Film Addresses Taiwan’s Lack Of Respect For Animal

356 Words2 Pages
Disagree argument with Chu Hsien-jer After reading “Film Addresses Taiwan’s Lack of Respect for Animals,” I find that I disagree with what Chu has said. First of all, Chu claims that “[w]e have animal protection laws, but Taiwan's law enforcement is far from satisfactory.” Chu brings out the issue only, but he doesn’t tell us how to solve this problem. On the other hand, Chu talks about the impairing animal in the interview throughout his life experience, whereas his father’s friend abandoned several pet dogs and some of which suffered from a skin disease to show us we overlook the right of animals, but be curious how one man’s experience can represent public. Furthermore, Chu tries to use terms such as “always” and “anything” in the following sentence, “Consider conversations [held between people who live in Taiwan] are always about real estate prices and the stock market. Because people don't care about anything but economic development, they overlook animal rights[,]” to emphasize his own theory by this form of hyperbole. However, he is actually committing an error in inductive logic. He repents his experiences in “[eating] dog meat,” but does not mention anything about eating beef or pork. This argumentative strategy seems contradicting to me because I think if animals indeed have rights, all animals should share the same right. In other words, when Chu suggests that eating dog meat is wrong, he should also consider whether it is ethical to eat beef or port. So to me, Chu’s tries to let us repented and to support his argument is weak. The end of the interview seems interesting to me. Chu worries that “the audience may feel touched for an hour but the next day they still have to face the pressures of society.” And he demands for “more media coverage of matters that touch human feelings.” He is very general to talk about this situation, but he doesn’t give a

More about Film Addresses Taiwan’s Lack Of Respect For Animal

Open Document