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.