After he’s done praising the festival, Wallace reveals that his main intention of writing the essay was to question if killing animals is morally acceptable. He explains that Lobsters have nociceptors, invertebrate versions of the prostaglandins and major neurotransmitters that enable human beings to record pain. Lobsters, however, do not appear to be able to absorb natural opioids like endorphins and enkephalins which are what advanced nervous systems use to deal with pain. Wallace examines this information about lobsters and recognizes that lobster either suffer more than a human would because they can’t control pain as well as humans can or they simply can’t comprehend the idea of pain. Wallace sympathizes that if lobsters can’t control their pain, then humans are unnecessarily boiling and eating them, as a result, putting them through immense suffering that humans wouldn’t want to experience themselves.
Therefore, most of the readers have a profound impression, feel guilty and momentarily oppose the idea of cooking a live creature. The next argument that lobster cannot feel pain convinces readers as well. Wallace represents both sided arguments between animal rights activists and gourmet food lovers to be effective in making audiences to see double sides. In addition, Wallace never diverges from non-bias opinion to maintain a balanced flow to the ideas presented throughout the article: I believe animals are less morally important than human beings; and when
For example imagine you at home doing your own thing then out of nowhere an intruder comes in and kidnaps you and while that happens there will be consequences but in the end you will end up being shot, not a good thing to think about so we should think the same about sharks. Sharks are valuable in eco-tourism, people love sharks and will pay money to go to destinations to dive with them. If the government is killing sharks and getting little of the money compared to people around the world paying to see these sharks wouldn’t the government get more money? a lot of people love sharks, don’t see the point of killing
He brings up why the lobster was looked down on in the past because of it being a scavenger of the sea. There are lots of facts the author throws out at the audience that an everyday person might not know. This is how he keeps the reader interested. He also discusses why New England is so popular when it comes to lobsters
The poisons will kill fish and the reef in which the fish live because there is no precise way to deliver it. The fishermen will dump the poison on the water in a likely spot and catch what floats up. The problem with poison is that it does not choose what it kills, so it kills reefs and poisons the area for new generations, then the fishermen go on to another area to repeat the destruction. [ (Coral Reef Destruction and Coversation) ] 2. Red is the endangered areas In image 2, the most endangered reefs are in areas that are considered “Third World”, where populations have limited access to education.
The debate over the best part of the lobster is split between tail lovers and claw lovers. One may also encounter ‘the green stuff’, otherwise known as tomalley. It is considered a delicacy by many and while it may be eaten alone, it’s often added to sauces for flavor and/or as a thickening agent. In fact, this is the lobster's liver or more accurately, its digestive system. Although many people have a palate for this, it is probably not a good idea to consume.
It’s a nightmare just to try and figure out how this cold and flu medicine is any better than anything else in the market. The advertisers put all these catchy phrases and meaningless words to make the consumer think they are getting a quality product. These words are called “weasel words “writes William Lutz, an English instructor and author of Double Speak.”” Advertisers use weasel words to appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all. Weasel words get their name from the way weasels eat the eggs they find in nests of other animals .A weasel will make a small hole in the egg suck out the insides then place the egg back in the nest. Only when the is examined closely is it found to be hollow.
It sounds terrible and crazy to blame Finny for this, but honestly – it became his fault after Gene confessed his guilt and Finny didn’t believe him. The first fall happened because of Gene, but after Gene confessed and Finny refused to believe it, everything past that point became his fault for choosing to keep himself ignorant of the truth. And he died for it. But Finny’s ignorance resulting ultimately in his death isn’t the only instance indicating the cost of ignorance, as the article “Mercury danger in dolphin meat” by Eric Johnston shows: “Dolphin and whale meat is high in mercury…[Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido] has discovered Taiji residents who eat the meat sold in local stores have extremely high concentrations in their bodies…‘Between December 2007 and July 2008, myself and a team of scientists and researchers took hair samples from 30 male and 20 female residents of the Taiji area. In three cases, the levels of mercury present were more than 50 parts per million, high enough that it was possible nerve damage, like that seen in victims of Minamata disease, could occur,’ said Endo.” (Johnston,
This coolness forces the audience to feel sympathy towards those subject to warfare. This backs up Dawes ideas in weapons training that war makes people less sensitive, demonstrated by the sexist and racist attitudes shown, for example ‘turning the key in the ignition’ which suggests he thought of women as merely ‘devices’ and ‘Charlies are coming at you you cn smell their rotten fish sauce breath hot on the back’ which displays a strong hatred and disgust towards the enemy.which is commercial television at the beg Dawes has written the poem in subtle mocking tone by using over-enthusiastic words such as ‘roaring empyrean’, ‘shrapnelled with rapture’, ‘passion’ and ‘hope of
The painting was commissioned by Watson who had been attacked by a shark in Havana harbor and had been lucky enough to be rescued. The painting is something of an exercise in baroque exaggeration, a going beyond realistic depiction in order to evoke strong emotions in the viewer. The terrible, deadly shape and primeval, gaping mouth of the shark, in close proximity to the swimmer (who is naked, and helpless on his back) suggest that what we are seeing is more than just a depiction of an actual event. The shark becomes a symbol of predatory evil; the swimmer, who is totally vulnerable, becomes a symbol of that which evil victimizes. In looking at this picture we should remember that the actual