Namit Arora in his article On Eating Animals denounces Americans’ everyday obliviousness towards the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. With an accusatory tone Arora reaches out to meat-eating Americans that aren’t aware of the cruelty present in the meat industry. Furthermore, Arora writes to expose the hypocrisy of Americans who claim to be pro-animal despite their ignorance of the malice and the mistreatment of livestock in slaughterhouses. The context of this piece is the media’s reactions to cows escaping their doom and the modern day indifference of society toward the inhumanity of slaughterhouses. With grotesque imagery
Odysseus decides to pray to the gods to end their hunger, but to no avail. A character named Eurylochus then suggests that the men eat the cattle, explaining that they should not listen to Odysseus because, in his opinion famine is the worst form of death. “‘Comrades,’ he said, ‘You’ve gone through everything: listen to what I have to say. All deaths are hateful to us, mortal wretches, but famine is the most pitiful, the worst end that man can come to’” (863-867).
For example, some people state that pit bull breeds have locking jaws. They also generalize and say that they are overly aggressive towards human beings. It is also their view that pit bulls are dangerous to adopt, especially if one has no known history and parentage from a shelter or rescue is not known (Dickey 63). There is also a widespread myth that pit bulls are preferred by people with irresponsible breeding habits; effectively stating that pit bulls attract the most irresponsible and worst form of dog owners (Marrs). All these perceptions and myths have only served to malign pit bulls and to make them unattractive to the majority of people in the society.
While returning to his first arguments about how critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable should acknowledge that many animals have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain or death on an animal, then it is wrong to hunt. Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter’s survival.
In spite of Odysseus’s warning, the crew is unable to restrain itself, slaughtering and consuming the cows of Helios to satiate the primal need to feast, despite knowing that they would likely die as a result of doing so. Human beings are programed for survival, just like all other animals. This makes the actions of Odysseus’s crew, their willingness to lay down their lives for a meal, so poignant. In contrast with the fate crew members meet at the hand of Polyphemus, this decision is a conscious suicide. The entire situation is pitiful, especially because it Eurylochus, a trusted advisor and friend to Odysseus, that leads the charge.
It begins the passage with an idealistic scene and then upsets the reader with the idea that animals are simply food with the word “mutton.” It convinces the reader with an emotional scene to agree to Dixon’s standpoint. This contrast between heartwarming and cold also changes the perception of the scene. The final method the author uses is examples to further prove his point.
In the novel were references to rats and workers falling into tubs of meats, which inspired disgust and helped to bring the Meat Inspection of 1906 to life. Since then the public has come to assume that meat is inspected according to government standards to protect consumers, but much evidence indicates that throughout the time bribery of government meat inspectors and deception has resulted in the imposing of much unhealthy meat on the American public. In the end of the 20th century, reports of unclean conditions in meatpacking plants, marketing of unsafe mat, and paid-off inspectors were still imminent, and millions of Americans were suffering from food poisoning as a result of such
Singer then acknowledges our first response: Bob is a monster. However, then he points out how we are all Bob’s position when we are “able but unwilling to donate to overseas aid.” (9). By giving Bob’s narrative before starting his argument he allows the reader to develop feelings of anger and disappointment toward Bob. Singer then explains how by not giving to charities we are also killing children.
Here Huppke excites, “WHO THE HELL SPELLS ‘FLAVOR’ WITH A ‘U’?” Sure, this is a stupid mistake, but it’s such a small mistake. Huppke is making fun of Americans because they would use this as an excuse to say, “well the organization is obviously not trustable.” He presents that Americans tend to find excuses, small or big, to keep them from accepting the truth. Which in this case is that processed meat, specifically bacon, is harmful for our human
Upton Sinclair is the author of the book The Jungle. The Jungle was written to tell the public about the conditions of workplaces, particularly in the meat packing industries. Sinclair used graphic words to describe the rotten, nasty, and contaminated meat. As History.com (2016) states, the thought of what their food was going through hit the public hard in the stomach, but that was not the impact that Sinclair had in mind. History.com (2016) came to this conclusion becasue the information recieved from the book.
Debunking pit bull 's monster-like image When someone saw a pit bull, the initial reaction will surely include the sheer fear of being ravished and bitten. With their raucous look and the influences shown and injected to us by mass media, these canine breeds often are the subject of criticism. Let 's all admit the fact that there 's something in pit bulls that terrified us, even on the context of just visualizing them, and much as there are lots of people who contest the bad light shone on them, we just cannot shake the scare. They say that dogs are 'man 's best friend ' and unfortunately, pit bulls are not on your top picks to bet if you choose to be a dog 's foster parent.
“The Moral Crusade Against Foodies,” an article where Myers spends his time pontificating a handful of elitist foodies has grabbed the attention of many. Myers has managed to make a lot of enemies with this piece, one being Ethan Kahn, a Washington Post reporter who decided to fight back in his article titled “A Response to B.R. Myers.” He attempts to expose the many weak aspects of Myers argument, giving us a new perspective of the article as a whole. For the first half of Kahn’s article he discusses that Myers fails to address any positive impacts of foodie culture.
Similar to her discussion of abortion Hursthouse’s discussion of animal cruelty strays away from the typical debate. Usually, discussions of animal cruelty center around the metaphysical status of animals (i.e. Are they conscious? Do they have rights?). Instead, most of her discussion is tied up with the virtue of compassion.