• 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
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
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.



That is whats sad, she will get money.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, you take the plaintiff as you find him/her. In other words, if the plaintiff is dumb, that's too bad for the defendant.

I am one who H A T E S lawsuits. I find the number of lawsuits in this country despicable. But some are lawsuit worthy. In this case, I think Chandra should sue. I have no sympathy for the chimp owner. N O N E.
 
aps said:
Just so you know, you take the plaintiff as you find him/her. In other words, if the plaintiff is dumb, that's too bad for the defendant.

I am one who H A T E S lawsuits. I find the number of lawsuits in this country despicable. But some are lawsuit worthy. In this case, I think Chandra should sue. I have no sympathy for the chimp owner. N O N E.
Click to expand...

Her damages are so great. Yes, I think Charla was unwise in going to her friends house, and did contribute to her own danger. But the owner still bears at least half of the responsibility. What's half of $50,000,000?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

Based on what? It just makes no sense to make wild allegations based on absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
 
rivrrat said:
Based on what? It just makes no sense to make wild allegations based on absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...

So, you think ordinary people bathe and sleep with chimps? :rofl
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I figure this poor lady must have been financially compensated for her appearance, and the posting of photos of her the Oprah's website (see link)

Charla Nash on Her Looks - Oprah.com

Is this type of journalism exploitative, or is it a legitimate human interest story?
Click to expand...
So who held a gun to Charla Nash's head and forced her to appear on Oprah's show for money? I must have missed that.

BTW, isn't calling this a "circus freak show" the same as calling Charla Nash a "circus freak" because of her looks? In other words, you think a "normal" person should have every right to choose to appear on TV, but a physically deformed person shouldn't have that right because no one wants to look at a "circus freak".

Your post has patronizing written all over it. If deformed people gross you out that much, then don't watch the show.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom