I found the story very difficult to support, mainly because of the way he stereotyped animal rights. He uses pathos to explain his view point of the issue and a lot of logical fallacies along the way. Such slippery slope when he says “we must leave animals free - to overrun and destroy our property, to eat our food, even to kill our children” and he uses pathos when he stated that he is a pure man-hatred that has no limited to a few leader in notion of animal “rights”. Throughout this story, the writer gives wrong evidence. He tries to prove how animal testing affects animals, but the evidence that he gives us was some kind of violence and lacking police protection.
If Rainsford had chance to leave and didn’t because he wanted to kill the man who hunted him do you think that is wrong. I do. I believe he was wrong because he turned into another Zaroff. Next, i believe he was wrong because he lost his humanity and became a beast like Zaroff. Finally, I believe he was wrong because when Zaroff shot humans it was wrong and we thought he was savage ,but wasn’t Rainsford doing the same thing when he shot Zaroff that was a savage and in our minds we try to justify that when it was just as wrong.
After killing a living animal we both experienced a strange sense of guilt and shame. While we were aware of our intentions to murder an innocent animal, we felt the remorseful and somewhat regretful after the deed was done. Prior to this experience I realize that I do not have the hunting mentality as Bass does. He knows he is aware that he is a predator and lives to hunt and eat the meat of his prey, just as a natural predator does. I, on the other hand, like to eat meat and would rather not think of the animal that had to be killed in order to get it.
He focuses on suffering. If we can understand the saliency of animals and that to make animals suffer is barbaric, we can only conclude the same about causing harm to humans. After stating his arguments, Don Marquis proceeds to his
Pit Bull’s Aggression; Nurtured or Innate? Pit Bulls have a fearsome reputation as killers, attack dogs and receive a lot of negative reactions from the press and the general public. A lot of these connotations may be true in some cases but it is primarily the owner’s fault that their dogs behave as they do. The word "vicious" functions to vindicate the breed and cause a lot of negative reactions from the press and the general public. The phrase; “bred to kill” and “aggressive killer” are thrown around without hesitation from those that are not familiar with the breed.
The question can be asked, is the sentencing so high because of how immoral it is or simply as punishment for taking someone’s life so your life should be punished for the duration of your existence. However, there are conflicting arguments, firstly being adultery. To commit adultery it is seen as immoral, however, adultery is not illegal. This is an example that there isn’t always a close relationship between law & morality. The second and maybe more complex issue is euthanasia.
There are multiple reasons stated in Rachel's article on why it is wrong to eat meat. The main point in her article is that to eat meat is to support a cruel system of meat production. Rachels argues against Kant's belief that animals do not have a moral standing and are merely a means to an end, which is man. Rachels believes that
On the other hand there are people that are for the death penalty. They are for the death penalty because they think that the people that have committed these crimes deserve to feel the horrible pain and fear that their victims felt. Some people believe that both side of the death penalty has valid arguments. It is up to each individual to make the decision as to where they stand. The two individuals that are on opposite sides of the death penalty are Edward Koch and David Bruck.
Culpability and the Death Penalty The death penalty and the qualifications for its sentencing continues to be a controversial topic in America, especially when it pertains to mental health inmates. The punishment of death is formidable, in states where the death penalty is allowed, as a comprehendible circumstance to deter an individual from a deviant behavior. If the person is capable of understanding the magnitude of the crime they are committing, then they are capable of comprehending the circumstances and consequences associated with that crime. However, if a person is incapable of understanding that same crime, and its implication, this is where the question of if they are deemed competent comes into play. The issue at hand as
Fancy thinking the beast was something you could hunt and kill! You knew, didn't you? Iʼm a part of you. ʻʼ This very discussable quote has different points of view. People have different opinions about beasts being a part of a human being.