为救孩童射杀大猩猩 孰之过？

20160601ou 一中两外锵锵三人行 今日话题：为救孩童射杀大猩猩 孰之过？ LW: What’s actually happened here is Harambe, a Western Lowland Gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens, was shot. Now, this has actually led to a lot of outcry publicly, globally, as well as in Cincinnati. So what happened here is, a four-year-old boy managed to get into the enclosure, into the zoo. NL: The gorilla comes over and is kind of grabbing the boy, dragging him around a bit. This was viewed to be a kind of aggressive act. LW: And I think we’re all kind of on the same side that there really wasn’t much that the zookeepers and the staff could have done other than actually, you know, take action and shoot the gorilla. But I think where it kind of gets a little bit interesting for the story, for me, is when it comes to actually, who should take responsibility for this, because, well, obviously it’s very hard to blame a four-year-old child. There have been some comments online actually blaming the zoo, and then there’s others blaming the mother, saying, well, why weren’t you paying attention to your child? How can you let your child get away, and get into this enclosure, which actually it seems like it isn’t easy to get into, because since the opening of the zoo, there’s never been anyone that’s fallen in, ever? XQD: For a parent, you want to make sure of 100% safety for your child, right? But, you know, we are normal human beings, we are not supermen, right? And you do sometimes make mistakes, just overlook your child for one or two seconds, and then something bad happens. LW: But now, we also have to keep in mind that we don’t just assign blame for when you’ve purposefully done something wrong. We assign blame for when you’ve been negligent, as well. XQD: That’s right. LW: So now, in this case, where do you think most of that blame for the negligence should fall? XQD: I’d tend to see, because we don’t know, you know, probably until the end of the investigation to see whether there’s a negligence problem on the side of the zoo, if the zookeepers failed to complete their responsibilities, then I think, probably, there is a point for the parents to launch a suit. Otherwise, you know, remember that this is the only case over the past thirty years, the first breach of the enclosure. For the parents, I’m not sure how solid that case would be if you sued the zoo. As a parent, I’m a parent, you know, I would blame myself, probably, for overlooking my child, even for one second. NL: I think it is a little bit too easy though, for, kind of the internet police, everyone on Facebook, all of these people, to come crashing down on the side of, you know, this is an awful mother, she is a terrible person, she didn’t take care of her kid. And the amount of hate she’s receiving online is unbelievable! There are petitions calling for her child to be taken away by the social services. XQD: I think it’s easy for the rest of us to point the finger at the mother or at the zookeepers. I think we should put our own feet in her shoes, you know, people make mistakes sometimes. Even parents, no matter how much love you have for your child, we do make mistakes, and we should be a little bit more considerate, more tolerant. LW: It feels to me like the ease with which the internet has taken this very complex, really quite emergency situation – it all took place in about ten minutes – and kind of made it a black and white situation where it’s very clear what should have been done and who’s guilty, and who’s culpable, that to me has been a little bit disheartening. XQD: I agree, I agree. I think, you know, there’s also a kind of mob mentality on the web, both in China and also in the rest of the world, you see on the internet sometimes, probably because of the effect of keeping anonymous, right? Some people would express their feelings directly without considering, you know, how that might be hurtful or unfair, sometimes. It’s like a phenomenon, right?