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. I would like to give some facts, dispel some myths, and show the side of the breed that the media chooses not to tell. American Pit Bull Terriers were first introduced during World War I and World War II. The job of the Pit Bull was to deliver messages back and forth across the battlefield. Pit Bulls were first bred to bait bulls and bears as a sport back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but soon became more commonly used as house pets due to their friendliness towards people (Brom, 1987-09, p.14).
If you asked anyone in America if they have ever eaten dog meat, they would probably say no and maybe call the police. However, if you went to certain parts of the world and asked the same thing they would say, yes, of course. To many Americans this might seem absurd and crazy just because it is just simply not what they are used to. This brings up the question, who is right? Appiah, in his Moral Disagreement essay, provides a valid answer to this question, “The point is not that we couldn’t argue our way to one position or the other on this question; it’s only to say that when we disagree, it won’t always be because one of us just doesn’t understand the value that’s at stake” (p. 666).
If these are the morals and values that we uphold as Americans why do we not grant the same rights to mans best friend? In recent history several dog breeds have come under fire from the media and have been subject to legislation outlawing particular breeds, which means that individual dogs that have never done any wrong or harmed a human are being punished. Dog breeds including Pit bulls,
Even if it is premeditated, the reader may look at it this way; George is responsible for Lennie and he does not kill him because he is fed up with him, but because he foresees what could happen to Lennie if the police or even Curley catch him. If Curley catches him, he could die. If the police catch him he could go to jail, where he they would treat him like a dog, and due to his mental disability, his time there would be worse, or they could also execute him. Before George kills Lennie he tells him: "No, Lennie. I ain't mad.
Even more are lost each year to other causes such as weather or disease, 21,100 in 2012, plus 3,600 dead from unknown causes. So of a total of 43,000 head of sheep lost in 2012, 300, or 0.698% were killed by wolves. These facts lead me to believe that wolves are not the threat to livestock that many ranchers make them out to be and. In fact, wolves are beneficial to the ecosystem because they effectively regulate prey populations without the need for human intervention, and to the livelihood of the very ranchers who oppose their reintroduction by removing coyotes (the actual number one killer of livestock) from the top of the food chain. After conducting this research, it is my belief that reintroducing wolves to Rocky Mountain National Park will be of benefit to all parties involved, humans and animals
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. These evidences do not match with the idea that he tells us that “lacking adequate police protection, fearing for the lives of their employees… bringing it to the brink of bankruptcy”. I feel that the writer uses red herring. He keeps bring up criminal issue instead of talking about how animal testing effects on animals. Moreover, the writer gives evidence that I feel it does not make sense “the crime against Huntington are not isolated incidents; animal rights terrorists commit more than 1,000 crimes annually”.
Again no defense. Anthony can then sue Dave Bing for negligence because he owes Anthony a strict liability when it comes to his dog. His dog has a history of biting people and so Shaw has to take all possible actions to prevent the dog from doing it again. Bing would have no defense because he has a strict liability. Anthony could then sue Washington for hitting him with her car.
Dog Owner vs. Compelling Advocate After reading “Letter from an Irate Dog Owner” and Al Knight's article”Perhaps We Should Move To Save Dogs From Their Owners” which argue opposing sides on whether a law should be passed to prohibit pickup owners from driving down major highways in Colorado with dogs in their truck beds. I feel that Al Knight's article which argues the law should be passed is a much more effective argument than that of the Irate Dog Owner who is against the law being passed. Both Al Knight and the Irate Dog Owner give reasons why their argument is correct but, the manner they use to get their point across is very different. Knights style of writing is formal, informative, and, stays in third person throughout his article.
Grabbing the Bull by the Tail According to Robert Britt of Live Science, a human being on this Earth is almost twice as likely to die from a lightning strike rather than a dog attack (Britt, Live Science). And that’s not just a pit bull attack, that’s an attack by any kind of dog. Yet our nation’s media is flooded with accounts of pit bull attacks and maulings while officials around the world are calling for breed specific bans on pit bulls in cities, states and even countries. Breed specific legislation on any level for pit bulls is not necessary, ineffective and should not be put in to effect. In order to understand why the pit bull has such a negative connotation in our present society, readers first need to know of the pit bull’s