A Child’s Life Will Always Be More Important Than a Gorilla’s

A Child’s Life Will Always Be More Important Than a Gorilla’s

A Child’s Life Will Always Be More Important Than a Gorilla’s

When it comes to the lives of humans vs. animals, most people get it right. They understand that a human being intrinsically has more value and worth than an animal does. But then there are the nutjobs who don’t quite understand that basic truth. And that idiocy was on full display this weekend. On Saturday, a gorilla named Harambe was killed at the Cincinnati Zoo. He was killed because a four-year-old boy fell into the enclosure. Zookeepers originally tried to call the gorillas out of the exhibit; the two female gorillas did, but Harambe did not, dragging the boy around the exhibit instead.


You can see footage of the terrifying ordeal in this video:

You can hear the boy’s mother calling to him, urging him to keep calm and reassuring him that she loves him. It’s heart-wrenching to hear.

Zoo officials explained that they considered using tranquilizers to subdue Harambe, but the gorilla wasn’t being aggressive with the boy at that moment. Tranquilizers take some time to take effect, and being shot by a tranquilizer dart would understandably upset the gorilla, which could put the boy in even more danger than he was already in. They made the difficult decision to shoot and kill Harambe in order to keep the boy safe. In a statement, zoo officials explained why they made the decision that they did:

“We are heartbroken about losing Harambe, but a child’s life was in danger and a quick decision had to be made by our Dangerous Animal Response Team,” said Zoo Director Thane Maynard. “Our first response was to call the gorillas out of the exhibit. The two females complied, but Harambe did not. It is important to note that with the child still in the exhibit, tranquilizing the 450-pound gorilla was not an option. Tranquilizers do not take effect for several minutes and the child was in imminent danger. On top of that, the impact from the dart could agitate the animal and cause the situation to get much worse.”

The child was taken to the hospital and released Saturday night. While for most people, this would be a relief, there were plenty of people quick to criticize and place blame on the parents for the tragic incident.

And the award for the most idiotic take on the situation obviously goes to this guy:

Over 100,000 have also signed a petition demanding that authorities investigate the parents for negligence, and for them to be prosecuted. But were the parents negligent? According to an eyewitness account, no:

None of us actually thought he’d go over the nearly 15 foot drop, but he was crawling so fast through the bushes before myself or husband could grab him, he went over! The crowed got a little frantic and the mother was calling for her son. Actually, just prior to him going over, but she couldn’t see him crawling through the bushes! She said “He was right here! I took a pic and his hand was in my back pocket and then gone!” As she could find him nowhere, she lookes to my husband (already over the railing talking to the child) and asks, “Sir, is he wearing green shorts? ” My husband reluctantly had to tell her yes, when she then nearly had a break down! They are both wanting to go over into the 15 foot drop, when I forbade my husband to do so, and attempted to calm the mother by calling 911 and assure her help was on the way. Neither my husband or the mother would have made that jump without breaking something!

… This was an open exhibit! Which means the only thing separating you from the gorillas, is a 15 ish foot drop and a moat and some bushes! ! This mother was not negligent and the zoo did an awesome job handling the situation!

Parents can only do so much to keep their children safe. The truth is, parents can never truly be in control of their children. In the time it took for this mother to glance away, her son went missing. She knew he was gone, and was searching for him. Anyone who is a parent knows that in a split second, disaster can strike.

Consider the story of Rob Duke. When he was three years old, he went with his family on a vacation to Florida. He disappeared while they were at the beach. His mother was setting up chairs on the beach while his father watched their three children. She asked him a question; he turned to answer her. In that second, Rob disappeared. They ultimately found him, and like this boy, he miraculously survived — Rob had fallen into a sand hole that caved in on him, burying him completely. In both situations, the parents looked away for only a split second. That’s all it takes. One second to look away, and it could mean life or death. It doesn’t mean that anyone has been negligent. But in today’s culture, a culture that requires parenting perfection, of course people are demanding that the mother be blamed. Parents aren’t allowed to ever look away, or make a mistake, or be anything less than 100% attentive. And then they deride mothers for helicopter parenting. It’s literally a lose-lose situation. Nothing a mother does can ever be good enough, and when something goes wrong, it’s always solely the mother’s fault. (For some reason, people don’t seem to hold fathers to nearly as high a standard.) And in this case, because the mother looked away for a second, her son was in danger and a gorilla died.

Anyone who was a parent should be able to understand. You take a shower and emerge to find your child has climbed on top of the refrigerator; you go to the bathroom and the kid has managed to unlock the front door and get out. Parents can’t be hyper-vigilant. They can’t watch their children every second of every day. Anyone who thinks that a parent can control their child 100% of the time must not have kids, because it’s a ludicrous thought. And yet here we are, with people giving this woman death threats and demanding that she be shot, too, because Harambe’s death demands justice.

Where are the people demanding answers as to why a child could so easily get into the gorilla enclosure? In any other circumstance, they would be demanding answers from the zoo. The media would be running stories about the danger of zoos with 40-year-old enclosures, asking you, “Is your zoo safe? Tonight at 11!” But no, in today’s upside-down world, they demand the mother’s head on a pike instead. Some people are even planning a vigil for the gorilla. A Facebook page titled Justice for Harambe has been created with truly disturbing content.

The mother, meanwhile, has responded and slammed people criticizing her parenting, and thanking zoo officials for acting so quickly to save her child’s life.

michelle gregg

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the reaction to this story is that there is any doubt whatsoever that zoo staff made the right decision. The safety of a human being, a child, was at risk. When it comes to saving the life of a child vs. saving the life of an animal, the human being’s life always takes precedence. A person’s life has intrinsic value that an animal’s does not. Animals are valuable creatures, and we must be good safeguards of them as much as possible. But people are more valuable. An animal does not have a soul. And no animal comes close to the intelligence that human beings possess; no animal has been able to accomplish what human beings have accomplished. If it ever comes down to a human or an animal, the right answer is always the human.

The entire situation at the Cincinnati Zoo is a tragedy, but it could have been so much worse. It’s entirely understandable for people to mourn the death of Harambe, but it was still the right thing to do. It wasn’t because the mother was neglectful, or because the kid was a brat. It was an accident, and unfortunately, accidents happen sometimes, especially when it comes to children. There should be no question as to whose life is more valuable, no question as to what zoo staff should have done. In an extraordinarily difficult situation, they made the right call and saved a human’s life. No matter what the situation, no matter who might be to blame, a child’s life will always be worth more than a gorilla’s. It’s just sad that so many people can’t understand that.

Written by

  • Patricia Dehler says:

    If humans were so valuable they would not be destroying the environment, poaching/killing endangered species and over populations this planet. And the reason people are so mad is thing happens all the time. Some one lives a gun around and kid shots himself, or young girl gets here legs cut off because she wasn’t watched and ran behind a power lawnmower. It’s always called an accident when in fact it’s just plain carelessness.

    • Marmac says:

      If humans were so valuable?I’d like to see you be put in a situation where if it was down to you or your child vs your dog being saved from drowning what would you do.I bet you would choose you and your child in a heartbeat

  • Suz says:

    I think the zoo did the best they could under the circumstances but the fact of the matter is the parent was willfully negligent until it was too late. This was not a case of a parent looking away for a split second while a child instantly fell. She chose to repeatedly ignore a three year old who kept telling her precisely what he planned to do due to other eye witness reports and video because she couldn’t keep track of four children. Yes, children need to be told over and over again not to do dangerous things, but a three year old is still a three year old, and an adult is still an adult.

    We have to stop holding children to a higher standard than adults, and wondering why they grow up to be irresponsible (if they have the chance.) Enough with the persistent myth that subsequent generations are worse than the generations responsible for raising them in the first place.

    I don’t think anybody needs to be shot, but I don’t think a social services investigation would be out of line in the interest of the children’s safety.

    Also, plenty of people are similarly going after the zoo, especially those who oppose zoos. Stop cherry picking comments, eye witness accounts and news stories to further your own predetermined agenda (as if, I know, but a girl can dream.)

    • Cassy Fiano says:

      I’m guessing you must not have children, because otherwise, you’d know that the word of a three-year-old is not exactly reliable. Or should we believe everything that comes out of our children’s mouths to be 100% accurate?

      • Suz says:

        The word of other visitors, not the three year old who obviously wasn’t interviewed, seeing as he was injured and hospitalized. The parents have actually been investigated by CPS before, as it turns out. And yes, I do have children. Twins. And they were little terrors at three years old, but I’m also the parent that left places when their behavior becomes a nuisance or a danger to themselves or others instead of putting my wants before their needs, and because I had consideration for others. Too many parents want to babied when they’re the ones who are supposed to be parented.

    • Kim Quade says:

      So I’m curious — just what is our “predetermined agenda?” That we hate animals?

      • Suz says:

        That’s quite a leap since I was talking about the writer saying nobody was criticizing the zoo, only the parents when there’s been plenty of blame to go around. I’m tired of news stories in general taking absolutist stances and presenting stories as one sided.

        I was also addressing the fact that they only presented eye witness reports holding the mother as blameless and not reports of negligence, which are supported by the family’s history. They’ve been supported by CPS. That’s my other frustration. Journalists keep picking sides without knowing or presenting all the facts.

        The writer decided that the mother and only the mother is being unfairly blamed, when she’s not the only one being blamed and there’s evidence suggesting she’s not blameless. You’ll note I’ve said little if anything about the gorilla.

        • Suz says:

          Investigated by CPS I mean, not supported by CPS. If the writer truly believes children are so precious, she should not have been so irresponsible in her reporting, and people should not be so quick to give someone a free pass. Better to investigate and find nothing wrong than to blow it off, than to have a third or a fourth incident result in a worse outcome. Too many children slip through the cracks, both figurative and literal, as it is.

          • Kim Quade says:

            You still didn’t inform us what our “predetermined agenda” is; furthermore, in your need to censure Cassy in your long-winded tirade(s) you missed the sarcasm present in the rhetorical question “that we hate animals?”
            You also say you’re sick of “news stories,” and “journalists” that “keep picking sides.”
            We’re not journalists. We’re bloggers. We absolutely do take sides. Apparently you missed that, too.

          • Cassy Fiano says:

            Them being investigated by CPS means nothing. First, where is your proof that this happened? Second, did the investigation find anything wrong (and where is the proof of that)? She still has her children, so I’m going to guess that they didn’t find any danger or neglect within the family. Call me crazy, but a random commenter saying stuff on the internet isn’t going to sway me much. Not to mention that we’re discussing one specific situation, not the entire breadth of her parenting life. And in this specific situation, everything I have read indicates that it was an *accident*, not neglect, and nothing more.

            • Joanna says:

              Cassy I read that too. Easily available through a google search which I’m sure you can perform yourself.

            • M. Guenther says:

              Dear, dear Cassy,,,,a disobedient 4 year old who is not supervised and decides to rifle through 38 years of safety is not an accident. It is simply a child who habitually disobeys parents without retribution. And, yes, I have kids. Do you?

              • M. Guenther says:

                Also, Cassy,,,please do something about your poor grammar. It tarnishes the erudite attitude you are trying to portray.

  • Michael says:

    I personally would rather have seen the child die. At 4 years old he hasn’t done anything to make him a needed thing in this world. They as a species are critically endangered and this family just helped decrease that number by 1. Humans are nowhere near being extinct. In fact we keep raising more and more people that can’t seem to let go of their precious phone/camera for fear of being disconnected.

    • Bob says:

      I personally would rather see you die, Michael.

    • Terri says:

      You are sick! You are what is wrong with this country. Such hate, you are a wild animal yourself. No soul..

      • Beck says:

        While I would never wish death upon a child….examples need to be made out of those that work to eradicate a species vs preserve them regardless if it was a horrible accident or not. We simply don’t have a second chance to preserve this species, folks. I actually think the Zoo made the right decision….but the parents are getting off too easy….that’s why I’m pissed.

        I categorize these parents right along with the ass hats that forget their kids in the car in the summer. NOT FIT TO PARENT! This was negligence!

      • Joanna says:

        No Michael is right to some extent. Stop with the rushed reaction and think about his comment. I don’t think he was advocating for killing the child. But I think he’s saying that the gorilla should absolutely not have been shot. Why can you empathize with the mother but not the animal? Are we not allbliving breathing things? Having respect for ALL life cerainly does not make someone soulless. Looking at it from a rational standpoint this is an endangered species. They should have made him their priority. People do have to live with the consequences of their actions. The mother chose to ignore and the child chose to jump. The zoo could have darted the gorilla. It was a risk that he might become agitated but it’s a risk they should have taken.

        • GWB says:

          Why can you empathize with the mother but not the animal?

          The key is that I sympathize more with the human than the animal.

          Looking at it from a rational standpoint this is an endangered species. They should have made him their priority.

          You put animals on the same level as humans. That’s an idiotic position.

          It was a risk that he might become agitated but it’s a risk they should have taken.

          I’m guessing you don’t do very good risk analysis.

    • Marmac says:

      You are one sick puppy.

    • Kodos says:

      Feel free to take yourself out of circulation, if you are so determined to “saving the planet”. And please do this before you breed and pollute the Earth with anymore of your stupid vitriol.

      I think you’re a spammer, myself.


  • John says:

    I would have rather seen the child die as well. As far as value, that child has contributed nothing to the world and the gorilla at least has generated potential revenue. You can make another child quite easily. The value of life is equal. Based on contribution, the gorilla should live. Let’s not forget about natural selection, a child dumb enough to enter the enclosure should be forced to endure natural selection. Saves that kid from doing something dumb later in life and possibly saving society from another leech.

    • Bill says:

      sick bastards, wishing the child died instead. kill yourselves. remind me to start hunting, for spite’s sake.

      • john says:

        Unless you can honestly say that you go out of your way to help children don’t pull that card. Lucky for you hunting is legal, however hunting accidents do happen ;). As well, people with your attitude will be what kills this world. All I can say is I feel good going out of my way to help an animal. I cant say the same for a child or human. Unless of course its a decent human being, weather child or adult who is intelligent and kind. But they are the ones who also don’t crawl into places they aren’t supposed to.

        • GWB says:

          Unless you can honestly say that you go out of your way to help children don’t pull that card.

          Unless your record on child welfare is perfect, and you actually live among the third-world squalor in order to save every last innocent from disease and hunger, don’t you go pulling that bullshit Holier-Than-Thou card, either. Sod off.

      • M. Guenther says:

        Bill, are you from West Virginia, Mississippi or Alabama?
        The world is changing. Lose the redneck attitude. It does not work in today’s society unless, you sequester yourself in a run down trailer. And then, your breed is dying out.

        • GWB says:

          It does not work in today’s society unless, you sequester yourself in a run down trailer.

          If you’re going to toss grammar stones, you should be careful of your grammar walls.

    • Marmac says:

      John = mentally disturbed

    • M. Guenther says:

      Agreed. There are far too few amazing, intelligent Gorillas and far too many disobedient 4 year olds. Obviously those who call me and others who agree ‘idiots’ have not seen the Mom’s and Dad’s criminal record nor their clash with CPS.
      But if calling me ‘sleaze’ makes you feel better, it only shows you have no facts but only your emotions.

  • GWB says:

    An animal does not have a soul.

    Uh oh. *hands you your helmet and flak vest*

    One point I would like to make, though. The mother didn’t look away “for just a second”. The child was able to get several feet away laterally and 15 foot vertically, through an obstacle course. I’m not saying she was ignoring the child. But in most cases, the parent says “I just looked away for a second!” when the reality is much longer. It’s a matter of time compression/dilation in our perceptions. It’s one of the things cops have to deal with when taking eyewitness statements – things are often faster/slower, closer/further away than perceived.

    As to fault: the zoo really should have better barriers. But, barring fully enclosing the exhibit, it is hard to stop a 3yo. If the 3yo is determined to do something stupid (much like any other determined person lacking wisdom), it is hard to stop him with passive measures.
    At least he didn’t hand mom his beer and say “Watch this!” (I would let any adult who did that deal with the consequences; I’m not killing a gorilla over someone who’s not as smart as the gorilla, but should be.)

    Part of the problem with the pro-Harambe crowd is that they fail to grasp just how vicious nature is. They see this placid, peaceful furry near-human analogue, and they idealize it into the “nature is a sweet, peaceful, co-existence between beautiful creatures” concept. Then they’re shocked when one of these creatures does something dangerous. (“But giraffes are cute! They shouldn’t harm someone! It must be the evil, anti-nature human’s interference that made the happy, peaceful, Gaia-worshipping giraffe stomp them into chowder!”) Nature is red in tooth and claw – that red is blood, folks. Get used to it, because you’re pushing us all back into a “state of nature”.

    • Cassy Fiano says:

      Sure, it wasn’t literally one second. But the more witness statements I read, the more convinced I get that it wasn’t negligence. The kid was apparently moving too fast for multiple witnesses to stop him. Just this morning I read an account from another woman, who said she heard the boy tell his mom he was going into the water; she told him, “No, you’re not,” and the boy took off. The witness said she tried to stop him, but he was too fast. The barriers were definitely not good enough. If you’ve seen pictures, you’ll know what I mean — a kid could (and obviously, did) just duck underneath them and be gone. Which is exactly what happened. In any case, while it wasn’t literally one second, by all accounts it happened incredibly quickly.

      It’s insanely frustrating, IMO, to see so many people blaming the mother and calling her negligent. (Which, I know you didn’t.)

      • GWB says:

        What’s amazing is the number of folks who have crawled out of the woodwork to comment on this thread – negatively – while I’m the only one to say anything on the one Memorial Day thread.

        I just wanted to get the bit about “just one second” out there. We so often think “just one second” – when we step away from the stove, when we let go of our kid’s hand, when we look down at the text on our phone while driving (grrrr). We just need to keep in mind that “just one second” can so easily get away from us.

  • Jamie west says:

    How is a child’s life more important than a majestic engendered gorilla? I would feel much better if the child died and the gorilla lived because children can be much more easily replaced.

    • Jamie west says:

      *endangered* damn auto correct

    • GWB says:

      I certainly hope that you don’t actually make critical decisions in your job because your value matrix is totally skewed.

    • Marmac says:

      I would hope you are in a situation where you find yourself or a loved one in an enclosure with an agitated gorilla about to maul you or your loved ones to death.I hope there would be people just as sick in the head as you who would stand by and watch you die because they thoughtbthat gorilla’s life was morw important than yours.

  • john says:


    How is his value matrix skewed, there are billions more children to replace that child. One child does not matter, what so ever. Humans ARE disposable in today’s world. You can’t say the same of the gorilla.

    As far as the animal not having a soul, lets not kid ourselves that even if we were to entertain the existence of a soul, or rather brain chemicals that make you think you have one; the child would have compromised his soul in life. That child caused another creature to die and now as such, should die himself.

    The child’s life was worth less than the gorillas. That’s not to say that the child is worthless, if he was in that enclosure with a child molester and the molester was shot, the child’s life would have been worth more, as a fresh child would have more potential than a criminal of that degree.

    This will be the kid that crawls into the road and gets hit by a car, or hurts himself badly due to his own stupidity, if he was two years old I would understand it, this kid was 4. I have met lots of 4 year olds that understand

    • GWB says:

      How is his value matrix skewed[?]

      Well, I think you answered your question in the next sentence:

      One child does not matter, what so ever.

      You and the others advocating this position are soulless monsters, not fit to judge the worth of any human being. You are the backbone of Maoism and NAZIsm. Heck, the Aztecs had more consideration for the worth of those whose hearts they cut out, than you do for this child.

      • John says:

        You realize that it is soulless monsters that keep you safe at night, correct? Unlucky for you we out-number you. When it comes to national security do you have any idea how many children are killed in the crossfire. Like them, this child’s life is unimportant and does not matter and I am glad that at least our top defense organizations recognize that.

        • Anon says:

          John you need many years of counceiling. That goes to anybody else as well who thinks the child’s life was worth less than a gorilla. Do you even know the pain of losing a child? You probably don’t even support more funding for childhood cancer which only gets 4%. Because in your sick mind children’s lives don’t matter. It’s quite easy to get through the death of a gorilla. Not so much losing your own child.

        • GWB says:

          Ladies, I have to say this. Cover your ears.

          F*** YOU, John.

          I don’t know of any soulless monsters that keep me safe. First, I’ve done my time. (Take a guess how many children would have died if I had to execute my battle plans; and yes, I slept at night.) I only met a few idiots with no regard for human life in my career, and they got drummed out of the service, thank God.
          Second, neither they nor you “keep me safe” as if that puts you in some magical category of guiltless persons. I have great respect for my fellow warriors, but they aren’t a class above the rest of the citizens. You don’t get to tell me how to think on that basis.
          Third, I’m particularly insulted that you would call my friends and neighbors and fellow warriors “soulless monsters”. To ascribe to them (or me) the same level of heartless idiocy you’re espousing here is slander, at best.

          There is also a huge difference between “collateral damage” (you might want to look up the meaning of ‘collateral’) and blatant disregard for human life. There’s a huge gap between military necessity and “they don’t matter”. All lives are important. If you don’t get that, then you are NOT a protector.
          (Also, if you think DoD policy [not sure what you think a “top defense organization” is, since you made it plural and we only have one SecDef] includes blatant disregard for human casualties, then you *really* haven’t been paying attention.)

  • Paul says:

    I would never wish any harm or death for a child but this is pure negligence on the parent. If she is not capable of keeping an eye on her child, then she needs to be blamed. The child is clearly undisciplined and has no fear to be climbing into the cage. The gorilla did not ask to be in a cage and definitely did not ask for the child to come into his territory. It is bad enough that he isn’t in his natural environment and even his enclosure at the zoo is invaded by this child so the gorilla gets killed??? How does this make sense? It is a tragedy any way you spin it but the parent should be held accountable. She is negligent and if she thinks it’s ok that her child is safe and a gorilla is dead, then she is dead wrong.

  • Baily says:

    The problem is no one has really come up with a good answer/argument as to why the boy’s life was worth more than the gorilla’s life. You state – “When it comes to the lives of humans vs. animals, most people get it right. They understand that a human being intrinsically has more value and worth than an animal does.” Why? What value and worth does this boy really have?

    It seems people are evolving and questioning the fallacy of “Intrinsic Value.” They are starting to say every life has value. Even the gorilla – our hairier, bigger cousin in which they share over 98% of DNA with humans.

    Here’s an example of fallacy of intrinsic value- people say diamonds have intrinsic value because we have been repeatedly told that they have – but it’s a fallacy. I have them and boy did I buy into it too… the bigger the diamond the more he loves you – according to DeBeers. Really though ask an economist, diamonds are really not worth very much at all. It was nothing but a scam. We’re really evolving when we start to question everything.

    What I find really interesting is everyone is saying this kid has value. Ok… then what about all the kids dying everyday in the Mediterranean Sea? They pulled a dead baby out of that Sea this week. Didn’t that kid have intrinsic value? People are putting their kids on what we would loosely call boats by themselves the same age. Yet, we’re not throwing the doors to America open saying – please don’t put your kids on boats, we’ll get them here and figure it out. My point is if all life has value – it has to be all lives having equal value. The problem is the selectivity that some are putting forth – saying one life is worth more than another life is the fallacy of intrinsic value.

  • GWB says:

    The problem is no one has really come up with a good answer/argument as to why the boy’s life was worth more than the gorilla’s life.

    What value and worth does this boy really have?

    What I find really interesting is everyone is saying this kid has value.

    You don’t think that child has more intrinsic value than the gorilla? You don’t even seem to think he has intrinsic worth? Yes, you are the problem with the world. I’m guessing abortion is on your agenda, too.

    all lives

    No. Humans are different from animals. Their lives have value, but not the value that human lives have. You have to be a progressive, since you don’t seem to be able to grasp category distinctions like that.

    As to refugees, if it were just children – actual small children, not adults posing as children, and not children who are actually old enough to take care of themselves in non-nannified cultures – I would advocate taking them in. But it isn’t. And most of the dead children you see (in an extension of Paliwood) are dead not as a result of actual persecution, but of the selfish arrogance of their parents. (Remember the dead baby on the beach? Yeah that one was parents trying to get to a welfare state, while the dad kept his connections to the very people doing the persecuting in the ME. Sorry, but that guilt isn’t on me. That child had intrinsic worth – and the parents killed it by their selfishness; they should be prosecuted.)

    Really though ask an economist, diamonds are really not worth very much at all.

    You don’t understand economics at all, either.

    • Baily says:

      GWB – I love how you get so upset and berate people who have differing opinions when you are unable to prove your point. Your opinions are emotional and are not based on any logic or facts.

      You still haven’t been able to give any valid reason why the kid has more value than the gorilla? Just because is not an answer. Also, saying people who question the value is part of the problem is also not an answer.

      The fact is intrinsic value in this case is BS. We have no idea if that kid will grow up to cure cancer or be a murderer. We cannot prove at this time that betting on the kid bringing a future return was the right choice. What if the tax payer ends up paying for lifetime imprisonment of this child? Aren’t prisons part of the welfare state you seem to so disdain?

      It’s been reported that Michelle Gregg the mother of the kid collects welfare benefits. So the child is already part of the welfare state. Children who grow up on welfare have a higher percentage of being on welfare benefits when they grow up. Google it if you don’t believe me. Here’s another question, so people who are on welfare – do they also have intrinsic value? Do their kids have more or less intrinsic value than kids of parents who are highly educated and gainfully employed? Here’s the fallacy of intrinsic value – these aren’t answerable questions because we don’t know what the kids will do when they grow up.

      Isn’t the gorilla dead due the selfish arrogance of the parent of that child? We know the gorilla’s monetary value. One zoo paid the other zoo for the gorilla. The parents should at the very least be responsible for that cost. What is the monetary value of his future offspring and being part of the breeding program? We can more accurately pinpoint the gorilla’s worth over the boy’s worth.

      You have no understanding of economics or the fallacy of intrinsic value. Hopefully you’ve learned something here.

      p.s. Diamonds are still BS. Here’s an article to get you started on the economics of diamonds. There are other ones – Google it!


      • M. Guenther says:

        I agree with Baily. As I stated earlier, there are far too few intelligent, magnificent, endangered Gorillas and far too many disobedient 4 year olds with pizza snacking, texting, negligent Moms. The best solution would have been to leave the kid in the Gorilla exhibit and have Harambe and the two female Gorillas raise him. At least he will not be shooting a store owner in 15 years. The culpable parents should be legally responsible for the actual, sad, pathetic outcome.

  • GWB says:

    You still haven’t been able to give any valid reason why the kid has more value than the gorilla?

    Yes, I have: BECAUSE HE’S HUMAN.
    The fact is you reject that, not that it isn’t an answer. The fact you reject that shows where your values lie. And, it puts you at odds with all of modern western civilization (except the post-modernists – who incidentally are the ones tearing down Western Civ). Yes, you are part of the problem. If you don’t see the intrinsic value in every human being, then you are a MONSTER. Period. All your “logic” to the contrary, notwithstanding. This isn’t a math equation, and it never should be, it’s about VALUES.

    Here’s the fallacy of intrinsic value – these aren’t answerable questions because we don’t know what the kids will do when they grow up.

    No, that’s exactly WHY the child has intrinsic value. That boy is a HUMAN BEING. Your placement of human beings into an economic calculus is EXACTLY what drove the concentration camps in NAZI Germany, the deaths in Mao’s China, the piles of skulls under the Khmer Rouge, and pretty much the horrible catastrophe of every other “pragmatist” approach to human lives throughout history.

    Aren’t prisons part of the welfare state you seem to so disdain?

    My word, that is an idiotic statement. No, they are not.

    As to diamonds, I didn’t claim they have intrinsic value. I said you don’t grasp economics. I said this because you restated as fact the idea that diamonds are of very little value at all (they’re actually quite valuable for a variety of reasons). If that’s merely a regurgitation of what others have said, then you’re ignorant. If it’s your own reasoning based on the fact that you were “duped” by DeBeers, then you have trouble with logic. (That priceonomics bit is heavy on the tirade, light on economics.)

    Hopefully you’ve learned something here.

    Not from the likes of you. Well, I take that back. I’ve been reminded that the evil that backed Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot really does lurk still today, even in our land. And it isn’t afraid to push its agenda of rating people as if they were rocks as to their value for the future, and not even bothering to elevate them above mere animals in doing so.

  • GWB says:


    I love how you get so upset and berate people who have differing opinions

    No, I berate people who believe evil concepts like that individual humans can be placed into an economic equation like they were only so many rocks.

    • Nina says:

      GWB – Thank You for all your insightful, thoughtful, reasoned commentary and responses.

      • Baily says:

        What! I’ve never seen a more unorganized emotional response than GWB has provided. It’s straight up nonsense.

    • Baily says:

      Wow! I’ve never met someone so clueless, closed minded and uneducated…smh…

      You have no clue what value or intrinsic means, what a welfare state really is, or economics in general. I’ve never met someone so out of touch with…everything. Wow! I’m absolutely stunned by your craziness.

      You’ve still never answered the original question. “Because he’s human” it’s still not the answer – because you have no clue what the word value means.

      • GWB says:

        I’m not sure you have a grasp of any of the words you use. You continue to use economic value in place of moral value, thinking it makes your response more “reasoned” somehow. Nothing is further from the truth.
        I’ll gladly put my education up against yours, as well as my open-mindedness. Your value system is way out of whack.

        I begin to wonder if the whole slew of folks on this thread aren’t merely a couple of trolls, swapping in new identities.

  • Q says:

    You say a human’s life is “intrinsically” more valuable than a gorilla’s. No, valuable is subjective. More valuable to who? Is a human life always worth more than a gorilla’s to a gorilla? On what authority does it have more “intrinsic” value?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner