New Post
Search
HelpRe: Names that are just...wrong.
in reply to a message by Laslow
I don't like that. I just tend to think of all the bad things they did. For example, who would want to name their kid after Thomas Edison who was a proponent of the electric chair and killed elephants with electricity just to prove it would work?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
There isn't really sufficient evidence proving that Thomas Edison ever killed an elephant. A circus elephant named Topsy was electrocuted at Luna Park after she killed someone, but Edison doesn't really seem to have had anything to do with it with the electrocution. At the time of Topsy's death, Edison was no longer involved in the electric lighting business. The Brooklyn company that still bore his name mentioned in newspaper reports was a privately owned power company no longer associated with his earlier Edison Illuminating Company. Edison was not present at Luna Park nor does he seem to have harbored any notable ill intent toward elephants.
While Edison was by no means perfect, I can see why people could admire his contributions to electric light, power utilities, sound recording, motion pictures, mass communications, etc... He even created a battery for an electric car. Without his long-lasting practical light bulb, the world just wouldn't be the same.
While Edison was by no means perfect, I can see why people could admire his contributions to electric light, power utilities, sound recording, motion pictures, mass communications, etc... He even created a battery for an electric car. Without his long-lasting practical light bulb, the world just wouldn't be the same.
1
The electrocution was carried out by electricians of the Edison Company and in the past he had condoned such things.
1
The elephant was doomed to die anyway because she had killed a person. There were other incidents that gave her a reputation as a "bad" elephant. So yes, you can argue that you can't really blame the animal because she was forced into circus life, but the fact is the mindset at the time was that an elephant who turned violent even under those circumstances had to die. Also the man who owned her had decided to get out of the amusement park business. Edison didn't decide she had to die. It was going to happen whether he was involved with it in any way or not. The man who owned her made the decision. And if it were electricians from a company that he was no longer associated with, how was he involved anyway? At first the plan was to hang her, but strangulation with ropes tied to a steam powered winch, poison, and electrocution were chosen instead as being more humane than hanging, because simple hanging did not guarantee death and if it did cause death, it would be a slower death. She was killed because she had killed a person, not because Edison wanted to see if electrocution would work, and she was killed by a method including electrocution because it was considered more humane, not because Edison wanted to see if electrocution would work.
The claims that it was a demonstration organized by Thomas Edison as part of the War of Currents are false. The War of Currents had occurred ten years before.
Your dislike of Thomas Edison is just kind of weird. Of course, you have the right to dislike whom you want to, but if you are going to cite reasons that you do, you should make sure they are factual.
The claims that it was a demonstration organized by Thomas Edison as part of the War of Currents are false. The War of Currents had occurred ten years before.
Your dislike of Thomas Edison is just kind of weird. Of course, you have the right to dislike whom you want to, but if you are going to cite reasons that you do, you should make sure they are factual.
This message was edited 12/9/2016, 8:38 AM
1
Okay, so let's say he wasn't even responsible for the elephant. I don't like his support of electrocution as a method of acceptable death in humans.
1