View Poll Results: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • This is a legitimate human interest story and good journalism.

    6 27.27%
  • The poor lady needs the money and people are interested in her story

    3 13.64%
  • Oprah is opportunistic, but is also sensitive and truly concerned

    3 13.64%
  • Not much different than an old-time circus freak show if you ask me

    8 36.36%
  • Other, please explain

    2 9.09%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

  1. #41
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    It did come across that way to me. Not a very helpful contribution to the conversation from my point of view.
    Thank you. It's why I reported his post.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Thank you. It's why I reported his post.
    Aside from being a big baby. It was you who first used capital letters. And I used the capital letters so that you could understand the important words. I probably should have used capital letters and bolded them too.

    You do not understand that Charla was not a victim. She went to her friends house to pet the chimp. What do you expect to happen when you are with a WILD ANIMAL

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    What is moronic or liberal about holding an individual financially responsible for the damages caused by their own poor choices?
    If the owner died becaus she kept it as a pet, her fault. She can't sue herself can she? If a friend comes to see the pet and gets mauled. Sorry, you should have known better. There is no reason for her to get a financial reward.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by stalin_was_a_nice_being View Post
    Aside from being a big baby. It was you who first used capital letters. And I used the capital letters so that you could understand the important words. I probably should have used capital letters and bolded them too.

    You do not understand that Charla was not a victim. She went to her friends house to pet the chimp. What do you expect to happen when you are with a WILD ANIMAL
    Now you're calling her a big baby? How does that contribute to the conversation or follow the TOS rules that say to attack ideas, not people?

  5. #45
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by stalin_was_a_nice_being View Post
    Aside from being a big baby. It was you who first used capital letters. And I used the capital letters so that you could understand the important words. I probably should have used capital letters and bolded them too.

    You do not understand that Charla was not a victim. She went to her friends house to pet the chimp. What do you expect to happen when you are with a WILD ANIMAL
    No, you do not understand. If you have a loaded gun in your house, and you invite Charla over. Charla knows you carry a loaded gun in your house for protection. Your significant other takes the gun and shoots Charla in the face. Are you implying that you were not, at a minimum, contributorily negligent for having a loaded gun in your house? I can't wait to read your response!

  6. #46
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    Now you're calling her a big baby? How does that contribute to the conversation or follow the TOS rules that say to attack ideas, not people?
    I feel like I"m back in elementary school. Maybe he'll pull my hair next.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    [quote=aps;1058363060]Here's what you said:



    It would be one thing if she was wandering in the jungle and a chimp attacked her. She went to a friend's house. This friend owned the wild animal and had knowledge of the animal's propensity to bite. Are you implying that she should not bear any responsbility? [/quoute]Here is what I will say again. Her friend went to see a wild animal. A wild animal is known for biting more often than dogs or cats. Why would you see a wild animal if you didn't have any protective barriers? Seems stupid and even more stupid for her to be suing because the chimp mauled her.


    Huh? This is why I said I couldn't discuss this with you. This makes absolutely no sense. What this tells me is that you are not looking at the specific facts in this case.
    I have looked at the specific facts in this case. You just don't have any argument. Charla was responsible for her own safetly and she should have known better. An animal in the zoo, is not the sort of animal you'd want to have a close encounter with. NONE.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I feel like I"m back in elementary school. Maybe he'll pull my hair next.
    Maybe he'd punch you in the face.
    No, you do not understand. If you have a loaded gun in your house, and you invite Charla over. Charla knows you carry a loaded gun in your house for protection. Your significant other takes the gun and shoots Charla in the face. Are you implying that you were not, at a minimum, contributorily negligent for having a loaded gun in your house? I can't wait to read your response!
    No, you don't have an idea whatsoever. A gun is not moving, it doesn't act on it's own does it? The chimp has a mind of its own it is wild and it will do what it whats because it doesn't follow commands and it doesn't sit still. You go see it where there is no protective barrier you are bound to get hurt.

  9. #49
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by stalin_was_a_nice_being View Post
    Here is what I will say again. Her friend went to see a wild animal. A wild animal is known for biting more often than dogs or cats. Why would you see a wild animal if you didn't have any protective barriers? Seems stupid and even more stupid for her to be suing because the chimp mauled her.
    I disagree. Based on my review of the facts, it seems as though Charla had multiple encounters with the chimp where her safety was never threatened. She had no reason to fear for her safety this time. Sure, the friend said the chimp was agitated, but would one assume that meant the chimp would maul her in the manner that he did?


    I have looked at the specific facts in this case. You just don't have any argument. Charla was responsible for her own safetly and she should have known better. An animal in the zoo, is not the sort of animal you'd want to have a close encounter with. NONE.
    Oh, but I do. You just think your argument is better than mine, which is fine. I feel pretty darn confident that Charla will get some sort of monetary settlement.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Is Oprah being exploitative to have chimp-mauled Charla Nash on her show?

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I disagree. Based on my review of the facts, it seems as though Charla had multiple encounters with the chimp where her safety was never threatened. She had no reason to fear for her safety this time. Sure, the friend said the chimp was agitated, but would one assume that meant the chimp would maul her in the manner that he did?
    No, it doesn't matter. Its a wild animal you shouldn't be risking yourself with a wild animal. An attack is bound to happen.


    Oh, but I do. You just think your argument is better than mine, which is fine. I feel pretty darn confident that Charla will get some sort of monetary settlement.
    That is whats sad, she will get money.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •