Do we have the right?

T

Thomo

Registered Senior Member
Hi my names Thomo this is my first thread here but its been on my mind


The current war made me start thinking:

What if we trained an army of animals to kill other humans?That way animals die in the conflict not our sons ,daughters ,fathers etc
Sounds horrific, the animals are not there by choise but I as a father would rather see an ape die than my son.
A few points I am aware of:
a)It would be too hard to train them and ensure "our " saftey from an ape on our side with a gun
b) war must be avoided at all costs
c) war does happen

But my question is if it is morally abhorent to use animals is it not better than using humans?

To make it easier lets assume we are being invaded as a first case senario and then an attacking force and lets assume war is unavoidable
 
This is THE most ridiculous, absurd, abhorent and stupid idea anyone in history has ever come up with.
You'd rather see an ape killed than your own son? Well you're selfish, and?
I'm still trying to get a grip on this, oh my god, I can't believe people can seriously think like that. How incredibly cowardly.
Even if people were being forced to fight wars it wouldn't be as wrong as forcing animals because a person can figure out why he is there. Animals have enough to deal with in their own lives without having to deal with our trivial crap.
Getting animals to fight wars for us *shakes head* thats rich buddy, I'm speachless, there are countless other reasons why this is the most horribly stupid idea I've ever heard of in my life but I need to lie down for a while...
 
Dr Lou Natic I meant in no way to offend,I dont pretend to know the answer either but I can see pluses (IMHO) morally to both sides.
 
Unfortunately you did offend me greatly on behalf of the animals(they can't post on message boards and voice their disgust)
There are no pluses, sorry, I don't know how you came up with this. Its so hard for me to explain exactly how wrong it would be to do what you are suggesting, I can say how would you feel if an intelligent alien race forced you to fight people for reasons unknown to you? but its still not the same or as bad.
Seriously, we need to leave animals alone, if people have problems with people then people have to deal with that, talk about getting your baby brother to fight your battles for you.
Back to your comment "I would prefer to see an ape get killed than my son", I bet some other guy would prefer to see your son get killed than his, would it not be wrong if that guy forced your son to partake in a bloody battle for his own stupid reasons that you and your son didn't even know about let alone care about? Of course it would.
I'm sorry but I have a BIG problem with your idea and its not "right" in any language.
 
thankyou for your reply Dr Lou Natic you have given me some points to think about that had not occured to me ,I do applogise if I offened it was never my intent.The question was purely hypothetical . Personally I tend to put a higher value on human life than that of an animals we are after all carnivors but I do see your point of veiw
 
biological warfare probably indicates the use of a virus or microbe and not so much of an animal.

And yes, animals have been an important part of warfare, just think of cavalry. I just mentioned dolphins because they are regarded as highly intelligent creatures which are selfconscious. Would it therefore go too far to use them for human warfare or does everyting go in warfare???
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the US seems to be using dolphins in this war, possibly to locate mines and such.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm conflicted on that, they are doing a very dangerous job, they actually find the dangerous mines and carefully put yellow markers on them so the divers can retrieve them, if one of the dolphins gets injured or killed doing this it was a huge mistake and they should never have been put into that situation, but another part of me kind of thinks its cool, it is showing the average person what amazing creatures they are and, you never know, it could lead to people caring about the state of the ocean.
Anyway, that is completely different to what thomo seems to be suggesting, he wants to arm gorillas with machine guns and send them in on the frontline to be target practice for the enemy.
:rolleyes:

PS: I'm so glad people don't fight on horses any more, that was wrong, I'm surprised horses didn't evolve to never trust humans again.
 
I have a better idea;
why not build remotely controled robotic soldiers,and use those instead of people?
;)
 
Originally posted by Q25
I have a better idea;
why not build remotely controled robotic soldiers,and use those instead of people?
;)
Click to expand...

Destroyed robots do not satisfy bloodlust?

The realities and harsness of war is it's only deterrent.
Without that, I think that employing diplomacy and common sense to solve differences would have an even smaller chance of survival than they already do.
 
I have an alternative swithc between humans and animals .
How about the zoo ? Id say there plenty of people who fit there better than animals .

And after all , id rather c someones dumb son in there behind bars then an ape .
 
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics
I have an alternative swithc between humans and animals .
How about the zoo ? Id say there plenty of people who fit there better than animals .

And after all , id rather c someones dumb son in there behind bars then an ape .
Click to expand...

I hope that no one is thinking for one second that I'm suggesting that we actually do train a battalon of apes, I'm not. I'm simply asking your veiws on which would be the lesser of two evils and why.

Hey I'm not here to upset anyone
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
This is THE most ridiculous, absurd, abhorent and stupid idea anyone in history has ever come up with.
Click to expand...

I think Thomo’s is a great question, not absurd. If it were possible to substitute apes for humans in combat I’d be surprised if less than 90% of the population supported it, given that the lives of animals beyond popular pets are demonstrably worth almost nothing to most people.
 
Originally posted by zanket
I think Thomo’s is a great question, not absurd. If it were possible to substitute apes for humans in combat I’d be surprised if less than 90% of the population supported it, given that the lives of animals beyond popular pets are demonstrably worth almost nothing to most people.
Click to expand...

Do you think that makes it right?

What is your opinion of this as a viable and just option?
 
In the context that it would take us in the opposite direction of where most people say they want to be, a nice safe place to live, I’d say it’s wrong. If we wish to repel an invading force while still working toward being better humans, we’d protect the apes rather than push them to the front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top