Response to Rifkin

Just as I had written in the essay we did in class, I responded to Rifkin's article by agreeing that animals are a lot alike us humans whether we like it or not. There is scientific evidence and just general ideas such as they give birth like we do, they react to pain like we do, and they eat and drink to survive like we do. And for some reason I began to think about turning the tables. Are WE a lot like them? But I think we try to be like them through our advancing technology. Maybe we got the idea of airplanes from flying birds, fast sports cars from jaguars, and the idea of being able to breathe underwater from fishes. Without the living functions of animals, we wouldn't be able to do those kinds of things. We unconsciously built our technology based upon animals. We somehow are like them as well.

Senior year

We are finally here, and we find ourselves wanting to be rid of high school. The first couple years were great, fun, easy, fast now this year all we want  is it to be out on our own. We want to have fun in our own ways, and not think once about school anymore. To put it straight guys we have a semester left; we can't slack off or get sick of school. This is the year you have been working toward, but this year will set the tone of your life. We hear this all to often now it`s either college, join the army, or just work. We all know that last option will get you minimum wage at a dead end job, military works for some people, but college if you have patience and work hard to get a masters or doctorate you can live comfortable. Life is hard, harder then it use to be. We need to make the right choices

Animal Rights

My feelings directly to the article "A Change of Heart about Animals" is half and half in my head... I haven't really picked a side, but I think after hearing what I say and what people have blogged about, I believe I may side the side that it is taking it could be taking it a bit too far. Personally, I think it would be difficult to draw a line somewhere. We do abuse animals a lot when we don't think about it, I think it's fair that they should have better animal rights, but isn't human rights a little too far? Animals were put on the Earth for us to use, to eat. Some animals can eat us too, dangerous creatures, though we don't know if they can be friendly. In my opinion, we should just treat animals with more care so they don't abuse us. Hitting them, cursing at them, caging them. I mean, I don't own any pets so I don't know what it's like to have own a domestic animal. We tame them, some people abuse them, some people experiment on animals, but most of us care for domestic animals. Some experiments are harmless, but can be used for data on the animal (to know more about the animal and to know what to do and what not to do with that creature). In conclusion, giving animals human rights is just taking it a bit too far, we don't know what they are really capable of... Some animals are very intelligent, but they aren't like us. Human and animal rights should be separate in my opinion.

Somewhere between the extremes.

All the animal rights arguments irritate me because it is very polarizing and there is no real answer. I hate questions like this because people try as hard as they can defend argument with no real facts. The vegetarians drown you with their argument. The animal experimenters drown you with their argument. Now scientist are even trying to judge if they should take an animals life based on whether it's smart or not. I know I have to pick a side, but I'm actually stuck in the middle. This is because I feel that killing animals for food and protection is justified, but killing animals in a cruel and unusual way is not. In the bible, it reads that some animals are meant to be killed and eaten. Also, killing predators that attack your sheep, or threaten our survival, is not a sin. This basic rule makes so much sense to me. Eating animals is a part of life; it is a way to sustain ourselves. Just because our society has evolved hunters to office workers, does not mean we have to change our diet. Also, we should  always have the right to protect ourselves from predators. But where I am against the killing of animals is when they are hurt and experimented on for no good reason. I've read stories of rabbits who have had their eyes melted away because a scientist is supposedly testing cosmetics. This is an example of cruelty that should be stopped. Especially because there are so many alternate ways to test the product, like skin cultures and virtual simulations. However, worrying about the animals intelligence or emotions is a little too far for me. The main reason we shouldn't be treating animals cruelly it because it is morally incorrect. Some people feel the reason should be because they are similar to us.  Does this mean that a gorilla should be pampered because it is similar and a turtle tortured because it is different? This argument makes no sense to me. In my opinion, a human is a human and  an animal is an animal. The sole reason should be because it is the right thing to do. So basically, I feel animals being killed for sustenance and protection is extremely reasonable, and I feel some pro-animal rights groups are being unreasonable. Converting the whole population to vegetarians is impossible, and treating animals like humans is ridiculous.

Animals and Humans

Reading the article "A Change of Heart about Animals" was very interesting to me. I found it interesting that a 300-pound gorilla was taught sign language, and honestly, that's pretty impressive. What I don't understand is why? Why does a 300-pound gorilla need to know sign language? Is it because it's cool to look at? Is it because people wanted to test the animal on it's learning ability? Who really knows? A gorilla needs to be in the wild roaming free, not in a session learning a new language. That is my opinion on that matter. Another topic in the article I found interesting was the research with the two birds. I was interested about how the female bird, Betty, was able to use her beak to wedge a wire through a crack and bend it with her beak to make a hook, grabbing a piece of food from the tube 9 out of 10 times. One questioned raised up in my head: How did she think to do that? And that is probably what the researchers were studying. I have no problem with animals having researched done on them, but there should be some type of limit to the research. What makes sense to test the animal on, and what doesn't. The article also started, " It's commonly believed that other animals have no sense of their mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of their own death. " Sometimes I believe that researchers know this and they take advantage of it. Sometimes the animals are treated in such a cruel way when they are being used for research and it shouldn't be like that. If an animal is going to be used for the project, they should be treated in a where it doesn't seem like a cruel and unusual punishment. Like I said before, I don't mind animals being used for research, but  do believe there should be a limit. 

I dont think we should be trying to give animals human rights because if you start with one species of animals on human rights then where will we draw the line? Although do you think we should be treating animals anyway we want and disregaurding them afterwards I dont really think thats right either. Would you want your pet (if you have one) to be kicked around during some stand-up act and then thrown out into the street afterwards. I believe we should be give the animals we use some sort of curtisy and not just use abuse and leave them to die.

Blogging

"We get some rules to follow, that and this, these and those." Those are lyrics from the song No One Knows by Queens of the Stone Age. Why are us students restricted from what we can blog about? I feel that if students got to blog about whatever we wanted to, we would be more motivated to blog or we would like it more than we do currently. I get that we have restrictions, but why do is it only things that happen in class? Why couldn’t students blog about current events? A perfect example would be the death of Paul Walker, or even the death of Brian Griffin from Family Guy! These would be perfect topics that students are interested in and would like to talk about for a while. Ms. Fletcher said that she just wants us to have conversations on the blogs and that would certainly let us students have conversations with each other. Another thing Ms. Fletcher wanted was to challenge ideas and to show what we like or dislike. Using the example from earlier, I totally disagree with Brian Griffins death in family guy and I could go on and on just on that topic alone. People always tell students in school to never be plain and to use our imagination, so why are students being limited?

Animal Repect vs Animal Rights

 I  am glad to know I 'm not the only one who thinks this whole animal rights thing is silly. I mean I love animals and I do believe they should be treated with respect. However, I don't believe they should be put at the same level as humans. I find when it comes to animal rights movements monkeys are always the prime subject. For some reason many people belive because of monkeys similarities and genetic backround they should be put at the same level as humans. I don't think that should happen, true monkeys do have a genetic connection to humans, but I think everyone's for getting there not humans physically or mentally. When monkeys start creating civilizations similar to our own and well meeting humans level then they can qualify.Now I know that sounds harsh but the truth hurts. Animals are not humans nor should they be treated as such. In the article "Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and "Dignity" to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?", a research monkey named Haisl is trying to achieve a human rights so he wont be homeless. I thinks its crazy to give a monkey a home when a lot of humans don't even have one. In another article German scientist were giving pigs toys so they wouldn't be depressed. Pigs? Really? What about all the little children who won't be receiving a gift for Christmas. Or what about the other 'depressed' animals. Should slugs be given toys now too. What you guys think?

Chimpanzees, Gorillas. Humans... They're All the Same!?

         Are you for or against animal's rights? Over the past couple of weeks we have been reading a packet filled with articles debating and informing us about animal rights research. I, personally, do not really agree that animals should have complete rights like that of humans. In the article "Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and "Dignity" to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?", I was very shocked to see that environmental committees are attempting to give legal rights to chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans. In paragraph three of this article it basically says that scientists would no longer be able to use these creatures for experiments. I questioned this by asking "Why only these animals? What about the rest?" So I looked up online and discovered that chimpanzees are humans closest living relatives. (http://www.livescience.com/7929-human-evolution-closest-living-relatives-chimps.html) I feel that knowing this, it should be okay for scientists to use these animals for useful experiments that could help mankind. For example. What if you or a relative or a close friend had a disease that doctors didn't know the cure to? Would you want them to experiment on you to find a cure? Or would you want them to give the disease to an animal some how and then look for cures? Or what if they had a cure for the disease but they found it by testing on animals? Would you not want the cure because they had to test on animals to find it? NO! Because obviously your life is more important than that of the animal. If these animals aren't being experimented on just for fun, what's the problem with it? Plus, it's not like they're going extinct! So do you still agree that animals shouldn't be tested on?

Is there a resemblance?

people first, animals second

Bob Stevens in response to "A Change of Heart about Animals" asks if 'animals are more important than human children'? This really stuck with me because in our society it seems as if we treat animals more importantly than humans sometimes. I tend to see more commercials about helping animals throughout the world then I do helping humans throughout the world. I am not saying animals shouldn't be cared about, but I feel our priorities should be leaning more towards help out our fellow humans and then we can help the animals. I believe that helping starving children is slightly more important than giving animals rights, and making sure pigs are happy. We need to get our affairs in order before we worry about another's.

Waiting for results....

        Well here I am again ranting about college. I'm going to admit I'm starting to become a bit jealous of my friends that are beginning to receive their college acceptance letters. Don't get me wrong, I love to hear about their acheivements but a part of me feels a bit lame for not being able to share such good news with them. I feel like I should've invested more time into looking for the right college for me. This whole process is so new to me and I still have no idea as to what to do when it comes to applying for out-of-states and looking for scholarships and financial aid and what not. And being the stubborn person that I am, I prefer to figure it out on my own rather than asking for help. That is a habit that I'm trying to break because right now I need help. I really want to make my family proud by being the first to apply, attend and graduate from a four year college and I also want to be able to set up a good foundation for the rest of my life.
        I finally made the decision to major in Kinesiology and I'm not sure which college would be the best for my field of study. Everything is feeling so rushed right now. I feel like I didn't have enough time with actually checking out schools that had that major. I have current school work, winterguard practices, homework, tests that i needed to study for and on top of that everyone is rushing me to fill out applications as soon as possible. And now that all of the applications are over I have to wait for the results and start thinking about financial aid. I'm so overwhelmed at this point. I'm just scared that I am missing something. Does anyone else feel this way or is it just me?

Where do we draw the line?

In the articles we have read in class, such as "A Change of Heart about Animals" and "Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and "Dignity" to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?", have changed my mind on the issue of animal rights. I am the last person anyone would call an "animal person", so when I saw the headlines of these articles I was a little uneasy. However, once I read "A Change of Heart about Animals" by Jeremy Rifkin, my mind began to reconsider. I do believe animals deserve to be treated humanely, because it is proven that animals feel pain and stress. No animal should be beaten, starved, etc... Elephants even have the mental capacity to mourn the loss of their children. However, the article  "Of  Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and "Dignity" to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?" was not as convincing. In paragraph 4, a Primatologist said that "I do think we have special obligations to the great apes as our closest relatives, but if we give rights to apes, what would be the compelling reason not to give rights to monkeys, dogs, rats, and so on?", a question in which I don't really know the answer too. The real question is where do we draw the line? Where do we say that it's to much?

[5 ways to fix run-on sentences.]

I really enjoyed this lesson that Ms. Fletcher taught us. I always that the only way you could fix a run-on sentence was to either delete the whole thing, or just separate it somehow. Ms. Fletcher showed us the different ways to handle that type of situation and still make it flow. My favorite way she explained to us was number 4 (I believe), which was how to use a semi colon correctly. 

DEPENDENT + [;] INDEPENDENT = CORRECT STRUCTURE.

Basically, it is only write to use the semi colon when you trying to connect two clauses that have the same subject. She always showed us that you can use the semi colon and attach a independent marker word, such as: however, consequently, therefore, and many others. You would use the marker word at the beginning of the independent clause.

Overall, I found this grammar lesson a very helpful one. I appreciate the help and assistance Ms. Fletcher gave us. Does anyone else agree that this lesson was kind of mind changing? That it kind of broke the common barriers of how we should repair run-on/fused sentences?

I guess Fletch being a "snoot" was helpful overall! 

Give animals rights or just think about their feelings?

   "A Change of Heart about Animals", written by Jeremy Rifkin is about how animals are very similar to human beings.  Who knew animals experience affection, depression, excitement or stress?  Rifkin talks about a study that compares humans and rats, which shows that when “they play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine” which is related with excitement in human beings.

    Rifkin emphasizes that animals should have better treatment due to the lack of compassion animals are given. Rifkin concentrates on how animals are intelligent creatures and need to be protected. This made me think about the last time my family and I went to the zoo. The animals did look unhappy and some even turned their backs to people. It’s like the animals are being put in jail that’s probably why they attack people, they’re depressed. They are taken away from their family and their home for our own enjoyment. I don’t think that’s right. I wouldn’t want to be taken away from my family and have to live in a room or a cage for the rest of my life.

    Bob Stevens questions Rifkin’s article and believes he’s trying to convince us that animals should have more rights than humans. He knows that animals have feelings but he also knows they cannot perform task such as “writing a poem or grocery list”.  

     I think we should take the animals feelings into consideration. I understand they are not human and cannot complete everyday task like we do but, they do have feelings. Think about how it feels to be neglected or unloved, you would not want to feel that every day so why should the animals? I do not think they should have rights but, I think they should be treated better than how they are being treated. Don’t you?

Fish are friends, not food.

       Or are they? Can fish be comparable to us, humans?  In the article, “Do fish feel pain?” makes me skeptical of the reasons to agree with Braithwaite. Her main argument in the article is that fish can feel pain, like humans can. I argue that how pain perception works for humans is not comparable to fish pain. We experience sprained ankles, broken bones, and sore muscles. Fish cannot and will not fit in that category of human pain. Do you guys agree or disagree? During class I couldn’t help but want to research argumentative points for this article point of focus. What does this article mean for those who use fish? It’s considered a food item to me. I personally view fish as pets or food, not comparable with humans in any way. Is the focus on fish being hurt and that humans are the blame? No way. I think there is often a lack of similarity between any animals and humans. We experience conscious pain and fish do not. I want to raise the question to my classmates to see if fish should be friends and not food? Are fish the same as everyone else on the Earth? And should fish have animal rights? I say no. Do you?

Should Animals Have Rights?

In “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin states that scientists are finding more similarities between humans and animals. He starts off with how animals can experience feelings such as stress, affection, excitement, love, etc. Rifkin then provides research and examples showing the development of the animals and the way they handle situations. He explains how a bird uses her beak to bend a wire for food, and how the gorilla, Koto, has mastered more than one thousand signs and understands several thousand words. Based off of these examples and a few others, Rifkin has come to the conclusion that animals need better treatment. He believes that animals should be treated with care and respect because of the strong similarities they share with humans. In response to Rifkin’s view about animals, Bob Stevens provides a reason of why we shouldn’t have “empathy” for animals. Stevens explains how other animals naturally kill each other and how they don’t care about the feelings of their prey. Because of this fact, he believes that humans shouldn’t be any different. Stevens then goes on to show how Rifkin believes that pigs need to be provided with toys for social contact, and he compares it to “human children” who don’t have toys. Stevens uses Rifkin’s information to show that humans are more important than animals; therefore animals don’t need rights. According to these different views from Rifkin and Stevens about animals, I would have to agree with Rifkin that animals should be treated better. If animals have feelings then we should not abuse them. What do you think?

AF: ERWC Winter Blogging

Written by E. Phinizy, and swiped by A. Fletcher :)

It's that time again: Time to take our discussion online.  For this round you need to initiate one discussion and comment on two.  Remember to refer to the texts as sources as well as that which keeps your ideas focused.

Procrastination will not work this time, gang.  You've got to start earlier on your entries.  I cannot envision the alternative as even "basically fine" participation.  There is nothing genuine about a discussion when most of the members arrive with five minutes left.

Also, the rules netiquette apply; so, keep the flamewars and trolling to yourself.


The texts:

• Braithwaite, Victoria. “Hooked on a Myth: Do Fish Feel Pain?” Los Angeles Times 8 Oct. 2006: M5. Print.
   
• Edlund, John R. “Letters to the Editor in Response to ‘A Change of Heart About Animals.’” 2003. Print.

• Edlund, John R. “Three Ways to Persuade.” 2011. Print.
   
• Rifkin, Jeremy. “A Change of Heart About Animals.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times 1 Sept. 2003: B15. Print
   
• Yong, Ed. “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and ‘Dignity’ to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?” Seed. Seed Magazine, 12 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Jul. 2012.