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.
The Pain of Animals is an excellent article written by David Suzuki in 1989. Suzuki is a famous Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist. In this particular essay, he raises his arguments about humans’ right to make use of animals for our own benefit. In the Pain of Animals, David Suzuki opens his arguments by describing the background history he had with animals. At first, he starts off with an experience he had when he was a young boy.
In David Suzuki’s, “The Pain of Animals” (2002) he attempts to highlight how for many years, scientists have utilized animals to examine the effects of experimental diseases, drugs, and vaccines as a way to skirt around the ethical consequences of experimenting on humans. As a geneticist, environmentalist, and award-winning academic Suzuki’s attempt to increase public awareness for various issues is apparent within this article. Suzuki utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his article to express his discomfort on the subject of testing on these animals. Suzuki’s interest in this subject is unending, no matter how many illnesses are destroyed through extensive scientific testing and research. Furthermore, Suzuki effectively discusses the quality of life for the animals being tested, and the depressing and deprived realities that these helpless animals survive.
Insofar as I can make-out, people are uncomfortable to know how animals die and to assume such a responsibility. When I've showed people videos of --seemingly credible-- factory farm footage they either react in two different ways: (1) either they quiver-away or plea me to turn it off (2) or they uncomfortably scoff at how ridiculously cynical it all is. Albeit, appalled, this doesn't generally discourage people to stop eating meat altogether. They simply look past it when they go-off and buy animal-based products. The fact of the matter is that the animal products we buy are the source of considerable pain and cruelty.
Imagine a world if animals dominated it, and they treated us they same way we treated them. I would personally change my ways in treating animals because I hate it whenever I am looked down upon. Lastly, people should feel bad or have their conscience get to them whenever they mistreat all the animals in their life. If they don’t, what does that say about
Pit bulls were imported to America from England in the 1870’s primarily, but not exclusively, for pit fighting. Over the years dog fighting has become a huge issue in the united states and many individuals frown upon it nowadays; because Pit bulls were the number one dogs used for dog fighting, many people believe that this particular breed is the most dangerous of all breeds. In this proposal we are going to focus on the history/misconceptions of Pit bulls, and how we can lessen the fear in people and ourselves when it comes to this particular breed. From the very start Pit bulls never really had the chance to defend themselves. When brought up in the world they were taught to become baiting dogs.
Animal abuse is a serious issue that is often overlooked because it is not on everyone’s top priorities. However, this does that mean the issue does not matter. Many organizations such as PETA try to raise the people’s awareness about the issue. Animal Cruelty commercial by Sarah McLachlan provides the audience with information and the crucial conditions of the abused animals and offers ways for people who are interested to help such as donations and adoptions. In order to appeal and grab interest of a larger audience, the commercial possess very strong qualities of ethos, pathos and logos.
According to Rifkin’s article, “A change of heart about animals,” we should treat animals with better care and there should be animal rights given to them. He claims that animals are more like us than we had ever imagined. Their behavior is similar to humans and they also feel many different emotions. I somewhat agree with Rifkin. Many harmless animals are mistreated and they should not be.
The Pit Bull is a dog that generates huge controversies, on the one hand, their popularity is constantly increasing, perhaps more than they really deserve their own characteristics, and secondly, his reputation as a killer, infuse fear in the great majority of the people. Today, the pit bull is a fashion dog, possibly too much if we consider the problems posed for the breeding and posterior cares, since this is a complicated dog that needs a well-trained caregiver. This is an animal that has been selected and trained over time to be aggressive and obedient; which makes it an excellent defensive weapon, and like all weapons must be handled only by
Is it for the animals? My health? Or the environment?” Most often than not it boils down to my refusal to accept the systemic cycle of abuse and torture that countless animals must endure with no escape. I chose to reject the status quo and ruminate why I consumed animal products, but I could not find an acceptable answer. Thus, I chose to disregard what those around me believed was the norm and I become a person of my own principle not a follower of another’s.