it. Your defense of calling the girl ‘stupid’ earlier and now trying to prove that she is stupid, IS you strawman, you exposed it, you revealed it. You say she is guilty of the crime because you say she must be stupid for having committed the crime of climbing over the wall. THAT is NOT proof.

Your argument is based entirely on making the proposition that the little girl is stupid and it’s a circular argument. It is a piss poor position to take on your part and it IS your strawman, there is no evidence presented that the girl suffers any kind of mental handicap or suffers from any other emotional condition. The only thing we know about her is that she wanted to try and touch a meerkat and that she has the physical ability to reach over a four foot Plexiglas partition. There is no reason whatsoever that the Plexiglas wall wasn’t instead a window and nobody could have reached over it and this wouldn’t have happened.


Point out any strawman. Go ahead.

Just did. You creat a strawman that says the girl is stupid and you use circular logic to reach that conclusion, and then you use that bad conclusion to determine that the girl’s family should be punished via your bad conclusions.


Meanwhile, I'm not the one who absolutely refuses to look at the exhibit. I've seen it. You haven't.

Strawman. I have seen as much of it as you have.


And yet you still keep trying to argue from that point of view even though it would be incredibly easy for you to look at it. You also argue that a person should not have to take responsibility for the result of their actions. Somehow, it seems that I am not the irrational one here.

Not only are you irrational about it, you are out for judgment and public condemnation of a nine year old girl you know nothing about.


Exactly. The zoo is modifying the exihbit, not because it was at all unsafe, but because people do stupid things.

They modified it because it failed to perform as intended.

And PootWaddle proves they have still yet to bother watching the video or using any sort of logical thought process involving the logistics of a 4 foot wall and a girl shorter than 5 feet.

If a person is determined enough, they can get around a barrier.

Like a determined zoo architect should be able to design an outdoor Meerkat exhibit that isn't breech-able by the average nine year old girl using no tools or ladders...


Reached over the top and climbed over the top are two different things. It has been clearly shown that the girl would have had to climb pretty much completely over to even be able to reach the animals. Considering that most parents are responsible enough to watch their children and discourage such behavior, it probably hadn't been a problem before.

She was in an enclosed 'exploring' and climbing section of the zoo that encourages exploring exhibit in exactly the manner she was doing it. Why shouldn't she be climbing and crawling through the exhibit that was designed with that in mind? She wasn't intended to reach over the Plexiglas, but she could.

Still haven't watched the video, have you?

Still using that false accusation as your ad hominem attack? Sad.

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

I literally just blew Cherry Coke all over the screen. There's no way that you can't be a troll at this point. Or very, very foolish.

Still using that false accusation as your ad hominem attack? Sad.
So I should put you down for a "No, I havn't watched it"?

Like a determined zoo architect should be able to design an outdoor Meerkat exhibit that isn't breech-able by the average nine year old girl using no tools or ladders...

The Architect does not have to design "unbreechable" anything, since it is the parents duty (which these parents failed, AS A FACT) to keep an eye on their children and monitor their behavior.... A simple FACT which everybody else except YOU seem to understand as a natural fact.

You encourage and support irresponsible parenting, and parental negligence in public surroundings.

You can make claims at what the families lawyer COULD bring up in a civil case, none of which will fly, simply because of the fact that the parents would be laughed out of court, considering they ignored all the existing signs warnings and barriers already in place to violate the zoos existing system.

The child was stupid by the very definition of the term, as were the parents; they acted in a wreckless and careless manner.... This is not opinion, this is established FACT.

IF the parents had been watching her, like most parents do and realize they must with their children; none of this would be a problem; these parents FAILED in this responsbility, and further FAILED their responsibility in refusing to have the rabies shots administered to her.

No one here will agree with you, NO RESPONSIBLE PERSON would agree with you, so your petty defense of the child and parents lack of personal accountibility and responsibility is going to fall upon deaf ears.

The wall is in a climbing section of the exhibit…

...which in no way implies that you should climb over it.

You didn’t even hide it. Your defense of calling the girl ‘stupid’ earlier and now trying to prove that she is stupid, IS you strawman, you exposed it, you revealed it. You say she is guilty of the crime because you say she must be stupid for having committed the crime of climbing over the wall. THAT is NOT proof.

Wrong. I am saying she is guilty of an act that she committed. Nothing more. The fact that the act is stupid just gets around any suggestion that she shouldn't have known better.

Your argument is based entirely on making the proposition that the little girl is stupid and it’s a circular argument.

No, it isn't. I bring up the fact that the act is stupid because you are trying so very hard to make the zoo at fault for the little girl's actions and the actions of her parents.

If I build a four foot fence around my home, and someone climbs over it and gets bitten by my dog, is it because my fence is faulty? Or is it because people should be climbing over it? Now what if I raise it to 6 feet? Does that mean it was faulty at 4 ft? Or does it mean that I have to work harder to keep people who want to commit stupid actions out of my yard?

It is a piss poor position to take on your part and it IS your strawman, there is no evidence presented that the girl suffers any kind of mental handicap or suffers from any other emotional condition.

Isn't it lucky, then, that I never suggested any such thing? You quite clearly are bringing up a strawman here, as no one has suggested that the girl does have any of these conditions.

The evidence, however, clearly shows that she will do things that are not the actions of an intelligent, well-behaved child.

The only thing we know about her is that she wanted to try and touch a meerkat and that she has the physical ability to reach over a four foot Plexiglas partition.

So was a 6ft-something tall man, but he had to struggle quite a bit to do it. I have the physical ability to climb over the fence next door, but I don't do it.

There is no reason whatsoever that the Plexiglas wall wasn’t instead a window and nobody could have reached over it and this wouldn’t have happened.

Actually, looking at the exhibit, I can see many reasons that it might not have been closed in completely. Ventilation is a big one. Noise is another.

Just did. You creat a strawman that says the girl is stupid and you use circular logic to reach that conclusion, and then you use that bad conclusion to determine that the girl’s family should be punished via your bad conclusions.

The family should be punished because the little girl did something wrong and it caused rather expensive damages to the zoo, plain and simple.

The girl's actions were stupid, plain and simple. There is no "circular logic". What she did was unintelligent and unthinking. It meets the definition exactly.

Strawman. I have seen as much of it as you have.

If you had, you wouldn't be making the completely unsupported argument that a nine-year old could easily manage to touch a meerkat.

Not only are you irrational about it, you are out for judgment and public condemnation of a nine year old girl you know nothing about.

I am out for the parents to take responsibility for the damages caused by their decision. I am out for the little girl to take responsibility for her actions. If that is "judgement and public condemnation," then I guess we should do more of it in our society.

They modified it because it failed to perform as intended.

It performed exactly as intended. They simply didn't expect someone to go to the trouble to climb over it, especially when there were plenty of other ways to get close to the meerkats.

In my example above, did the fence work as intended? Aboslutely. Someone simply decided to trespass on my property anyways. Closing off the top isn't really "fixing" anything. It is simply making the exhibit more fool-proof.

Like a determined zoo architect should be able to design an outdoor Meerkat exhibit that isn't breech-able by the average nine year old girl using no tools or ladders...

Yes, yes, let's just take the responsibility off the people who actually did something wrong.

You want an outdoor meerkat exhibit that is absolutely unbreachable by the average nine-year old girl? Fine. You put them behind steel. Oh, wait, then they can't be seen. Someone determined to get over and around barriers is going to be able to - and making the exhibit safe for the meerkats and near their habitat will necessitate that it is open to air in some way. There is no such thing as a completely fool-proof exhibit, and people should know better than to try and breach the barriers.

She was in an enclosed 'exploring' and climbing section of the zoo that encourages exploring exhibit in exactly the manner she was doing it.[

Really? Please show me the sign that said, "Please climb over the wall into the exhibit."

Otherwise, your statement is completely idiotic. There was nothing at all to encourage someone to enter the exhibit. In fact, a four foot wall of plexiglass pretty clearly discourages it.

She wasn't intended to reach over the Plexiglas, but she could.

You mean climb over. Reaching over never would have gotten her anywhere near the animals.

Still using that false accusation as your ad hominem attack? Sad.

It has nothing to do with ad hominem. No one who had actually seen the exihibt, and the 6ft-something tall man struggling to reach down into the exhibit, could possibly still be claiming that a 9-year old was simply "reaching over."

...
The child was stupid by the very definition of the term, as were the parents; they acted in a wreckless and careless manner.... This is not opinion, this is established FACT.

IF the parents had been watching her, like most parents do and realize they must with their children; none of this would be a problem; these parents FAILED in this responsbility, and further FAILED their responsibility in refusing to have the rabies shots administered to her.

So do you blame the parents for all of the kids that have fallen off of playground equipment

...No one here will agree with you, NO RESPONSIBLE PERSON would agree with you, so your petty defense of the child and parents lack of personal accountibility and responsibility is going to fall upon deaf ears.

Then obviously, there's not much point in having a discourse with you, you're saying straight up that you have deaf ears to anything that might make you come to a more educated opinion.

for those like PootWaddle, who believes it's the Zoo's responsibility to keep the rug monkeys from getting close to the animals... I suggest this.

for them, A specially designed zoo... visitors must walk inside a plexiglass tunnel, one totally enclosed to prevent any child from even making the attempt to touching any animal. then because no system is foolproof, just beyond the tunnel, between the animal enclosure and the visitor tubes, is an electrified fence, voltage and amps down to where it will give a child a mild shock, nothing life threatening.

and just incase any child will then bypass that system, because we all know how ingenous these children can get... all animals will be replaced with stuffed replicas.

this has the advantage that if any child actually makes it into the enclosure, they will be safe from attack. This also has the added benefit of saving money for health care for the animals as well as saving on the food bill.

thus parents can enjoy their time away from responsiblity, kids can run around without being endangered by the animals and the zoo is now safe from frivolous lawsuits filed by irrisponsible parents.

:D

So do you blame the parents for all of the kids that have fallen off of playground equipment




If it is not a fault in the actual equipment rather a user failure and lack of observation by the parents absolutly

Actually, looking at the exhibit, I can see many reasons that it might not have been closed in completely. Ventilation is a big one. Noise is another.


Oh my goodness. Your desperation knows no bounds. You don't have to ventilate an 'outdoor' exhibit, and your noise claims are dismissed simply by looking at any walk-through aquarium or other display with floor to ceiling glass wall exhibits...

There was NO reason for there to be a gap at the top of that Plexiglas barrier. None whatsoever except for the financial cost of another two feet of Plexiglas, the roof beam was already in place, the barrier failed to perform as intended.

If it is not a fault in the actual equipment rather a user failure and lack of observation by the parents absolutly

A jungle gym with a missing bar is an accident waiting to happen.

So do you blame the parents for all of the kids that have fallen off of playground equipment

If the child was misusing the equipment? Absolutely.

For instance, if a child tries to climb up on top of a swingset instead of sitting in the swings and using it as intended, and a parent does nothing to stop that, they are absolutely responsible when the child falls and hurts himself.

Oh my goodness. Your desperation knows no bounds. You don't have to ventilate an 'outdoor' exhibit, and your noise claims are dismissed simply by looking at any walk-through aquarium or other display with floor to ceiling glass wall exhibits...

If you had actually looked at the exhibit, as most of us now have, you would realize that the portion in question was actually pretty well enclosed. It wasn't a completely enclosed building, in that it had open exits, but it wasn't something most people would describe as "outside". It looked into an outside exhibit. And I've walked through exhibits like it. The echoes can get pretty darn loud and annoying.

...
If you had actually looked at the exhibit, as most of us now have, you would realize that the portion in question was actually pretty well enclosed. It wasn't a completely enclosed building, in that it had open exits, but it wasn't something most people would describe as "outside". It looked into an outside exhibit. And I've walked through exhibits like it. The echoes can get pretty darn loud and annoying.

If you choose to ventilate or sound dampen your public area by choosing to open the animal enclosure to the public at a reachable height and location, then it IS the zoo architect's flawed design and the zoo’s liability when the public and exhibit animal come into contact with each other.

If you choose to ventilate or sound dampen your public area by choosing to open the animal enclosure to the public at a reachable height and location, then it IS the zoo architect's flawed design and the zoo’s liability when the public and exhibit animal come into contact with each other.

Just like, if you choose to open the windows in your house, it's your fault when someone climbs through and breaks things?

Of course, the difference here is that ventilation and noise damping are there for the comfort of the patrons - patrons who shouldn't be expected to try and climb into the exhibits in the first place.

But you're right, continue to try and remove the responsibility from the people who caused all this in the first place. After all, the zoo should be expected to parent all the children that come through. Their own parents obviously shouldn't be expected to do so.

If the child was misusing the equipment? Absolutely.

For instance, if a child tries to climb up on top of a swingset instead of sitting in the swings and using it as intended, and a parent does nothing to stop that, they are absolutely responsible when the child falls and hurts himself.

snip
Quoted for truth

Just like, if you choose to open the windows in your house, it's your fault when someone climbs through and breaks things?

Only if you hung a sign that said: Look in my window, and then left a defective ladder to use...

Of course, the difference here is that ventilation and noise damping are there for the comfort of the patrons - patrons who shouldn't be expected to try and climb into the exhibits in the first place.

It wasn't for ventilationt, to fix the problem the zoo simply blocked the hole with decorative logs. Problem solved. If the people start suffocating and complaing about the loud din as they can't breath, then we will know that your hypothosis had a point...

*waiting for the zoo patrons to start suffocating or find the echoes too intolerable to bear :rolleyes: *

But you're right, continue to try and remove the responsibility from the people who caused all this in the first place. After all, the zoo should be expected to parent all the children that come through. Their own parents obviously shouldn't be expected to do so.

The zoo should be expected to maintain child usable exhibits when they advertise children welcome and encourage the parents to let the children climb and use the artificial rocks and explore the crevasse of their made-made 'pretend' cave environment.

The zoo should be expected to maintain child usable exhibits when they advertise children welcome and encourage the parents to let the children climb and use the artificial rocks and explore the crevasse of their made-made 'pretend' cave environment.

I agree with this. The zoo has a responsibility to its customers.
However, I also think that parents have a responsibility to their children. Do you agree ?

So do you blame the parents for all of the kids that have fallen off of playground equipment

Kids/parents... Yes I do, it's not the "playground equipment makers" fault, nor the fault of the people who put the equipment in place.... If I see my child begin to try to climb off the side of a 10' fall slide, you better believe that I would hold myself responsible if 1. I was not watching her or 2. did not react to stop her... And would do everything in my power to discourage such activity; just as if I were attending such an exhibit, I would do if I saw my child attempting to climb through/over an exhibit barrier.... It's a simple matter of parental responsibility..... I'd also have been taking my child to get rabies shots....


Then obviously, there's not much point in having a discourse with you, you're saying straight up that you have deaf ears to anything that might make you come to a more educated opinion.

My opinion isn't educated? On the contrary, it's far more educated. I'm not like you in advocating blank disregard for parental responsibility, personal responsibility, and attempting to heap the fault anywhere but at the negligence of the people directly involved. Nor am I attempting to heap blame simply because the park/zoo's reaction is to install more protections for their animals to keep the fools (such as this child and her parents) from endangering the animals further in the future...... None of it will work, in the long run, some other set of wankish parents are bound to come along with another brat and challenge the system further, likely again leading to the needless destruction of yet another zoo exhibit, leading to further deprevation of this to more children...

The saddest thing about this whole issue is that fact the zoo has to take action to make up for what should be the parents job, watching their children.

Quoted for truth
Seconded.

I agree with this. The zoo has a responsibility to its customers.
However, I also think that parents have a responsibility to their children. Do you agree ?

Yes. Yes I do. They have the responsibility to watch them, to care for them, to discipline them and to make medical decisions for them.

For all we know, this case is nothing but the fact that the girl in question here simply responded to the urge to try and touch or try and pet an small animal and proceeded to get bit. And because Meerkats are known to carry rabies and for reasons we do not know the family and their doctor decided this little girl shouldn’t do the rabies shots unless she needed to, the animals had to be tested individually to see if they carried rabies (even though the likelihood was very small, the probability wasn’t zero). And, unfortunately, the only way to test for rabies is via an inspection of the animals brain, resulting in their deaths, obviously.

To the parents, this was a simple choice, a health risk for their daughter over a month long ordeal that might not be necessary at all VS. five small animals. Most families eat more animals in a week than the entire 5 meerkat troop represents. I’d pick my daughter any day of the week if the doctor thought there was any risk to her health from taking the rabies medications needlessly.

(why the doctor recommended the family not do it, girl specific allergy, susceptibility to illness, or normal rabies vaccination risks, I don't know but I know the risks exists)

Yes. Yes I do. They have the responsibility to watch them, to care for them, to discipline them and to make medical decisions for them.

Agreed.
Next question: when would you consider it fair to place most of the blame on the parents instead of the zoo ? For instance expressed in the amount of time needed to get over the barrier.

...
My opinion isn't educated? On the contrary, it's far more educated. I'm not like you in advocating blank disregard for parental responsibility, personal responsibility, and attempting to heap the fault anywhere but at the negligence of the people directly involved. Nor am I attempting to heap blame simply because the park/zoo's reaction is to install more protections for their animals to keep the fools (such as this child and her parents) from endangering the animals further in the future...... None of it will work, in the long run, some other set of wankish parents are bound to come along with another brat and challenge the system further, likely again leading to the needless destruction of yet another zoo exhibit, leading to further deprevation of this to more children...

The saddest thing about this whole issue is that fact the zoo has to take action to make up for what should be the parents job, watching their children.


Yeah.... *Hands Tekania a pitchfork and torch so they can join the lynch mob*

Let's start a new petition then, Something like: "children shouldn't be allowed into zoo's, they simply ruin it for the rest of us" :rolleyes:

Agreed.
Next question: when would you consider it fair to place most of the blame on the parents instead of the zoo ? For instance expressed in the amount of time needed to get over the barrier.

We have no idea the answer to the perameter of your hypothosis. 0.5 seconds... maybe 3...

How long does it take to jump up half a foot and reach over a fence?

We have no idea the answer to the perameter of your hypothosis. 0.5 seconds... maybe 3...
How long does it take to jump up half a foot and reach over a fence?

We indeed do not know how long it took her; but I am trying to establish principles first. If it took only 3 seconds for the girl to move from "safe area" to "place where she got bitten" the parents obviously cannot be blamed and then the fence was obviously inadequate. On the other hand, if it took her 30 minutes of persistant climbing the parents were definately not paying attention and we can say that the barrier provided decent protection. All in my opinion of course.

But how about 5 minutes ?

We indeed do not know how long it took her; but I am trying to establish principles first. If it took only 3 seconds for the girl to move from "safe area" to "place where she got bitten" the parents obviously cannot be blamed and then the fence was obviously inadequate. On the other hand, if it took her 30 minutes of persistant climbing the parents were definately not paying attention and we can say that the barrier provided decent protection. All in my opinion of course.

But how about 5 minutes ?

I agree with your hypothosis. However, in this case, I have no reason to assume that it took more than five seconds to reach over and down the fence and bit and back...

I agree with your hypothosis. However, in this case, I have no reason to assume that it took more than five seconds to reach over and down the fence and bit and back...

I personally do think the simple math posted in this topic shows that she could not simply "reach over" and get bitten. The fact that she is the only girl at this popular exhibit to be bitten, while meerkats tend to be curious, supports this assertion.
I do however not know how long it took her to reach out far enough. Other parents apparantly did not stop her either, so it could not be that long...

I personally do think the simple math posted in this topic shows that she could not simply "reach over" and get bitten. The fact that she is the only girl at this popular exhibit to be bitten, while meerkats tend to be curious, supports this assertion.
I do however not know how long it took her to reach out far enough. Other parents apparantly did not stop her either, so it could not be that long...
How many people were there? maybe there simply were not many people around

I personally do think the simple math posted in this topic shows that she could not simply "reach over" and get bitten. The fact that she is the only girl at this popular exhibit to be bitten, while meerkats tend to be curious, supports this assertion.
I do however not know how long it took her to reach out far enough. Other parents apparantly did not stop her either, so it could not be that long...

I can't imagine why a normal jump roping nine year old girl couldn't quickly overcome a four foot barrier. The barrier was insufficient and the opening should never have been left there in the first place. Plexiglas should have gone to the top or the logs used to fix it now should have been installed before the incident occurred.

Even people who thought the girl should be punished and given the shots, as a reporter was talking to them, had this happen…

Kim Meisinger of West Saint Paul was shepherding five children past the exhibit when her son Jake lept beyond the final concrete step and pressed against the glass.

"Get off of there now!" she hollered.

Another child, clearly aware of what happened to the missing meerkats, piped up and added, "That's what that girl was doing."

Meisinger said if one of her children ever suffered a bite at the zoo she'd go ahead with the shots just as a precaution. But she'd hope to avoid the situation altogether.

"It's hard to watch children, but you definitely need to be aware of what's going on and where your children are. You forget you're at a zoo. Parents need to be right there saying, you know, those are wild animals."
link (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=131535)

And since we don’t know the medical situation involved with the girl that got bit, the truth is we have NO reason to ‘assume’ that the rabies vaccine option was a reasonably safe one for her or NOT.


Possible side effects from the vaccine
§Local reactions include pain, redness, swelling, or itching at the injection site. Mild local reactions are reported by 30-74 % of vaccine recipients.
§ Systemic reactions, including headache, nausea, abdominal pain, muscle aches, and dizziness, have been reported by 5-40% of people who received the vaccine.
§ Six percent have an allergic reaction 2 to 21 days after vaccination.
§Signs and symptoms include a generalized pruritic rash, angioedema, arthritis, arthralgias, nausea, vomiting, and malaise.
§ Less common reactions are fever and difficulty breathing.
§ Three cases of neurologic illness resembling Guillain-Barre syndrome have occurred, but the illness went away within 12 weeks.
§ Most of these side effects can be treated with the use of antihistamine, and fever/pain reducing medications.

Is there anyone who should not be immunized?
The risk of getting rabies should always be weighed against the risk of side effects from the vaccine or immune globulin. Someone who has had an exposure to rabies should never delay treatment due to concern about side effects.

If you are allergic to the antibiotic Neomycin, please tell the nurse before you are immunized.

Steroids or other drugs or therapies may suppress the immune system and interfere with the ability of the vaccine to stimulate the immune system. A lower level of protection against rabies may result. If possible, drugs or therapies that suppress the immune system should not be used during post exposure. If these drugs or therapies are used, a blood test is essential to be sure that the vaccinations took effect.

Chloroquine, and perhaps mefloquine, may interfere with the vaccine. For international travelers, intradermal doses of rabies vaccine should be given early to allow for the completion of the 3 dose rabies series 30 days or more before the trip. If this is not possible, intramuscular rabies vaccinations should be used instead.

Pregnant women may be vaccinated when the risk of rabies is high. There is no indication that damage to the fetus occurs with this vaccine. Precautions should be used when the person to be immunized has had a previous allergic reaction to rabies vaccine or neomycin.

link (http://www.metrokc.gov/health/prevcont/hdcv.htm#side)

And since we have no reason to assume the girl isn't already on some medication or has some allergies that increase her risks of having very bad reaction to the rabies vaccination, I believe the lynch mob mentality of this thread over-all is erroneous and overly critical and judgmental due to a lack of empathy for little girls over concern about five large ground squirrels.

Hell, I trap ground hogs when they move under the shed in my back yard...

I can't imagine why a normal jump roping nine year old girl couldn't quickly overcome a four foot barrier. The barrier was insufficient and the opening should never have been left there in the first place. Plexiglas should have gone to the top or the logs used to fix it now should have been installed before the incident occurred.you are assuming that 1) all girls Jumprope. 2) that Jumproping will give them the leg muscles to overcome a four foot high plexiglass sheet. 3) and that they can do this in the matter of seconds.

Even people who thought the girl should be punished and given the shots, as a reporter was talking to them, had this happen…

[indent] Kim Meisinger of West Saint Paul was shepherding five children past the exhibit when her son Jake lept beyond the final concrete step and pressed against the glass.

"Get off of there now!" she hollered.

Another child, clearly aware of what happened to the missing meerkats, piped up and added, "That's what that girl was doing."and the point you've missed is the fact that the ADULT was PAYING ATTENTION to what the children were doing. she had 5, how many did the parents had to watch?

and if you notice, he pressed his face against the glass... not climbed over it, but pressed his face up against the Glass... LIKE IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE DONE! still the adult caught the child before he started climbing. Attentive Parents!

Meisinger said if one of her children ever suffered a bite at the zoo she'd go ahead with the shots just as a precaution. But she'd hope to avoid the situation altogether.

"It's hard to watch children, but you definitely need to be aware of what's going on and where your children are. You forget you're at a zoo. Parents need to be right there saying, you know, those are wild animals."
link (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=131535) right there, an argument saying it's the parent's responsibility to watch their kids. no one said it was easy, but it's still the parents responsibility.

And since we have no reason to assume the girl isn't already on some medication or has some allergies that increase her risks of having very bad reaction to the rabies vaccination, I believe the lynch mob mentality of this thread over-all is erroneous and overly critical and judgmental due to a lack of empathy for little girls over concern about five large ground squirrels. the parents would know, so would the doctor.

the one thing you don't seem to realise, is that it's this mentality that allows bills like those banning violent games to be sold to kids to be debated and voted upon. it's this mentality of "it not the parent's fault for not watching their kid, it has to be someone else's" that turns governments into Nanny states.

We have no idea the answer to the perameter of your hypothosis. 0.5 seconds... maybe 3...

How long does it take to jump up half a foot and reach over a fence?
How long does it take to jump up half a foot and reach over a fence? Do you even know what a fence fucking is? The meerkats don't fly around in the fucking air near the top of the fence, they are at the bottom on the other damn side.

We have no idea the answer to the perameter of your hypothosis. 0.5 seconds... maybe 3...

How long does it take to jump up half a foot and reach over a fence?
? HTF did you get jump up HALF A FOOT to reach over a plexiglass sheet, not fence, that was over four Feet High? how tall was this 9 yr old?

PootWaddle - if you are going to keep being all "ZOOOOOOMG LYNCHMOB!", you could at LEAST respond to the actual, thought-out arguments you are getting, instead of 'convieniently' not bothering to address them at all.

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.

Only if you hung a sign that said: Look in my window, and then left a defective ladder to use...

"Look in my window," does not in any way equate to "climb into my window." And the exhibit in question did not have a ladder at all, much less a defective one. It was exceedingly clear that no one was supposed to climb into the exhibit, just as it is exceedingly clear that no one is supposed to climb into my window.

The zoo should be expected to maintain child usable exhibits when they advertise children welcome and encourage the parents to let the children climb and use the artificial rocks and explore the crevasse of their made-made 'pretend' cave environment.

The exhibit was perfectly "child usable." This particular child chose to misuse the exhibit. Climbing the rocks and going into the cave environment is a far cry from climbing over four feet of glass into the exhibit.

Yes. Yes I do. They have the responsibility to watch them, to care for them, to discipline them and to make medical decisions for them.

But, apparently, not to take responsibility for the results of not watching them and caring for them, and then making medical decisions that have consequences beyond those associated with their little girl.

For all we know, this case is nothing but the fact that the girl in question here simply responded to the urge to try and touch or try and pet an small animal and proceeded to get bit.

Actually, we know that this is exactly the case. Of course, in order to do so, she had to climb pretty much into the exhibit - something a much taller grown man was having quite a bit of trouble with. In other words, she had to make a concentrated effort to break the rules. I'm sure a lot of kids wish they could pet the animals. Most of them don't go to great lengths to do so, however. For most people, such an obvious barrier is enough to prevent them from trying to get into the exhibit - even most 9 year olds.

And, unfortunately, the only way to test for rabies is via an inspection of the animals brain, resulting in their deaths, obviously.

Yes, that is unfortunate.

To the parents, this was a simple choice, a health risk for their daughter over a month long ordeal that might not be necessary at all VS. five small animals.

Testing and animal replacement that they, as the people who made the decision, should have to pay for. It's kind of a part of taking responsibility for one's actions.

e have no idea the answer to the perameter of your hypothosis. 0.5 seconds... maybe 3...

How long does it take to jump up half a foot and reach over a fence?

It took a grown man quite a while. How long do you think it would take someone who barely reaches the height of the glass in the first place? He was able to stand on the highest rock and simply bend at the waist to get his head in. She, on the other hand, unless she is much taller than every other nine-year old girl, would have had to climb up onto the glass and hang over. She was reaching down 3/4 of her entire height over a wall that was right at her height. How long do you think that would take someone?

PootWaddle - if you are going to keep being all "ZOOOOOOMG LYNCHMOB!", you could at LEAST respond to the actual, thought-out arguments you are getting, instead of 'convieniently' not bothering to address them at all.

Your example was of a porcelain collection that my child broke one of.

IF you keep your collection in a museum or antiques store, and the child broke it while I was shopping, the parent should pay for it.

However, this isn’t like that. This is like you keep your porcelain collection in a hand's on children's science museum that kids are supposed to play with and your porcelain piece broke and cut my kid and now we are told that it might be poisonous and in order to avoid having to give my daughter a month worth of antidote via injections that she might or might not have a reaction to we could just break ALL of your porcelain pieces to make sure they weren't poisonous…

Then damn straight I'm busting all of your pieces AND I'm suing you for putting your ‘might be’ poisonous porcelain in a place that kids could play with it in the first place, especially since you should have know that it’s likely to eventually get broke and cut someone... You should have kept it safely behind a locked cabinet door designed good enough to at least keep nine year old children out of, for crying out loud.

...
It took a grown man quite a while. How long do you think it would take someone who barely reaches the height of the glass in the first place? He was able to stand on the highest rock and simply bend at the waist to get his head in. She, on the other hand, unless she is much taller than every other nine-year old girl, would have had to climb up onto the glass and hang over. She was reaching down 3/4 of her entire height over a wall that was right at her height. How long do you think that would take someone?

YOU should watch the video again, you seem to be exaggerating the nonsense again...

He took ONE step up and then stalled while talking to the camera AND then he was bending DOWN to get his head under the top and into the opening (this would NOT be necessary by the girl) and he reached through nearly to the dirt in less than 3 seconds while talking to the camera and not trying to go fast... Not very hard either, despite what the co-host said at the end of video.

It's harder for a grown man to fit through a kid's tube slide at the park than it is for a kid. The kid would fit right in that space, not being too big and tall, it was easy for him and it would be even easier for someone smaller.

I'm not sure if they should've forced the parents to make the kid take the shot.... but they definatly shouldn've killed the critters. Stupid Law, needs to be changed. And the zoo might think of requiring children to be put on some sort of leash seeing as how the parents/guardians can't or won't control them.
See page 13.

I proposed the same thing, those more comprehensive.

YOU should watch the video again, you seem to be exaggerating the nonsense again...

He took ONE step up and then stalled while talking to the camera AND then he was bending DOWN to get his head under the top and into the opening (this would NOT be necessary by the girl) and he reached through nearly to the dirt in less than 3 seconds while talking to the camera and not trying to go fast... Not very hard either, despite what the co-host said at the end of video.

It's harder for a grown man to fit through a kid's tube slide at the park than it is for a kid. The kid would fit right in that space, not being too big and tall, it was easy for him and it would be even easier for someone smaller.

Except, of course, for the fact that a person about the same height as the glass (like a 9-yr old girl) would have to pull herself up onto the top of the glass and hang the majority of her body over with nowhere to put her feet while doing so. It is the only way she could have possibly reached 3 feet down into the exhibit over that glass.

A 6-ft tall man, bending at the waist over the glass, could barely reach that height. A 4-ft tall girl, bending at the waist over the glass, would have been balancing on the glass to do so, and would have had even more trouble reaching the three feet down into the exhibit that she had to reach (considering that she would be reaching 3/4 of her height).

I know you don't like math, but, in this case, it is extremely relevant. This wasn't a matter of just reaching over the glass for her. She had to do quite a bit of climbing.

YOU should watch the video again, you seem to be exaggerating the nonsense again...

He took ONE step up and then stalled while talking to the camera AND then he was bending DOWN to get his head under the top and into the opening (this would NOT be necessary by the girl) and he reached through nearly to the dirt in less than 3 seconds while talking to the camera and not trying to go fast... Not very hard either, despite what the co-host said at the end of video.

It's harder for a grown man to fit through a kid's tube slide at the park than it is for a kid. The kid would fit right in that space, not being too big and tall, it was easy for him and it would be even easier for someone smaller.You seem to not realize he is at least a foot taller than the girl with a longer arm length. And he probably did not "reach through nearly to the dirt," the logistics are entirely wrong. It is a 4ft wall, neither my nor his nor your and especially nor a 9 year olds arm would reach the dirt, much less a meerkats heighth on its hindlegs.

...
I know you don't like math, but, in this case, it is extremely relevant. This wasn't a matter of just reaching over the glass for her. She had to do quite a bit of climbing.

You obviously have not been watching kids at a playground lately. Swinging and climbing, hanging and jumping etc., A child going into fourth or fifth grade can climb all over the jungle gym in no time at all.

Both hands on the top, one jump and a swinging foot for balance, gets the kids around here good “reaching over” position on a chain link fence (that is also about four feet high or higher), to pet the neighbor’s dog while the kids are all giggles and having fun…

Your example was of a porcelain collection that my child broke one of.

IF you keep your collection in a museum or antiques store, and the child broke it while I was shopping, the parent should pay for it.

So... when you actually SUGGESTED this analogy here:


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.

You were actually just being facetious? Or were you just grasping at straws to rebutt a point?

However, this isn’t like that. This is like you keep your porcelain collection in a hand's on children's science museum that kids are supposed to play with and your porcelain piece broke and cut my kid and now we are told that it might be poisonous and in order to avoid having to give my daughter a month worth of antidote via injections that she might or might not have a reaction to we could just break ALL of your porcelain pieces to make sure they weren't poisonous…

A zoo is NOT 'hand's on', any more than an Open For Inspection is 'hand's on'. No one I have ever met has EVER implied that they take children to a zoo and allow their children the misconception that the animals are for touching.

Then damn straight I'm busting all of your pieces AND I'm suing you for putting your ‘might be’ poisonous porcelain in a place that kids could play with it in the first place, especially since you should have know that it’s likely to eventually get broke and cut someone... You should have kept it safely behind a locked cabinet door designed good enough to at least keep nine year old children out of, for crying out loud.

You can't sue me for putting my 'might be poisonous' pieces in a place where kids 'could play' with them (even ignoring the fact that many steps were taken to make it clear that they were NOT for kids to play with), because part of the entry condition is that you take responsibility for YOURSELF. Just like how if you enter a shop and they have "Warning: Floor Wet" signs up, and you fall over and break your hip - shop? Not responsible. Sue? laughed out of court.

And if you'd read my example, you'd see I specified that they WERE behind locked doors, but that the child went to the effort of breaking into the cupboard.

Seriously, if you can say with a straight face that I would not be entitled to you REPLACING the dolls (since I WAS NEVER ARGUING that you couldn't have them destroyed as an alternative, only that you would need to PAY FOR THEM to do so), even though it was YOUR fault your child was in the position to BREAK INTO my possessions and cause their destruction, well... See my earlier comments about you and children.

And a final point - she obviously couldn't just 'reach over' the fence because SHE HAD TO CLIMB A TREE TO GET OVER IT. Gahhhh.

You obviously have not been watching kids at a playground lately. Swinging and climbing, hanging and jumping etc., A child going into fourth or fifth grade can climb all over the jungle gym in no time at all.
A jungle gym? You mean something with bars every 6 inches so children can grab onto them and place their feet on them to climb up? Not liek a sheer wall of plexiglass?

Both hands on the top, one jump and a swinging foot for balance, gets the kids around here good “reaching over” position on a chain link fence (that is also about four feet high or higher), to pet the neighbor’s dog while the kids are all giggles and having fun…
Oh, another good one, a chain link fence, with all those good footholes.

You obviously have not been watching kids at a playground lately. Swinging and climbing, hanging and jumping etc., A child going into fourth or fifth grade can climb all over the jungle gym in no time at all. and obviously neither has that little girls parents. all your arguments so far is saying that the parents should've known all this about their daughter... yet, they took NO STEPS to insure her safety.

Awww... I finally relelnted and read the first page of the thread. Poor little meerkats.

Don't sweat it. Come the Meerkat revolution, the parents will be the first up against the wall. Come Comrade Timone. We have plans to lay.

*disappears into shadows*

So... when you actually SUGGESTED this analogy here:

You were actually just being facetious? Or were you just grasping at straws to rebutt a point?

No, your analogy is flawed, and that's what I pointed out then, and now more recently, I've pointed out additional flaws with it. Your analogy doesn’t work as an accurate reflection of the zoo event.


A zoo is NOT 'hand's on', any more than an Open For Inspection is 'hand's on'. No one I have ever met has EVER implied that they take children to a zoo and allow their children the misconception that the animals are for touching.

But the CAVE areas and artificial rocks ARE 'hands on' areas encouraging children to climb around and get close to the animals. It IS a hands on area it it wasn't a safe one. Now it is, now they've fixed it.


And if you'd read my example, you'd see I specified that they WERE behind locked doors, but that the child went to the effort of breaking into the cupboard.

And that's how your example is flawed and I've pointed it out several times now. The door was left open and there were no locks involved. You failed to lock your gun, the kids played with it, someone got shot. YOU own the gun you are responsible to keep it out of the hands of children. The zoo's lock to keep the children away from the meerkats failed, it was not locked, it did not work, the kid got bit. She didn't pick any locks she didn't break any doors and she only needed a quick hop up and reach down to get in contact with the animal the zoo knew might bite if it came in contact with a kid.

Seriously, if you can say with a straight face that I would not be entitled to you REPLACING the dolls (since I WAS NEVER ARGUING that you couldn't have them destroyed as an alternative, only that you would need to PAY FOR THEM to do so), even though it was YOUR fault your child was in the position to BREAK INTO my possessions and cause their destruction, well... See my earlier comments about you and children.

But it's the zoo's fault for advertising a child safe environment and not providing it. It's your fault for leaving the porcelain dolls unlocked and exposed above the kids play chest. Of course the dolls will be picked up sooner or later and broken.

And a final point - she obviously couldn't just 'reach over' the fence because SHE HAD TO CLIMB A TREE TO GET OVER IT. Gahhhh.

You've never seen a kid in a kitchen grab the cookie jar on the top shelf have you? In if you keep liquor and a loaded gun in the cookie jar it's YOUR fault, you should have.

P.s., she didn't climb a tree, you could only be thinking about when they said she stepped over a branch decoration, which was a part of the exhibit ambience. There was no tree climbing mentioned in the newspaper and TV reports.

and obviously neither has that little girls parents. all your arguments so far is saying that the parents should've known all this about their daughter... yet, they took NO STEPS to insure her safety.

And the zoo knows tens of thousands of children, they should have known that sooner or later one of the kids would likely discover the completely unnecessary opening above the barrier of what should have been a full enclosure Plexiglas window (like the windows at other displays) and reach into the animal's area and get bit. The zoo should have protected the animals AND the kids better with a better designed display. They are supposed to be the experts after all, they flubbed it.

You've never seen a kid in a kitchen grab the cookie jar on the top shelf have you? In if you keep liquor and a loaded gun in the cookie jar it's YOUR fault, you should have
No, it's also the fault of the child. The child should know better than to do wrong. Sheesh, the routines you people let kids get away with.

A jungle gym? You mean something with bars every 6 inches so children can grab onto them and place their feet on them to climb up? Not liek a sheer wall of plexiglass?

A sheer wall? I suppose next it will be called “a thousand foot high precipice of the slipperiest ice the world has never seen," and this little girl is scaling mountains and castle walls in days of unsupervised questing... To listen to the way you describe it one would think that this little girl should be called the human spider and they should do a story on her on the "Believe it or Not" TV show for her miraculous climbing skill :rolleyes:


Oh, another good one, a chain link fence, with all those good footholes.

One quick jump up, you don't need your feet at all, just swing one of your legs around once you are up there to keep balance on top... Really, you sound like you've never been a child that ever played outside.

No, it's also the fault of the child. The child should know better than to do wrong. Sheesh, the routines you people let kids get away with.

Well kid's that are nine years old should not be exposed to loaded guns, signs or no signs, the person that left the gun out should get in trouble. In this case, the loaded guns are meerkats that should not be played with, but someone forgot to put a top on the gun cabinet and pretending that it was locked...

A sheer wall? I suppose next it will be called “a thousand foot high precipice of the slipperiest ice the world has never seen,"
Don't know what sheer is? I wouldn't be surprised, what with comparing it to a jungle gym and a chain link fence.


One quick jump up, you don't need your feet at all, just swing one of your legs around once you are up there to keep balance on top... Really, you sound like you've never been a child that ever played outside.
Which completely ignores the fact you need room above the glass to jump, I gues you didn't notice the overhang there that the news guy having to duck down a good foot or so.

You sound like you realized you are wrong but are just going to make up more and more ridiculous reasons why and how it is perfectly normal for a less than 5 ft tell 9 year old to scale plexiglass walls in so short of a time that her parents didn't notice.

...
You sound like you realized you are wrong but are just going to make up more and more ridiculous reasons why and how it is perfectly normal for a less than 5 ft tell 9 year old to scale plexiglass walls in so short of a time that her parents didn't notice.


Rrrrrrrright...

And how long do YOU think a little kid can be on the side of Plexiglas barrier without being on the top of it? Hmmm? I suppose you think she could probably hang on the side of it for minutes on end, stuck like a human fly, as she slowly inched her way up to the top of it. :rolleyes:


No, much more likely she simply jumped up there with maybe a kick on the Plexiglas itself or the pretend rock wall, in no time at all she's reaching down trying to pet a small thing she thinks looks cute.

Lets' see about all this, shall we? Pictures...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/MeerkatExhibit.jpg

Yup, meerkats jump and kids can reach. If the man has to bend over more than 45 degrees at the spine (look at the angle of his back) to get in, it looks like it was sized to fit for kids, NOT sized to keep kids out, as it should have been... Cover that hole and this incident would never have happened. WTH was that zoo thinking when they made that exhibit with that big hole in their barrier/parameter and just left it like that?

And the zoo knows tens of thousands of children, they should have known that sooner or later one of the kids would likely discover the completely unnecessary opening above the barrier of what should have been a full enclosure Plexiglas window (like the windows at other displays) and reach into the animal's area and get bit. The zoo should have protected the animals AND the kids better with a better designed display. They are supposed to be the experts after all, they flubbed it.
and the parents only watch their kids, and teachers and other RESPONSIBLE adults with kids also watch their kids.

as long as we're playing the "Should've" game, even if it was totally enclosed, the partents SHOULD still be watching their kids.

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?

what I dont get is, why was she allowed to not have the shots?surley the shots were for her safety-what difference would killing the meercats make?

what I dont get is, why was she allowed to not have the shots?surley the shots were for her safety-what difference would killing the meercats make?

The parents did not want her to take the shots without good reason. So they wanted to have the meerkats examined for rabies first - which unfortunately requires killing them. The autopsy showed the meerkats were all healthy (as is to be expected from zoo animals) and therefor the girl did not need to take the shots.

But the CAVE areas and artificial rocks ARE 'hands on' areas encouraging children to climb around and get close to the animals. It IS a hands on area it it wasn't a safe one. Now it is, now they've fixed it.wrong, the cave area is a VIEWING AREA, not a HANDS ON area.

But it's the zoo's fault for advertising a child safe environment and not providing it. It's your fault for leaving the porcelain dolls unlocked and exposed above the kids play chest. Of course the dolls will be picked up sooner or later and broken. can you show me the advert that this zoo put out saying it's a CHILD SAFE environment?

You've never seen a kid in a kitchen grab the cookie jar on the top shelf have you? In if you keep liquor and a loaded gun in the cookie jar it's YOUR fault, you should have.I seen try to reach the cookie jar on the top shelf. and guess what, without SLOWLY CLIMBING up to it, they don't reach it. how tall are your 9 year olds?

P.s., she didn't climb a tree, you could only be thinking about when they said she stepped over a branch decoration, which was a part of the exhibit ambience. There was no tree climbing mentioned in the newspaper and TV reports.wrong, the vid said she had to "step over this branch, got up onto here, then reached in..."
which signifies CLIMBING of some sort. now I can see using various footholds and such, but again, that still takes time. so the question that you and no one can to answer is "Where were the Parents"

My guess? they left the child at the Meerkat exhibit and wander off.

I can't beieve that people are still arguing about this.

I can't beieve that people are still arguing about this.
You can't "beieve" this?

Really? Can you tell me how one would then go about "beieve"ing such a thing?

You can't "beieve" this?

Really? Can you tell me how one would then go about "beieve"ing such a thing?
Nice. You found a typo. You're my new hero.

I love you!
Yeeehaw! Thanks, I just read that :D :fluffle:

I just went through the whole thread and I must admit - W00tPaddle's struggle is something I have greatly enjoyed reading. I'm still laughing really hard, so thanks for that!

Still think it was the stupid parents' and the stupid kid's fault any of this has happened and they should be held financially responsible for their irresponsibility.

On a second thought - why wasn't it the crocodiles', the tigers', lions' or snakes' exhibit? Hehehehehehehe *GWB chuckle*

As for "improving" the fence. That's just like putting up a sign like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Zusatzzeichen_1006-36.svg/120px-Zusatzzeichen_1006-36.svg.png in an area in which some idiots had accidents before. I does, however, in no way mean that all the other rules have suddenly stopped working, or, even more important, ceased to carry their meaning.

And I still think we should send the stupid brat a dubbed copy of The Lion King!

Sell them into Slavery!

I can't beieve that people are still arguing about this.
I am a bit surprised by this thread, myself...it doesn't seem like that huge a topic, but it's become one of the biggest threads on the front page. Interesting.

I am a bit surprised by this thread, myself...it doesn't seem like that huge a topic, but it's become one of the biggest threads on the front page. Interesting.
Well, I guess advocating the killing of a family tends to get attention. Actually going through with it might even get you morbid celebrity status like Charlie Manson or OJ Simpson. I'll remember that if I'm ever seeking attention.

I am a bit surprised by this thread, myself...it doesn't seem like that huge a topic, but it's become one of the biggest threads on the front page. Interesting.
because it's a family of Meerkats that got killed. so it's not political, not about terrorisim, not about religion, but a family of Meerkats. :(




























and about parental responsiblity.

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 would squash 10,000 meerkats with my barefeet if it would save one child from six shots in the stomach.

I would squash 10,000 meerkats with my barefeet if it would save one child from six shots in the stomach.
Why ?

I would squash 10,000 meerkats with my barefeet if it would save one child from six shots in the stomach.
Well, I think most kids deserve six shots in the stomach. From a .357 magnum.

Why ?


Why not?

Why not?
For one thing - it would take you much more time and effort than the girl would lose by just getting the shots.

Why ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_fetish

http://www.dazereader.com/crushvideo.htm

Ah - that makes sense :)

I would squash 10,000 meerkats with my barefeet if it would save one child from six shots in the stomach.

And this has what to do with the price of eggs in China?

Note that the "six shots in the stomach" thing has been a moot point for quite a while now. Rabies shots, with the exception of the first which must be at the site of the bite, are now in the arm - just like any shot. They carry the same risks and amount of pain as any vaccination.

I would squash 10,000 meerkats with my barefeet if it would save one child from six shots in the stomach.
And if you ever did as much as try that I will happily withhold any rabies vaccinations from you while I watch you being attacked by my vicious SMF (special meerkat forces) which I will most definitely send to pay you a visit, all of which have been ensured to carry the disease which is almost 100% fatal if contracted and not being dealt with accordingly; thus, you will be, gringo. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/evil.gif

(For reference purposes you might want to take a look at them during a maneuver break on one of the previous pages. They might look cute and cuddly - I assure you they're not.)

Anyway, you get a wag with the finger, Mister: You're on notice!

I would squash 10,000 meerkats with my barefeet if it would save one child from six shots in the stomach.
Mouse Marine Tactical Force would kick your arse before you even had the chance.