Army to shoot live pigs for training

[machine gewehr]

Dogs would be also out of the question because most people would find it traumatising to shoot such an animal,

These people are going to shoot humans,they should be ready for traumas because as there are lots of soldiers who are having traumas because of killing people.Let alone the stress of war.

Thats a good idea actually,prepare the medics for war by shooting pigs,prepare the troops by shooting dogs.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

These people are going to shoot humans,they should be ready for traumas because as there are lots of soldiers who are having traumas because of killing people.Let alone the stress of war.

Thats a good idea actually,prepare the medics for war by shooting pigs,prepare the troops by shooting dogs.

I don't think killing dogs would prepare you for the trauma of having to kill in a combat situation.

 

[ROON]

Now that we have cleared up where the "trouble" started, would the animal used change your view on whether this is acceptable or not? What about, for example, if it were dogs or horses used for the testing?

It wouldn't really change my views on it much. I don't even like pigs, disgusting, ugly, grotty and dirty animals. Only good for eating. But I still don't believe that they should be shot for training. PETA was quoted in the article saying there are more advanced and humane options, including hi-tech human simulators. After thinking about it a bit more, I agree that it is a neccesary evil. A hundred pigs is a lot cheaper than even one high-tech human simulator.

It's not something I'm overly pleased about, but I guess there isn't much more you can do. Buying human simulators would be too costly. And I doubt you could send recruits to a ER ward and let them learn there, because the techniques on the battlefield would be different to what is used in a hospital. This is one of those things I really wish I didn't know was going on. I know for a fact there are going to be worser things happening in the world, but I don't know about them, so it doesn't bother me. I hate to see anything lose it's life. You can throw the "but it's training to save human lives" line at me, but a life to me is a life, and I don't like seeing it toyed with.

 

[machine gewehr]

I don't think killing dogs would prepare you for the trauma of having to kill in a combat situation.

Nothing can prepare one for the combat experience.
I just find it odd that you say shooting dogs will couse trauma on soldiers.Thats all.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

Nothing can prepare one for the combat experience.
I just find it odd that you say shooting dogs will couse trauma on soldiers.Thats all.

perhaps I was being slightly hyperbolic in my statement. I merely meant to put across the point that there is more emotional attachment to animals such as dogs than pigs.

 

[Eric Perry]

I think the idea is disturbing and disgusting, and I expect nothing less from our military.

With that, I am unsubscribed and out. If I hang out in here, I'll be banned for sure.

 

[v-12]

"The Army to Shoot Live Pigs for Training" is the title of the thread, if you click on the article the headline is:
"Live pigs will be practice fodder for US troops".
Do you see the pattern?

"The US will use pigs to train medical personnel in treating combat gunshot wounds" just doesn't sell. Ignore the BS.

+1

pigs were the origional crash test dummies. not too long ago i watched a documentary about improvements in car safety, where they would tie a pig up by his hind legs, and swing him into a steering wheel to simulate a crash impact. they are still, TO THIS DAY, using young pigs to replicate a young child in a car crash. I SUPPOSE THAT IS WRONG TOO? i love animals, of all kinds, but sorry folks, if you have to kill a few pigs to save even one person, i say good deal, and lets all have some ham!

 

[Marlat]

It wouldn't really change my views on it much. I don't even like pigs, disgusting, ugly, grotty and dirty animals. Only good for eating. But I still don't believe that they should be shot for training. PETA was quoted in the article saying there are more advanced and humane options, including hi-tech human simulators. After thinking about it a bit more, I agree that it is a neccesary evil. A hundred pigs is a lot cheaper than even one high-tech human simulator.

It's not something I'm overly pleased about, but I guess there isn't much more you can do. Buying human simulators would be too costly. And I doubt you could send recruits to a ER ward and let them learn there, because the techniques on the battlefield would be different to what is used in a hospital. This is one of those things I really wish I didn't know was going on. I know for a fact there are going to be worser things happening in the world, but I don't know about them, so it doesn't bother me. I hate to see anything lose it's life. You can throw the "but it's training to save human lives" line at me, but a life to me is a life, and I don't like seeing it toyed with.

I'm kinda with you on this one. I don't really like the idea of intentionally shooting animals for the purposes of showing people how to treat gunshot wounds, but try as I might, I cannot think of another viable solution and its preferable that recruits get practice before they have to test out their skills for real in combat. I think if there was a viable alternative that really did simulate both the physical and mental aspects of treating something that might die, then I would be encouraging using that. But, until that time, this seems to me like a reasonable solution provided its done as humanely as possible and under veterinary supervision.

 

[FL Knifemaker]

I think the idea is disturbing and disgusting, and I expect nothing less from our military.

With that, I am unsubscribed and out. If I hang out in here, I'll be banned for sure.

The very same military that provides you the freedom to say stuff like that

 

[Marlat]

The very same military that provides you the freedom to say stuff like that

I thought it was the Constitution that provides for that freedom?

 

[thumpbass1]

I'm not saying real life training to treat battle wounds is wrong. I'm saying I think taking a pig and shooting it for the purpose of injuring it, then (I'm assuming) trying to keep it alive is wrong. I have no better suggestion as how to do it, and I don't need one to say that I think the proposed idea is wrong.

Actually you do need to offer a better suggestion because you have imposed your moral viewpoint upon the issue by making a moral declaration. I support my local humane society and I oppose animal cruelty but I do accept that animal research when done ethically and painlessly as possible, can save the lives of countless persons including myself.

What I find to be the problem with some animal rights activists is that the lives of our own species is of no more value than that of a pig or dog or any other animal in their worldview. From where do they get their moral authority? Are they of the Hindu faith where the belief in reincarnation forbids the slaughter of animals? Is this simply a secular moral declaration that flies in the face of evolution and the human experience if indeed material atheism is correct as Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger argue for? None of these men would advocate animal cruelty, but they would not prevent scientific research using animals in an ethical manner.

I'm curious to wonder- if any who are opposed to animal research of anykind whatsoever would be willing to sign some sort of waiver that would forbid any physician or medical care giver from treating them with any surgical procedure or medication that had involved some form of animal research? It would make those completely opposed to animal research morally consistent to their worldview point. Well would any any who oppose animal research be willing to forsake any medical treatment that resulted from animal research even if it meant they would die as a result to make a moral point?

 

[ROON]

For those of you who are opposed to using pigs for training, I want to ask how do you feel about the space programs that sent animals into space for research purposes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space

Animals were being launched into space for more than a decade before the first man was sent to space in 1961. I have no doubt that the missions and tests conducted helped the space program a lot, and most likely saved humans from going through some pretty nasty conditions, or even death. I'm not at all opposed to NASAs missions that put animals in a position that a human wasn't ready to be in. It was for the sake of well, mankind. Look at space travel now. NASA is planning on making manned basses on the moon.

IMO, sending animals to space is justified, because it is a quest for knowledge. I see shooting pigs and treating them as more of a mass slaughter (minus the death?) than a quest for knowledge.

I'd like to hear your opinions.

 

[Marlat]

I'm curious to wonder- if any who are opposed to animal research of anykind whatsoever would be willing to sign some sort of waiver that would forbid any physician or medical care giver from treating them with any surgical procedure or medication that had involved some form of animal research? It would make those completely opposed to animal research morally consistent to their worldview point. Well would any any who oppose animal research be willing to forsake any medical treatment that resulted from animal research even if it meant they would die as a result to make a moral point?

I don't think that effectively demonstrates a point though. Much of the valuable medical and scientific knowledge we have today comes from activities we would consider immoral or inhumane today. Things like the Milgram experiment in the 60's and even research conducted by the Nazis, whilst abhorrent in every respect, provided information. Going back further, there is likely to be countless medical advances arrived at in ways that we would never consider today (think about the origins or surgery). However, that's not to say that if we had to come about the knowledge today, we would do it in the same way.

Its not morally inconsistent to be opposed to unnecessary testing on animals today and still take the benefit of research and techniques derived from testing in the past if you accept that, in the past, there may well not have been another way or that simply, in the past, the world was a different place. Of course, it would get more blurry with modern techniques derived from unnecessary testing..

 

[TheDarkReaver]

For those of you who are opposed to using pigs for training, I want to ask how do you feel about the space programs that sent animals into space for research purposes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space

Animals were being launched into space for more than a decade before the first man was sent to space in 1961. I have no doubt that the missions and tests conducted helped the space program a lot, and most likely saved humans from going through some pretty nasty conditions, or even death. I'm not at all opposed to NASAs missions that put animals in a position that a human wasn't ready to be in. It was for the sake of well, mankind. Look at space travel now. NASA is planning on making manned basses on the moon.

IMO, sending animals to space is justified, because it is a quest for knowledge. I see shooting pigs and treating them as more of a mass slaughter (minus the death?) than a quest for knowledge.

I'd like to hear your opinions.

Wait...so you have a whole double standard going on here. Essentially the pig thing is also a quest for knowledge...knowledge on how to successfully treat a gunshot wound. Not to mention pigs are bred for mass slaughter in the first place.

 

[ROON]

Wait...so you have a whole double standard going on here. Essentially the pig thing is also a quest for knowledge...knowledge on how to successfully treat a gunshot wound. Not to mention pigs are bred for mass slaughter in the first place.

Sending animals to space was about gaining information that was not known to begin with. It was a frontier that mankind had no experience with whatsoever. The difference is that there are plenty of people out there who know how to treat a gunshot wound, it is not a squad of soldiers shooting pigs over and over and trying to figure out what the hell to do, as if it's some never seen before situation. The pig training exersize is simply giving a "hands on" approach to learning, rather than teaching from a text book.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

Sending animals to space was about gaining information that was not known to begin with. It was a frontier that mankind had no experience with whatsoever. The difference is that there are plenty of people out there who know how to treat a gunshot wound, it is not a squad of soldiers shooting pigs over and over and trying to figure out what the hell to do, as if it's some never seen before situation. The pig training exersize is simply giving a "hands on" approach to learning, rather than teaching from a text book.

You can't just teach from a text book though, hands on approach is the best way to learn about these things.

The problem you have is that you're looking at the whole thing as a pointless exercise in butchery rather than a valuable learning experience that could save lives.

Not to mention the process isn't exactly any worse than the slaughtering for food method.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ROON]

You can't just teach from a text book though, hands on approach is the best way to learn about these things.

The problem you have is that you're looking at the whole thing as a pointless exercise in butchery rather than a valuable learning experience that could save lives.

I never criticized the effectiveness of the training. I only ever stated that I think shooting animals and then trying to keep them alive is wrong, to which I later said that I agree it is a necessary evil, and though I don't like it, it's the best method of training soldiers how treat gunshot wounds.

Also, not everyone benefits the most through a hands on experience. Some people prefer, and actually find learning more effective through the text book method. There are three types of learners, those who like to listen, those who like to see, and those who like to do it themselves, eg, hands on learners.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

I never criticized the effectiveness of the training. I only ever stated that I think shooting animals and then trying to keep them alive is wrong, to which I later said that I agree it is a necessary evil, and though I don't like it, it's the best method of training soldiers how treat gunshot wounds.

Sorry but your posts show a conflicting view. You say it's neccersary but keep posting stuff like:

IMO, sending animals to space is justified, because it is a quest for knowledge. I see shooting pigs and treating them as more of a mass slaughter (minus the death?) than a quest for knowledge.

Which suggests that you feel the practice is unjustified.

 

[ROON]

By the way, I edited my last post to say that there were three types of learners, meaning that not all soldiers would benefit more through hands-on experiences rather than a listening or demonstration lesson. Which kind of conflicts with how I said earlier that the pig exersize is the most effective way of teaching soldiers how to treat gunshot wounds.

Now I'm not really sure where I stand. Is there a combination of theory on how to treat a wound, followed up by a hands on experience, that involves shooting a pig?

Sorry but your posts show a conflicting view. You say it's neccersary but keep posting stuff like:



Which suggests that you feel the practice is unjustified.

Sorry I'm not too good at getting my point across. The thing is I feel that there is no better (realistic) way to give a soldier a hands on experience. Like I said before, the other options which are available are either too costly, or wouldn't apply on the battlefield. But I still don't like the idea of shooting animals and then trying to keep it alive. I'm not saying the exersize shouldn't go ahead, I just don't like it. I said before in another post that it is one of those things I just wish I didn't have to know about.

The difference I see between the space program and the pig shooting is that the armys pig training is on a far larger scale. We're talking a LOT more animals here.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

Now I'm not really sure where I stand. Is there a combination of theory on how to treat a wound, followed up by a hands on experience, that involves shooting a pig?

Put it this way: Would you want your car fixed by someone who's read all about it but never seen a real engine before?