Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Source 5, Video Documentary

http://www.videolinks4u.net/video/videos/205850/

Food Inc. Documentary

This documentary talked about how a lot of fast food corporations are going against health codes; And how they were keeping the public in the dark about what is going on in their factories. This ties into my groups argument, because most corporations miss treat (are cruel towards) the animals, in fact some animals in fast food industries never get to see the light of day (sunlight). This is one situation that proves that animals need to have their own rights.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Extra Credit Food Inc.- November 29, 2011

Central Argument:
The industries doesn't want you to know what your eating . The people have the right to know where and what is the food coming from that they are eating from fast foods and grocery stores. 

Assertion 1: The food companies don't want the farmers talking about what goes on behind the scenes to the public, because if the public knew the truth they might not want to eat their food.

Assertion 2: The whole industrial food system began with fast food.

Assertion 3: The in industries changed the entire way chickens,cows, and pigs are raised.

Assertion 4: After the decline of tobacco farmers went to chicken farming.

Assertion 5: The companies keep the farmers under their thumb because of the debt the farmers have to them, and their contract.

Assertion 6: A typical grower who have chicken houses barrows over 500,000 dollars. And earns about 18,000 dollars a year.

Assertion 7: There is a illusion of diversity of where your food comes from in grocery stores and fast food restraints.

Assertion 8: The government pays the corn farmers and other food farmers to over produce.

Assertion 9: Corn is the main component in food ingredients. And also corn is being used to feed the animals in food factories.

Assertion 10: The food factory farming is so caught of with technology and how its improving the economic growth. They will continue to treat animals with disrespect  and used to make different products of foods.

Assertion 11: As soon as when you want your farming industries to grow your going to view the things that are important to you like costumers, workers, and animals differently.

Opinion topic: The food incorporation are keeping the public in the dark about where their food is coming from, and what they are doing to them. They are also keeping the public in the dark about how they  are treating the animals and what they would do to make economic growth. The public as the right to this behind the scenes information for the fast food companies and all the food companies. Because the public eats and buys their product. 

Source 3


Summary: Germany was the first nation to include animal rights in its constitution, now they are finding new ways to replace animals in research.

Central Argument: Animals should have more of the same rights humans do.

Assertions: "Lawmakers said the government will also look at targeting more research funding to projects that seek alternatives to using animals for conducting experiments." & " Germany has become the first European nation to vote to guarantee animal rights in its constitution."

easybib.com

http://www.easybib.com/cite/view
jrargument_project@yahoo.com

Source 4,

<http://animalrights.about.com/od/companionanimalspets/a/Keeping_Pets.htm>


What are the Arguments For and Against Keeping Pets?
Do Animal Rights Activists Want to Take My Pets Away?

Because of pet overpopulation, just about all animal activists would probably agree that we should spay and neuter our cats and dogs. But there would be some disagreement if you were to ask whether we should breed cats and dogs if all the shelters were empty and there were good, loving homes available.
Animal industries such as the fur industry and factory farms try to discredit animal protection groups by claiming that activists want to take people’s pets away. While some animal rights activists do not believe in keeping pets, I can assure you that no one wants to take your dog away from you.

What are the arguments for keeping pets?

Many people consider their pets to be members of the family, and treat them with love and respect. The feeling often appears to be mutual, as our dogs and cats seek us out to play, to be petted, or to just simply sit in our laps. They provide unconditional love and devotion. To deny them and us this relationship seems unthinkable to some.
Also, keeping pets does not "use" the animals in the same way that factory farms, animal testing labs or circuses use and abuse the animals.
The Humane Society of the US argues that we should keep pets:
So, should we have pets? Of course. Pets are creatures with whom we share a world, and we rejoice in their companionship. You don’t have to anthropomorphizing to recognize that the feelings are returned. If we are wise enough to see, they teach us about humility and empathy and loyalty. Their eyes hold the spark of life, the same as ours. Let us be close and cherish each other always.
The vast majority of animal activists advocate spaying and neutering. However, most will say that the reason is the millions of cats and dogs who are killed in shelters every year, as opposed to any basic opposition to the keeping of pets.

What are the arguments against keeping pets?

Some animal activists argue that we should not keep or breed pets regardless of whether we have an overpopulation problem. There are two basic arguments against keeping and breeding pets.
One argument is that cats, dogs and other pets suffer too much at our hands. Theoretically, we may be able to provide good homes for our pets, and many of us do. However, in the real world, animals suffer abandonment, cruelty, and neglect.
Another argument is that even on a theoretical level, the relationship is inherently flawed and we are unable to provide the full lives that these animals deserve. Because they are bred to be dependent on us, the basic relationship between humans and companion animals is flawed because of the difference in power. PETA opposes keeping pets, partially for this reason:
Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to. Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety . . . Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litter-boxes and often have their digits removed by "declawing," and dogs often have to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

How does this issue play out in the real world?

The opposition to keeping pets must be distinguished from a call to release domesticated animals. They are dependent on us for their survival and it would be cruel to turn them loose on the streets or in the wilderness.
The position must also be distinguished from any desire to take anyone’s dogs and cats away. We have a duty to take care of the animals that are already here, and the best place for them is with their loving and caring human guardians. This is why animal rights activists who oppose keeping pets might have rescued pets themselves.
Activists who oppose keeping pets believe that domestic animals should not be allowed to breed. The animals that are already here should live long, healthy lives, cared for with love and respect by their human guardians.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Source 1, Animals as Property

1.)  Briefly (2-3 sentences) summarize the article.
     Animal should not be considered property under the law because unlike inanimate objects, they are sentient beings with their own lives and interests. Thus, the law should change the property status of animals to reflect the social values.

2.) Explain the passage's CENTRAL ARGUMENT. What claims does the author make?
     The author of this article claims that animals should not be considered property.

3.) Find TWO ASSERTIONS that support the central argument. Explain how each assertion contributes to the author's main argument.
     "In most cases, you have a legal right to destroy your own property. If someone decides to chop up their kitchen table and use it for firewood, that is their legal right. But if someone abuses or neglects an animal, they should be criminally prosecuted". This assertion shows/states the difference between pets and property.
     "Most Americans consider their animals to be part of the family". This assertion shows the common social value of pets to convince people that animals aren't property.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Source2, Veterinarians team up with Plastic Surgeons for "Dog Bite Prevention Week"

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may03/030515n.asp

 Briefly (2-3 sentences) summarize the article.= This article is mainly talking about ways to protect both dogs and owners. The author states that "dogs make great pets and enrich our lives", but they can be dangerous and owners need to realize remember that fact. The author goes on to list safety tips and cautionary rules that dog owners and the general public should consider.

Explain the passage's CENTRAL ARGUMENT. What claims does the author make?
= The article's central argument is that "while dogs make great pets, owners should be careful because they can be dangerous". The author claims that "dogs make great pets and enrich people's lives" & that "pet owners need to be more responsible when raising their pets".

Find TWO ASSERTIONS that support the central argument. Explain how each assertion contributes to the author's main argument.= No assertions are evident or Clearly stated...

Monday, November 7, 2011

Logos

Logical appeal because when people look at an image of global warming they think it's only logical to try and help with this problem.

Ethos

 This Is A Representation Of An Ethical Appeal because it shows the Authority of the U.S Government.

Pathos

This Picture is a representation of a patho because it invokes sadness and the feeling of suffering and concern.