In the article “This must never happen again” by Cathy Martin, Coldstream in The Age, published on June 9th 2011, she is telling the reader that only humans are only dominant enough to declare themselves owner of all other animals, which leads them with a huge role of responsibility. Cathy Martin would rather see meat prices go up instead of seeing the animals get hurt and harmed like they did shown on Four Corners. I would have to agree with this because it is wrong in so many ways with was done to the cattle. I would also feel sympathy for the 1200 peoples’ lives and jobs depend on the live export trade but maybe the ones that are to lose their jobs could help form a new authority to oversee the strict new standards relating to the future slaughter of Australian animals. The last argument supported in this issue is the use of the restraining boxes; a restraining box is used to restrain animals and to “stun” them quickly and accurately before slaughter- and in which a ‘stun gun’ is to render the animal unconscious.
Consuming fast food is not good for anyone involved. It causes extreme health concerns including a higher risk in disease and acquiring diabetes due to poor nutrition and sanitation in the products. Fast food is also responsible for a decline in the United States’ reputation and even harms the budgets for child public education. It is nearly impossible to defend the fast food industries and all of the horrible consequences involved with consuming fast food after reading the argument Schlosser presented in Fast Food Nation. Fast food consumption is continuing to completely destroy the nation’s economy and spread disease-causing bacteria all over the world.
The morals of meat-eating Is eating meat morally right? This is the basis for every argument for or against vegetarianism. In James Rachel's "Moral defense of vegetarianism", he states that he feels the consumption and use of animals for food is wrong. While Michelle Carter's article, "Medium Rare Morals: A Moral Justification of Meat Eating", counters Rachel's basic argument that eating meat is morally wrong. There are multiple reasons stated in Rachel's article on why it is wrong to eat meat.
They’re rich and powerful. They promise good quality food at their restaurants, but instead their food harms others. Ads produced by fast food chains completely wash kid’s minds, making them believe some of the most ridiculous things. Workers that process they’re meat are taken advantage of and abused. Cattle that are slaughtered for their meat are fed each other’s manure.
Pathos is the tenet of rhetoric that appeals to the emotion of an argument. It shows a viewpoint and tries to hit a soft spot or provoke a course of action. When Schlosser talks about the dangers and greed of meat packing plants, he tells us of a truly saddening story about a man named Kenny. This story of Kenny Dobbins really made me sad and mad about how greedy people are. He gave his body and his life to a meat packing company and they screwed him over when
When you tackle her she says Mr Salinky is confused so he won’t know what he’s eating. Firstly I would totally feel that this is a discriminatory act. My reason for my opinion on this is due to the neglectful actions when taking into account his cultural believes and wishes. I feel this act from another colleague actually borders on institutional abuse. Especially since I’d made attempts to challenge her on her reasons for giving him the meat.
If you saw a Pit Bull being walked by its owner at your local park, how would you react? Would you cringe at the thought of the monstrous thing and stay out of its way, or would you be compelled to ask if you may pet this wonderful, misunderstood creature? The general public would be afraid of the dog. However, the properly educated portion of the human race knows better than to conform to popular belief and succumb to the mass hysteria regarding this breed without first doing research of their own. Most people shudder at the thought or sight of a Pit Bull and consider them vicious atrocities, but I will show that Pit Bulls are innocent and really are just misunderstood.
He's my son! He'd rather see these no-good punks than his own mother? You scum…” Mrs. Cade. The reason for his low self-esteem and him losing his innocence by killing Bob is because he has to deal with lack of parental love. The extent of your loss of innocence also depends on the environment you are raised in.
If the creations are indeed “more human, than human” what defines our humanity? The replicants are portrayed as the violent antagonist only once compared to the humans (Tyrell) do they become admirable. While the death of Tyrell confronts the audience the close up on Roy's face shows the agony he is in. He doesn’t enjoy the killing but believes that his father must pay for his sins, pay for all the pain he has cause to him and his friends. Such violence is really only the cause of Roy’s pain, his emotions controlling his actions conflicts with our prejudice.
John Steinbeck saw the type of reception that newcomers received when he visited the labor camps in rural California. Steinbeck dramatized this in The Grapes of Wrath, “They were hungry, and they were fierce. And they had hoped to find a home, and they only found hatred. Okies-the owners hated them because the owners knew they were soft and the Okies were strong, that they were fed and the Okies were hungry; and perhaps the owners had heard from their grandfathers how easy it is to steal land from a soft man if you are fierce and hungry and armed.“ (4) John Steinbeck saw the inhumane way that at people were treated by the people of California. Once the migrants got through the entry barriers, the migrants found that their new life was almost as difficult as the one they had left behind.