• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • This is a legitimate human interest story and good journalism.

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • The poor lady needs the money and people are interested in her story

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Oprah is opportunistic, but is also sensitive and truly concerned

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Not much different than an old-time circus freak show if you ask me

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14
How is it relevant to the OP and whether or not she was being "exploited" by Oprah?
The subject, naturally, has taken a couple of tangents, such as 'do you like Oprah?' and 'Does the victim bear some responsibility?'. It happens.
 
She said to Oprah that she had repeatedly warned her friend.

As far as the lawsuit, I'm not sure about liability laws. If I was on a jury I would think the jury would receive instructions.

But let's use, as a comparison, if a friend has a car that you felt had bad brakes. You warned your friend that he/she needed to get them fixed because they posed a danger to others. Then you decided to help your friend by driving your friend to the doctor's in his/her car. The brake went out and you were paralyzed in the accident. Do you bear some culpability in the accident?

I don't think there is a question of ultimate liability here. The incident occurred at the chimp's owner's house. I don't know enough about contributory negligence to comment on it, but I don't see how the chimp owner is going to avoid some amount of liability here.
 
Holy crap! My mouth was agape simply looking at her face and reading that horrific story. What kind of a negligent piece of crap has a rabid chimp running around their house!? Honestly, I would just kill myself if I were that lady. Good Lord...

I think the woman was mentally unbalanced. She slept in the same bed as the adult male chimp, who knows what went on.

Some people, mostly women, transfer human emotions on to animals. Since chimps are so close to humans, it's easier to think of them as human.

I'd like to see much more stringent animal control in this nation. We need more animal control officers. People need to be held accountable for their pets.
 
I don't think there is a question of ultimate liability here. The incident occurred at the chimp's owner's house. I don't know enough about contributory negligence to comment on it, but I don't see how the chimp owner is going to avoid some amount of liability here.

I totally agree. She was grossly negligent with her chimp. The whole thing is a terrible tragedy.
 
Hmmmm. I have a friend who owns a chimp. I have seen the chimp behave erratically here and there, but the chimp has never attacked the owner or me. I go to my friend's house because she has asked for my help. I don't have any fear because I haven't witnessed any behavior on the part of the chimp that would make me fear for my face and body. The chimp attacks me and mauls me and I suffer severe injuries as a result of my friend's pet (a pet I don't own), and yet because I willingly went to her house, I'm at fault. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

I never said you'd be at fault! I said if got attacked by a wild animal when you didn't need to see it as close to it as you did. You shouldn't be suing because what do you expect from a WILD ANIMAL ESPECIALLY A CHIMP?
Chimps are aggressive, they are not always friendly! Common sense and instinct should be taking over. Wild animal, a hell of a lot stronger than you, I probably should be thinking I shouldn't be so close especially if my only protection is him on a leash.
Oh, there is another primate(that's like a chimp) that loves to touch and hug, if it touches you or charla are you both going to be suing for sexual assault because the monkey grabs your private parts and shows you his or her own?
 
No idea, and not sure how it's relevant.

what do you mean?! She went to see an animal most people would see only at a zoo or the wild. What does she expect to happen? If you want to hang with danger expect the danger!
 
I never said you'd be at fault! I said if got attacked by a wild animal when you didn't need to see it as close to it as you did. You shouldn't be suing because what do you expect from a WILD ANIMAL ESPECIALLY A CHIMP?
Chimps are aggressive, they are not always friendly! Common sense and instinct should be taking over. Wild animal, a hell of a lot stronger than you, I probably should be thinking I shouldn't be so close especially if my only protection is him on a leash.
Oh, there is another primate(that's like a chimp) that loves to touch and hug, if it touches you or charla are you both going to be suing for sexual assault because the monkey grabs your private parts and shows you his or her own?

OMG. I can tell I can't have a logical and rational discussion with you on this when you clearly have no grasp of the facts involved. Toodles. :2wave:
 
I think the woman was mentally unbalanced. She slept in the same bed as the adult male chimp, who knows what went on.

Holy crap, what? I've slept in the same bed with my dogs and cats, does that imply that something untoward went on?

Geez.

Why even go there?
 
Holy crap, what? I've slept in the same bed with my dogs and cats, does that imply that something untoward went on?

Geez.

Why even go there?

Why not go there? This is just a discussion site. I think the woman was totally over the top and may possibly have had a sexual relationship with the chimp. Just my anonymous opinion, feel free to disagree.
 
Mauler Chimp Bathed, Ate, Slept With Owner

In a strange twist to the story of the mauler chimp who attacked and ate the face off of his victim Monday, it has been revealed the owner of the chimp permitted the animal to bathe, eat, and even sleep with her. The owner is a childless widow.

After having lost her son to an accident and her husband only a few years ago, Sandy Herold began to have a closer relationship with the Travis the chimp, inviting him to made-for-two baths, feeding him wine served in flutes and feeding him lobster.

Travis reportedly became upset if she left with company and kissed her sweetly if she left by herself. The chimp would comb her hair and paint her pictures which she proudly hung on the refrigerator. It is unclear how this factored into the attack.
 
OMG. I can tell I can't have a logical and rational discussion with you on this when you clearly have no grasp of the facts involved. Toodles. :2wave:

Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:
 
Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:

Excuse me? Did you just call me a stupid liberal moron?
 
Excuse me? Did you just call me a stupid liberal moron?

It did come across that way to me. Not a very helpful contribution to the conversation from my point of view. :roll:
 
Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:

What is moronic or liberal about holding an individual financially responsible for the damages caused by their own poor choices?
 
Oh ok. Don't blame people for acting stupid instead there always needs to be a victim and a lawsuit. Stupid Liberal moron:roll:

Here's what you said:

I never said you'd be at fault! I said if got attacked by a wild animal when you didn't need to see it as close to it as you did. You shouldn't be suing because what do you expect from a WILD ANIMAL ESPECIALLY A CHIMP?
Chimps are aggressive, they are not always friendly! Common sense and instinct should be taking over. Wild animal, a hell of a lot stronger than you, I probably should be thinking I shouldn't be so close especially if my only protection is him on a leash.

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?

Oh, there is another primate(that's like a chimp) that loves to touch and hug, if it touches you or charla are you both going to be suing for sexual assault because the monkey grabs your private parts and shows you his or her own?

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.
 
It did come across that way to me. Not a very helpful contribution to the conversation from my point of view. :roll:

Thank you. It's why I reported his 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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom