Let Them Eat Dog By Jonathan Safran Foer Analysis

Their premium dry dog food follows their "biologically appropriate" philosophy of nutrition. The reason the top dog food Orijen is free of grains is because, according to veterinarians, the high carbohydrate content of grains leads to obesity and other common health problems in dogs. Your canine's digestive system was not made to digest most types of grains. The major commercial companies began adding grain to their pet foods to increase their profits and save money.

I did not understand the solution to the problem of being a “conscientious meat eater.” The authors never really stated or concluded an answer to the problem in the article. In the text it says “For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat humanely raised meat seems like an option.” This argues that only an option to the solution is informed to the reader, and that there is no real solution to the problem at hand. The whole point of the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, is to inform the reader about the issue about meat, but because there is no solution to his argument; it makes his argument less effect as a whole when persuading

What made you decide to eat meat? If I asked people, this question their answers would vary from because it is good for you too because I grew up eating meat. Likewise, most people can agree that eating meat can be essential for the human body. However, in today’s society Veganism is trending more than ever. People are constantly convincing themselves that plant-

In the essay “Let Them Eat Dog”, Foer did just that to strengthen his point of view that dogs are really just another ordinary, to use his words “remarkably unremarkable…”(Foer) animals out in the wild. He quoted “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” from the famous allegorical novella – “Animal Farm” by George Orwell (Foer), which gives the reader a glance of inequality on how different animals are treated differently. Foer utilizing the quote to encourage the audience to think about what is it that makes it acceptable for the public to consume beef, pork, even horse meat but it is a taboo to eat dog. He makes it clear that if we truly treat all animals equally regardless of their kind, eating dogs should not be a taboo; it should be more acceptable and equalized just like the

Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.

Each generation is unique and has different perceptions, ideas, and people. Thoreau wants us to make the most of what is given to us and put aside all societal expectations. The biblical allusion of the dog and the lion indicates that a living dog is better than a dead lion because a dead lion can’t do anything since it’s dead. It doesn’t matter if we are dogs, we are at least alive and have possibility to be the best we can in the generation we are meant to be

In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).

This is proven to be wrong by many studies, shown in the article The Real Pit Bull. This article states that there jaw is not actually hard gripping. When placed in a study with a German Shepard and a Rottweiler, they have the lowest PSI, or pressure per square inch. In fact, the average domestic dog has a PSI of 320 whereas the Pit Bull maxed out at 235 PSI. Another myth is that they can hold onto something with their front teeth and chew with their back at the same time and that their jaws lock when they bite.

They are loving and caring just like any other small fluffy pet, they are just bigger in size. Pits are even used for service animals. Enos, a times writer, informed people that,“pitbulls help locate missing children and lost dementia patients. They are seizure watchdogs, diabetic alert dogs, comfort nursing home residents”(“The Problem with people”).

Good nutrition is a significant part of a healthy lifestyle and is a principle being taught every day around the world. The dilemma of hunger is faced by many countries; according to the World Food Programme, “795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active lifestyle” (“Hunger”). In Johnathan Safran Foer’s article, “Let Them Eat Dog,” published in the Wall Street Journal, he argues the ridiculous nature of the American cultural taboo of restricting society from the consumption of dogs for food. Foer begins the article first by talking about the reluctances of the consumption of dogs regardless of it being legal in the majority of states within the United States (Foer 689). He then discusses the positive effects of the removal of the taboo of the consumption of dogs such as the solution for hunger in the world and the depletion of natural resources.

Within the whole dog populace, 6% are that of pit bulls. Whilst they are originally bred as bully dogs, pit bulls transcended the notion and become more welcoming to human care. By the early 1900s, pit bulls are dubbed to be 'nanny dogs ' due to their caring and affectionate nature towards children and the elderly. And one unnoticed truth about dog attacks and pit bulls is that breeds aren’t really a factor if a dog would bite deep or not. The breed isn 't really accepted to be an essential factor in dog attacks, and so the misconception about pit bulls being a crazed dog breed isn 't really factual.

They both have ideas on how to end this problem so people in the world will not die or suffer from starvation. Although both articles “A Modest

The topic of factory processed meats is a very controversial topic. Is eating meat wrong? No, I have never thought eating meat was wrong; I just now think that we need to be more informed on where the meat we are consuming is coming from. It is our responsibility to be aware of what companies are treating their animals in a morally correct way and which companies are not so that we are knowledgeable when we go shopping at the grocery

In the article, “Against Meat,” author Jonathan Safran Foer discusses the moral level of eating meat, which is included in many diets in most people in America. He notes that as a child he loved the food that was prepared by his grandmother, who he considered as the best chef in the family. Furthermore, he also talks about the occasions like family gathering, all that he use to eat is meat (burger). Despite eating of meat mostly during family occasions, Foer decided to stop eating meat but rather eat more vegetables rather than eating all these meat foods. In addition, Foer himself writes “According to the U.S.D.A data by the advocacy group Farm Forward, factory farms now produce more that 99 percent of animals”.

In Norcross conclusion was don’t eat factory farm animal due to the way they were raised, not saying that we cannot meat but to mainly only open range growing animals. He uses argument by analogy as A has probably P, B is like A, therefore, B has probably P. This argument is A story of Fred in the situation of the puppies, B is a situation of animals raised in factory farms, P is that immortality of Perpetuating the situation. We covered the story of Fred and the puppies we said no that is wrong, even with the harvest cocoamones, in this discussion, one of the company dated then it must be morally right. Even if it enhances a gustatory experience.