March of the idiots

[johnridley]

What the heck is up with all the morons jumping fences to get some face time with bears and such lately? Seems like every month some moron decides to go on in and get a chunk of flesh removed.

Apparently the latest is a woman in Berlin who decided to go say hi to a polar bear.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/11/polar.bear.attack/index.html

I mean, OK, you wanna go pet something, fine, I don't think my first choice would be an 800 pound, 9 foot tall carnivore. Especially since the encounter would take place in the water, where IT is at home and humans definitely are not.

Do these people think if something is "cute" that it doesn't behave just like any other animal? That somehow they're exempt from the food chain or from territorial aggression? Or are they just morons?

Comments

[tlunquist.livejournal.com]

You forgot the part where she did this during feeding time, when the bears would be at their hungriest and their most territorial.

[jebra.livejournal.com]

They're not broadly "just morons" ... they're merely morons where nature is concerned.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd say that is a minimal definition. They certainly are at least that grade of moron, but they may very well be a higher grade.

Maybe this is what comes of feeding an unnatural diet to the bears. If people saw the bears killing and eating 150 pound seals, maybe they'd be less likely to go pet the cute thing.

Or maybe they've watched The Golden Compass too many times.

[renniekins.livejournal.com]

I'm suspecting it's just that they're morons.

However I mostly wanted to say: wow that's a graphic photograph they've included with the article! I'm amused and surprised....

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Aren't camera phones amazing?
Actually, there are always tons of cameras at zoos. The question is whether there's someone taking pictures while something like this is going on.

I still can't decide whether they think that putting an animal in a zoo automatically makes it tame, or if they don't realize what "wild animal" means, or if they just don't even think. I think it's some combination of the three. I am sure that nobody who's ever had to deal with an animal significantly larger than they are (cattle, horses, etc) would even think about doing anything like that.

[madtechie2718.livejournal.com]

So long as the animals aren't harmed (and the injured morons do not become an excessive drain on the taxpayer), I don't see any real problem.

It is, after all, a pleasant change from all of the financial doom and gloom stories in the media....

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Well, the real problem is that they usually drag these people out before the gene pool can be cleaned up a bit. There was that drunk killed by a tiger last year, and I think I remember reading that they found what was left of some Chinese guy the next morning just a few months ago, but usually these people get out of it with most of their skin still wrapped around a warm body.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

Most people only have frequent contact with dogs, cats, and squirrels in the Mammal category, and various forms of mostly vegetarian birds in the avian category, and little or no experience with anything actually trying to eat a human. They get stuffed animals from WWF and thus think they're all *cuddly*.

Some fall into the category of "Determined Moron" - they know that the world isn't how they want it, but by Ghu they're going to act as though it was. All sorts of "believers" fall into this category; it's not limited to thinking that wild animals should be friendly and cuddly, but also wild humans, with a side dish of The Universe being on their side.