World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Neither one has to be correct. One experts opinion is that they couldn't rule it out. That sounds reasonable. I do think that the zoo bares some responsibility for bringing such a fragile species into a city. Zoo's do a lot of good too. But they knew there would be fireworks. Where were they? Why wasn't someone there to take the baby to it's enclosure. Or sedate it during the fireworks. People do more for their adult dogs than the zoo did for this baby. I don’t think it's a cover up or anything. They have lot's of experts. They quoted the one that said the most sensational thing. I am not saying disregard the experts, I am saying a hand picked (by people with an agenda) sample size of one is not evidence of anything. I am willing to bet if you took a poll of all of the experts at that zoo, you would get a much less confident opinion, more like the "can't rule it out" than the "fireworks killed the baby" person.
The fact of the matter is that you or I don't really have any information what the zoo did for this baby or did not. Most everything in this topic is pure speculation and has to do with more how people see the world through their eyes than any evidence or fact. The only piece of evidence we have is what the vet experts have said. Anything else is a huge "maybe".
That is a much stronger statement that, "fireworks was probably not the cause of this". They could also have just gone with "stress due to loss of the mother" easily and no one would really think twice about it. But they did choose to make this statement. Experienced vet surgeons/nurses etc who have had the opportunity to experience how animals behave under these conditions many many times. Also mind you this one way the news has been reported, I have seen multiple instance where the wording is more stronger such as:
"Very sadly, she choked on her vomit on Bonfire Night and our vets believe this was probably a reaction to fireworks,” said Ben Supple, RZSS’s deputy chief executive. Roxie had access to her den but the frightening noises seem to have been too much for her. We are also concerned that fireworks cause stress to other animals in the zoo.”
I have seen remarks in this topic ranging from "their vets are just the zookepers" to "animals don't vomit because of fireworks". It is just ridiculous. Even these vet experts have not made their statements in such certainty as the people in this topic.
"But they did choose to make this statement" they answered a question honestly. They didn't choose the question. And I agree we don't know what the vets are actually saying. We know only what the media reports. Which is my point. People are putting words into the vets mouths that maybe one vet might say, but others clearly disagree with. The article doesn't represent the vets (collective) point of view. So anyone saying the vets are wrong is mistaken because they don't even know what the vets really think. And similar for saying the vets are right.