119 Pigs or 119 Soldiers?

[Stan']

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280053/MoD-blew-119-live-pigs-explosive-tests.html?ITO=1490

What would people rather have.  119 of our brave soldiers killed, or 119 pigs ( who would end up being slaughtered for ham anyway ) killed?  The pigs felt no pain.

[GeekFury]

They should get a grip, only problem I see there is it's a waste of good bacon, but I'd rather they blow up a few pigs on drugs so they don't feel pain to save our fighting men and women than our fighting men a women, bloody hippies! *Fist shake.*

[Noelle]

I'd argue that most livestock gets worse treatment in a slaughter house and for less noble purposes.
It's a little sad, and I'm sure it would be preferable to have a non-living subject to test on, but there's obviously attempts being made at making it as humane as possible via anesthesia.

[Serephino]

The way you word this makes it seem like it was either the pigs or the soldiers.  That simply isn't true.  The technology exists to do tests with materials that mimic the human body.  Hell, they do it all the time on the show Mythbusters.  They make human shaped molds out of ballistics gel, which they explain they use because it has the same density as human flesh.  And I'm sure if they can do it to test whether or not myths are plausible...  Also, I find it hard to believe that there isn't other technology that I don't know about.

It may not give them a look at real flesh and bone to learn how to treat it medically, but they could certainly use it to test the effectiveness of body armor.  It just seems like they want to do things fast and cheap.  Killing animals for food is one thing, but doing it in tests when other methods are available is just wrong in my opinion. 

[Wolfy]

The way you word this makes it seem like it was either the pigs or the soldiers.  That simply isn't true.  The technology exists to do tests with materials that mimic the human body.  Hell, they do it all the time on the show Mythbusters.  They make human shaped molds out of ballistics gel, which they explain they use because it has the same density as human flesh.  And I'm sure if they can do it to test whether or not myths are plausible...  Also, I find it hard to believe that there isn't other technology that I don't know about.

It may not give them a look at real flesh and bone to learn how to treat it medically, but they could certainly use it to test the effectiveness of body armor.  It just seems like they want to do things fast and cheap.  Killing animals for food is one thing, but doing it in tests when other methods are available is just wrong in my opinion. 

However, Mythbusters also uses Pig Corpses in order to test the effects of something on Flesh, Bone, Muscle, Cartilage, basically the entire body, when Ballistic's Gell won't do.

Ballistics Gel can only do so much.


Still, the pigs shouldn't have been ALIVE, at the very least. >_>

[Serephino]

Yes, they have used pigs that had already been killed.  I didn't say I liked it, I was just using the ballistics gel as an example of other alternatives.  And as I already said, I'm sure the government has access to technology a TV show does not.  There are other ways, it just doesn't seem like they want to bother. 

[Paladin]

Oh come on. Its pigs for godsakes that were going to be slaughtered for meat ANYWAYS. If it saves lives I say we should blowup more.

[Jude]

Angel's right, the title is a false choice fallacy; there are many more options than just that.  This doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with their actions however.

They did a cost vs benefits and risk analysis and decided on pigs, I'm sure, so if the scientists testing this thought that was the best option, I don't really see the problem.  Then again, I don't think non-sentient beings really have rights the way sentients do.

[Farmboy]

If they want to see what an IUD does to a human, they certainly have plenty of real humans who have already been injured to care for. Instead, in America anyway, they push them out the door and back into civilian life with little regard for their problems. So, as a veteran myself, I feel strongly that this is totally unnecessary and that real wounds can be treated by real doctors, not some eager corpsmen who want to justify their immature explosion passions by claiming they are doing it to save our soldiers.

Paladin, slaughtering animals for food is totally inefficient. There IS enough crop land to grow food for all living humans, but not if the humans insist on eating it in the form of meat. The inefficient model of converting crops to meat (I mean feeding then slaughtering livestock) before eating them is a huge loss. Estimates I've read indicate that a chicken is 1/16th as efficient a use of the crops and a steer uses as much as 50 times as much food to raise as you get from it. Not only that, humans are not anatomically evolved for a heavy meat diet. Our teeth and our colons are those of herbivores.

Jude, the people who did vivisections on prisoners in concentration camps were scientists, too. Being a "scientist" doesn't give you any insight on right and wrong.

Finally, pigs are very intelligent and caring creatures. They have a bad rap because they like mud, but even human children like mud. What's so wrong with that!?

[mystictiger]

I am not going to say that a human being is more highly evolved than a pig. The whole point about evolution is meaningless if you try and describe it as more or less. A human fits into a human niche and a pig fits into a pig niche.

Humans and pigs are not equal. I don't think that pigs should be treated cruelly, but given the choice of blowing up a hundred pigs, or a hundred cows to save a single human life? Pass me the detonator.

[Farmboy]

Ever heard of the logical fallacy, "false dichotomy"? Sparkling Angel and Jude have already clearly pointed out that this fallacy is occuring in the news item from the Daily Mail. I agree.

[Paladin]

Paladin, slaughtering animals for food is totally inefficient. There IS enough crop land to grow food for all living humans, but not if the humans insist on eating it in the form of meat. The inefficient model of converting crops to meat (I mean feeding then slaughtering livestock) before eating them is a huge loss. Estimates I've read indicate that a chicken is 1/16th as efficient a use of the crops and a steer uses as much as 50 times as much food to raise as you get from it. Not only that, humans are not anatomically evolved for a heavy meat diet. Our teeth and our colons are those of herbivores.

How bout some solid scientific facts to backup what you say instead of just saying it. We are NOT herbivores, we are Onivourus. any doctor will tell you that. Maybe in the past we could have been classified as herbivores, but not anymore. Until then I'll keep eating my meat AND my veggies.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm kind of curious that myself. Aside from Peta 'research' most of the stuff I've read said that humans do best with a mix of meat and veggies (unless you spend a lot more effort balancing out your nutrition to account for a lack of something you get from one side or another of the food pyramid)

[Stan']

Anyone that defends and fights for the rights of animals is wasting their time.  These animals are too dumb to realise what you are actually doing for them.  Pigs are there to be slaughtered and eaten, just like cows and fish.  We have evolved to the top of the food chain, and that means that we can do what ever we like to these things.  Whether it's killing them for food or killing them for research.  If that's what it takes to defend my soldiers, I'll happily sit and watch.

[Paladin]

To me, food is food, and I'd still call those pigs edible, if a little well done.  >:)

[Serephino]

Anyone that defends and fights for the rights of animals is wasting their time.  These animals are too dumb to realise what you are actually doing for them.  Pigs are there to be slaughtered and eaten, just like cows and fish.  We have evolved to the top of the food chain, and that means that we can do what ever we like to these things.  Whether it's killing them for food or killing them for research.  If that's what it takes to defend my soldiers, I'll happily sit and watch.

You've apparently never owned rats.  They are extremely intelligent creatures.  I remember having 2 males that fought, so we had to put the one in a separate cage.  We put the cages side by side however, because they are very social creatures.  We thought at least being able to see the others through the cage bars would be better than nothing.

One morning we watched Balty stick a piece of food out of the cage bars.  When Chester went to grab it Balty grabbed his hand and bit him.  He did this several times.  Balty baited Chester.  Balthezar was smart, Chester was dumb for continuing to fall for it. 

I think it's a little rude to say that those of us that care about animals are wasting our time.  You've done nothing but make broad and offensive statements with nothing to back them up.  Like I said, and Jude and Aislin agreed, the wording of the title makes anyone who disagrees with you look like they don't care about soldier's lives; like it's the pigs or the soldiers.  That simply isn't true, and if I'm wrong, prove it. 

Hell, there are scientists that think some species, such as dolphins, are actually smarter than humans.  They just don't have tools and cities because they don't have arms...  My earlier example proves rats can be smart.  They've lived off us humans quite well for hundreds of years, and we can't seem to get rid of them.  There have also been studies that suggest pigs are intelligent.  If nothing else they're clean.  They only go to the bathroom in one corner of their pen.  They roll in mud because they can't sweat and it keeps them cool as well as protecting their skin from sunburn.  It's kind of interesting that such a 'stupid' animal figured that out.

One of the most important rule of debating is to know what you're talking about.  It's clear that you know little about animals, especially pigs.  I like animals better than most people.  People can be shallow, ignorant, and cruel. 

Aislin also made a very good point.  Why can't they document and study injuries that have already happened?  That could be used as a learning experience rather than treating them and throwing them out the door.   

[Paladin]

Aislin also made a very good point.  Why can't they document and study injuries that have already happened?  That could be used as a learning experience rather than treating them and throwing them out the door.    [/color]

dude, they were destined for slaughter anyways

[Oniya]

If they want to see what an IUD does to a human, they certainly have plenty of real humans who have already been injured to care for. Instead, in America anyway, they push them out the door and back into civilian life with little regard for their problems. So, as a veteran myself, I feel strongly that this is totally unnecessary and that real wounds can be treated by real doctors, not some eager corpsmen who want to justify their immature explosion passions by claiming they are doing it to save our soldiers.

I think you mean IED.  And it also seems to me that examining existing wounds and fatality reports should give a fairly comprehensive spectrum of what an 'improvised explosive device' (can't we just say 'bomb'?) can do to an actual human.

[Farmboy]

LOL! I said IUD... shows you where my mind goes... ;)

Solid scientific evidence? I already gave it: shape of teeth, length of colon. But, cherry-pick your science, Paladin. Why not! Everyone else does.

I also offered mathematics. There is enough land to grow enough food to feed all of us, but much of it is wasted growing food for animals that we will eat instead, and that takes 16 to 30 times as much food to make food, therefore it is inefficient.

Also, if we are "supposed to" eat meat, why are people dying because their veins are clogged with chloresterol?

Lastly, it is a conceit to believe we are at the top of the food chain. A bow hunting friend of mine learned this when he was camping and he could hear a mountain lion prowling beyond the edge of the fire. No sir, we are not at the top of the food chain. In fact, the chain has no top. It is also arrogant to consider animals as inferior. We are animals. We are neither superior nor inferior. This world got along just fone without us, and it will do fine after we go extinct. I wouldn't say the species that blows up other species, performs vivisections, and creates oil spills such as what we are seeing this week, is entitled to any false pride. I think the human species needs to learn that it is part of the universe, not its master. *shrug* Why is the a brick wall pattern impressed on my forehead... oh! I've been wasting my time again. Ah... well... think what you will. We could end hunger, but you have to stop eating meat first. *shrug*

[mystictiger]

Hell, there are scientists that think some species, such as dolphins, are actually smarter than humans.

No. Really there aren't. I am willing to retract of course if you can point me to a peer-reviewed paper supporting this. And if anything was going to be close to humans in terms of intelligence, it would probably be primates or octopi.

[Paladin]

LOL! I said IUD... shows you where my mind goes... ;)

Solid scientific evidence? I already gave it: shape of teeth, length of colon. But, cherry-pick your science, Paladin. Why not! Everyone else does.

I also offered mathematics. There is enough land to grow enough food to feed all of us, but much of it is wasted growing food for animals that we will eat instead, and that takes 16 to 30 times as much food to make food, therefore it is inefficient.

Also, if we are "supposed to" eat meat, why are people dying because their veins are clogged with chloresterol?

Lastly, it is a conceit to believe we are at the top of the food chain. A bow hunting friend of mine learned this when he was camping and he could hear a mountain lion prowling beyond the edge of the fire. No sir, we are not at the top of the food chain. In fact, the chain has no top. It is also arrogant to consider animals as inferior. We are animals. We are neither superior nor inferior. This world got along just fone without us, and it will do fine after we go extinct. I wouldn't say the species that blows up other species, performs vivisections, and creates oil spills such as what we are seeing this week, is entitled to any false pride. I think the human species needs to learn that it is part of the universe, not its master. *shrug* Why is the a brick wall pattern impressed on my forehead... oh! I've been wasting my time again. Ah... well... think what you will. We could end hunger, but you have to stop eating meat first. *shrug*

I never said we were the top of the food chain. As for your evidence, I want actual linkable proof like everyone else gives. Otherwise everything you say is just heresay and opinion. Also as others have said, we need a CERTAIN AMMOUNT of protine in our diets, and other than bland crappy tasting beans Meat has the highest protine content.

[mystictiger]

Also, if we are "supposed to" eat meat, why are people dying because their veins are clogged with chloresterol?

Logical fallacy!

That's like saying "If we're supposed to drink water, why do people drown?"

[Trieste]

So, resisting the urge to chatter about my field and getting back to the pigs, does anyone see a link that leads to their findings from the pigs? I can't seem to find one anywhere. It would be interesting to see what they learned before condemning the methods.

[Farmboy]

Logical fallacy!

That's like saying "If we're supposed to drink water, why do people drown?"

No, that would be if I said if we were "meant" to eat meat (as someone above said), then why do you die of asphyxiation when you try to put it in your lungs." Which I did not say...

Anyway, I've said my feelings. It's brutal. I am embarassed for humanity.  Not much more to say.

[Oniya]

Okay - then if we're supposed to drink water, then why do things like this happen.