3 ms·

To be clear, Koko’s handlers covered up sexual harassment by the gorilla: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixation https://en.m.wikipedia.

To be clear, Koko’s handlers covered up sexual harassment by the gorilla: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixati...

maxbond 3y ago
I condemn Patterson's behavior (in my view the gorilla can't be held morally or legally responsible for it's actions, the handlers are responsible for them) but I don't see why that should change my mind that she probably knows better about what Koko meant? If they organized some kind of Weinsteninan cult of silence and abuse then I could see how we might view them as dishonest and refuse to take them at their word, but that's not what the article describes? Am I missing something? I read that section of Wikipedia and the Slate article it cites (though that was more about the hypothesis Koko couldn't speak and that it was a Clever Hans scenario - an argument I'm open to as a refutation of what I said) and I'm not seeing a suggestion of a cover up, I'm seeing someone behaving inappropriately and being a missing stair in the weirdest way, and then getting sued for it. I have to take care of some household stuff, so I don't have have to read more articles at this particular moment or I would try another source, but if I picked the wrong one let me know. None of this is an endorsement, if we take these statements as read (and I have no reason to doubt them), Patterson (and anyone else who behaved that way) is guilty of a serious crime and can't be trusted to supervise anyone or work with animals.
darkclouds 3y ago
Until a moment ago, I didn't even know what sex the gorilla was, but can see it was female. So many different angles to this, Identify crisis in animals, seen through out the animal kingdom, some even seen in humans, I see the zoo was in san francisco, so air pollution could have been a factor, were hair samples taken to measure the chemical content, like manganese when thinking of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl in gas guzzling US vehicles, due to where manganese can accumulate in the body and where else it can be distributed. Thats something that radioactive isotopes show all the time. Like I said so many different angles with this, what angle does science or law want to fixate on, in order to win an argument?

maxbond 3y ago

I condemn Patterson's behavior (in my view the gorilla can't be held morally or legally responsible for it's actions, the handlers are responsible for them) but I don't see why that should change my mind that she probably knows better about what Koko meant? If they organized some kind of Weinsteninan cult of silence and abuse then I could see how we might view them as dishonest and refuse to take them at their word, but that's not what the article describes? Am I missing something? I read that section of Wikipedia and the Slate article it cites (though that was more about the hypothesis Koko couldn't speak and that it was a Clever Hans scenario - an argument I'm open to as a refutation of what I said) and I'm not seeing a suggestion of a cover up, I'm seeing someone behaving inappropriately and being a missing stair in the weirdest way, and then getting sued for it. I have to take care of some household stuff, so I don't have have to read more articles at this particular moment or I would try another source, but if I picked the wrong one let me know. None of this is an endorsement, if we take these statements as read (and I have no reason to doubt them), Patterson (and anyone else who behaved that way) is guilty of a serious crime and can't be trusted to supervise anyone or work with animals.

darkclouds 3y ago

Until a moment ago, I didn't even know what sex the gorilla was, but can see it was female. So many different angles to this, Identify crisis in animals, seen through out the animal kingdom, some even seen in humans, I see the zoo was in san francisco, so air pollution could have been a factor, were hair samples taken to measure the chemical content, like manganese when thinking of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl in gas guzzling US vehicles, due to where manganese can accumulate in the body and where else it can be distributed. Thats something that radioactive isotopes show all the time. Like I said so many different angles with this, what angle does science or law want to fixate on, in order to win an argument?