n the PETA article, "The Deadly Consequences of 'No-Kill' Policies" an unknown author inquires why animals should be euthanized. Shelters are becoming increasingly overrun as the years progress. Stray animals roam the streets of populated cities. PETA offers a controversial solution, euthanasia. PETA continuously adds sorrow photographs of animals in cages, graphic wording throughout the article, and statistics to sway readers to support euthanizing pets. While the article does an effective job of tugging at the viewers emotions and presents logical claims, the whole article contradicts what the company stands for. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA, is one of the largest organization for animal rights. PETA strives to end all animal cruelty and is well known for their controversial and offensive campaigns. The American company mainly focuses on ending fur farming, factory farming, and animal testing. PETA's famous slogan, "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, …show more content…
Logos allows PETA to explain why people should be pro animal euthanasia with facts, statistics, and reasoning. To further their claim that the 'No Kill' policy is making the animal control problem worse, PETA explains that the "bodies of nearly 16,000 dogs and nearly 12,000 cats were scraped off the streets and properties in just one year" (Cit). PETA is using textual evidence to support that because of San Antonios 'No Kill' policy, the city is being flooded with homeless animals. This evidence shows the readers that PETA is not basing this article on bias and opinion. PETA continues with more statistics; "When one hoarding facility masquerading as a "rescue" in San Jose, California, caught fire, nearly 100 cats burned to death inside carriers, unable to flee while the plastic melted down on top of them" (Cit). These statistics show the reader that this is a real problem that needs to be
Every year over 100 million animals die in the US; the cause for these deaths, animal testing. This injustice to animals involves testing products such as medical drugs or makeup, on poor imprisoned animals that don’t have the ability to stand for their own rights as most of us do. Animals used for testing are given products that may result in burning, poisoning, or death. These animals are forced to live in confined spaces where they wait until the next horrible experiment. They are, tortured beyond imagination as they are sometimes even cut open while they are alive (know as vivisection), either with expired analgesics or even without them.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
The modern fight for animal rights has been geared toward factory farms and the removal of animal testing and ag-gag laws. Protection for test animals and farm animals has become an important focus for many animal rights groups including ASPCA. The end of uncomfortable and inhumane treatment of animals is still a fight thousands are fighting
As UNESCO the logo displayed in the image, it creates a sense of credibility due to it being a specialized agency for a highly respected intergovernmental organization of authoritative status. The use of logos within both images, although not as strongly used between both stakeholders, is still apparent. The primary image from PETA uses logos through the commonly known idea of keeping humans in cages being understood as a highly inhumane act. With this in mind, PETA creates the distinct comparison of caging humans to caging zoo animals, specifically tigers. Through this logical appeal, there becomes another perspective for those who disagree with the seemingly inhumane act of charging animals for human entertainment.
In Michael’s Pollan article, the author seeks to inform whether or not it 's correct to consume animals and the treatments they receive. Many animal right activist believe
There are also amazing things that they are trying to accomplish. Some of the best things that have happened recently are that has been for the animals is they have banned the import and the abuse of dogs in puppy mills (Establishment that breeds puppies, typically on an intensive basis and in conditions regarded as inhumane), banned the import, sale and the testing of animals in cosmetics in Europe and India, began transferring of 100s of chimps in labs to sanctuaries, stopped the killing of horses for human consumption, and stopped wolf hunting in Wyoming and Michigan. Those are just a few things that they have done. The list of things they are working on is very long too. They are working on protecting sharks from finning (the process of which people kill sharks and take the fins leaving the other parts in the ocean), elephants from ivory poachers (people who illegally hunt, and kill, elephants just for their ivory tusks), and even are saving Rhinos’ from horn trade. They also get companies to help raise awareness like Nestle. Nestle now has adopted amazing reforms for farm animals. The Humane Society even has created a big cat habitat for the tigers that were involved in trades. They are trying to put a stop to all the animal fighting clubs too. The Humane Society has worked so hard to provide more care to animals than any other organization in the world. They have helped, even saved more animals than you could imagine.
The Truth About No-Kill Animal Shelters. Examiner. The. N.p., 13 June 2012. Web. The Web.
Animals are beloved creatures among the human race, and are deeply cared for. As caretakers of pets, those caretakers have a responsibility to these animals. One of those responsibilities includes making sure all animals are properly taken care of and are placed in a loving home. Many of these poor animals, mostly cats and dogs, are cast unwanted onto the streets to fend for themselves. Once they are cast out, where are they to end up? The ones that survive being discarded by neglectful owners are usually found and taken to a nearby animal shelter. These shelters are set up and designed for stray animals to be taken care of until a new owner can be found. Shelters also graciously accept pets from owners who choose to surrender their animals, and are re-homed by the shelter. Some of these shelters have what is known as a no-kill policy, which states that any animal fit to be adopted out, will be. Other shelters do not have this policy, and will euthanize a healthy animal for a variety of reasons. The most common reason for euthanizing a healthy animal is space. Most shelters are not well funded, and cannot afford to take care of a large number of animals; unfortunately, more animals are being discarded than are taken in by local shelters. Though most people would claim that killing animals to make space is wrong, there are actually many practical reasons for it; in most cases shelters that lack a no-kill policy are better for the animals in the long run.
Animals are overpopulated, and it is costing countries money to euthanize, or use chemicals kill animals with a shot, animals. Money is also being taken for shelters to operate. Some countries didn’t pay for the euthanization of their pet problem though, they found another way to try to fix the issue. “.... the dogcatchers of New York caught 5,825 dogs, which were then placed into crates and lowered into the East River to drown.”(Jennifer Sexton and Tom Warhol, Domestic Animal Overpopulation). According to Jennifer Sexton and Tom Warhol in Domestic Animal Overpopulation, “Catching, feeding and caring for unwanted animals costs taxpayers and private agencies millions of dollars each year, as do adoption and education programs.” Citizens, animals, and shelters are affected by this issue of animal overpopulation. Citizens are affected because their taxes are being put to shelters, the shelters are then cost for chemicals to put the pets to sleep. The animals are th...
The strongest argument against the dog meat industry centers on the treatment of the dogs that are often killed by ?beating, strangling, [and] boiling? instead of more humane methods such as electrocution. Unnecessary cruelty against animals is universally considered wrong, and is in many cases illegal, and that is what makes this argument effective. Saletan addresses this argument logically, with the simple fact that in the interest of humane treatment of dogs ?South Korean lawmakers are proposing to legalize, license, and regulate the industry.? This simple fact exposes a fundamental hypocrisy within the opposing viewpoint. Saletan argues that it is the same activists who base their arguments on ending cruelty against dogs who are trying to keep new, more humane methods from being adopted. The activists condemn and deplore cruel ...
Animals are used today for many sources of protection, food, clothing, transportation, sports, entertainment, and labor, but millions of these animals die each year from abuse. “Most of the reasons that people give for denying animals rights are: animals do not have souls, god gave humans dominion over the animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, animals do not reason, think, or feel pain like humans do, animals are a natural resource to used as humans see fit, and animals kill each other” (Evans). It all started in the nineteenth century, when people began abusing animals by beating them, feeding them poorly, providing them with no shelter or poor shelter, left to die if they were sick or old, or by cruel sports. Most of the organized efforts to improve human treatment of animals all started in England. Around the 1800s, there was signs of rising concern for animal welfare in the United States.
Seeing maimed animals are not pleasant images. Those images sometimes appear across computer and television screens. The advocacy groups who place these images in the public’s view are trying to jolt people into the realization that abuse exists. For every ten seconds that goes by an animal is getting abused (“Animal… Statistics”). One statistic states that “71% of pet-owning women entering women’s shelters reported that their batterer had injured, maimed, killed or threatened family pets for revenge or to psychologically control victims; 32% reported their children had hurt or killed animals” (“Animal… Violence”). Animal cruelty comes in several forms, some of which people do not know. There is animal experimenting, animal abuse, and mistreatment of animals. and through revealing the results from research, one discovers the horrific effects of animal abuse.
Specifically, in Georgina Allen’s article, “Can Zoos still be a Good Place for Animals?” she recognizes the good zoos do, such as education and conservation, but also points out how numerous zoos are also responsible for animal cruelty. According to Allen, the issue “is not black or white, it’s not even 50 shades of gray, it’s a flamboyant multi-colored array of differing and passionate opinions” (Allen). Instead of asking for the abolishment of zoos, Allen offers a solution to what she feels would make zoos more acceptable in todays society: compassion. Compassionate zoos are the ones that should reign in the future, not the ones that participate in animal cruelty.
The ugly truth is that animals are dying at the hands of their owners everyday, some in very violent ways that can be avoidable given the right solution. Slaughterhouses, puppy mills, dog fighting, and so on, are just a few examples of how animals are being treated badly by people. Animal cruelty is a form of violence which, un...
Adams). Derrida maintains “meat eating is not a simple, natural phenomenon, but is irreducibly linked in our culture to masculinity along multiple material, ideological, and symbolic lines” (quoted in Adams). Despite the absence of “real” meat, the patriarchal myth of masculinity remains on its website: “men are strong, men need to be strong”, thus men need vegan bacon. With this in mind, PETA’s use of sexually explicit and misogynistic ads makes sense. The group is attempting to reach male meat eaters (“Make your ‘stock’ rise”) and assume the familiar patriarchal subject cannot and should not change. The reiteration of such advertisements show that apparently you have to keep participating in the traditional construction of maleness