Julian Connerton
September 21
Singer and Pollan, two men, two different beliefs, and one endless argument. Both sides felt strongly about what they believed in and both sides displayed a handful of valid arguments and ways to counteract the others opinion or facts. Singer’s view is that eating and killing animals is inhumane because he thinks that the animals have feelings and shouldn’t be treated like just pieces of meat, Singer is upset that animals get slaughtered for their bodies and used to eat, he believes that these animals should have been able to live a full life and be slaughtered in the most humane ways possible. Which is very understandable, some people have a lot of respect for the environment and what it brings to the world. I feel as if this belief can’t be anything but respected because no matter how much we want to argue about eating a pig or a cow, they all help the environment in some way shape or form. On the other hand, Pollan believes the opposite, which is that it is perfectly fine to eat and kill animals. I relate to this because, me myself, I am a big chicken, pork, and beef fan all that good food makes my mouth water writing this essay.
I feel as if this same controversial argument has been going on for a very long time, not just with Singer and Pollan. But with a whole bunch of other activistwho share the same beliefs. Some people who believe in not eating meat, don’t just not eat meat. They may just not trust the farms that these pigs, cows or lamb come from. The people who lack trust in some of the farms that raise these animals, may eat farm fresh or they may go to the farm and watch the way these animals are living and the way they are slaughtered. While I understand both sides of the argument, my own view may favor both sides but lean towards another. I eat meat, its that simple, and that won’t stop, but I also sometimes disagree with the way some of these farms treat their animals, I don’t believe animals have a conscious, but any living thing should be treated with at least a little bit of respect. Even though in the past we as humans would hunt, skin and then eat these animals. The still lived a good healthy and free life. Some people just don’t understand that this topic of eating meat has been going on for millions of years.
In one of Singers arguments he claims that people eating and killing animals can be compared to “a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”. (Paragraph 2). I personally thought that was a very risky description, because it is a touchy subject and in my eyes that cannot be compared to racism at all. Pollan states, and I quote “Animals kill one another all the times. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is a very logical point; in which it makes you think about the animal’s lives including yours and how you treat animals and other people. Pollan played a very smart roll using that as an argument, because of the simple fact that he used a common-sense fact. Instead of going all the way out of his way to get clarification on a point that didn’t need to be proven or justified. They are two very respectable arguments, and it is up to you to decide which one you will support.
In this verbal war, reinforcements were called just like every war or fight. So, they both didn’t do this alone, Singer had a couple of sources he used to help prove his point and so did Pollan. Singer went around and talked to a handful of people and got their opinions on the situations who are in support of animal rights. Another one of Singer’s sources is a man who goes by the name of “J.M. Coetzee”, he states “Will history someday judge us as harshly as it judges the Germans who went about their ordinary lives in the shadow Treblinka?” (Paragraph 20) then after he tries and states that point, “a crime of stupefying proportions”. (Paragraph 20). This quote means, that maybe one day we will get judged and punished for eating meat.
As well as Singer, Pollan had to bring his reinforcements to help him prove his point and back his arguments up. Most of Pollan’s points that he personally made without the help of anyone else were really helpful on his part. In Pollan’s view as well as mine, A man who goes by the name of Descartes’s writes, “animals cannot feel pain because they lack a soul” (paragraph 36).He then begins to relate his argument to the way scientist test the medicines that help treat us, the way “researchers study head trauma by traumatizing chimpanzee heads” (paragraph 36), and “psychologist attempt to induce depression and learned helplessness” (paragraph 36). Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett is one of Pollan’s allies and he suggests to “draw a distinction between pain, which a great many of animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command” (paragraph 37). Basically, his point is if you try to create or attempt to find a way to understand an animal’s reaction to death or anything bad, that you wouldn’t be able to, because we as humans have no way of really understand what goes on in an animal’s mind or head. Humans have plenty of different ways of reacting to suffering and it is a handful of different emotions that these animals do not have. Including the feelings of loss, sadness, worry, regret, or self-pity. On that note, to pretty much end that argument that Pollan placed at hand, Dennett writes “If we fail to find suffering in the animals lives we can see, we can rest assured there is no visible suffering” (paragraph 40).
When I first heard about what we were going to be reading about in class, I personally thought it was a very pointless argument and that it would do nothing but, make me think about why am I even writing this paper? But I was mistaken, this “endless conversation” made me realize a bunch of things, including no matter what I personally believe in and how strongly I feel about that certain belief, there is someone else out there that either feels the exact same way and there is also someone out there that totally disagrees with how I feel. To sum up my belief, I believe that us as humans were bread from way back when to eat meat, even though we can survive without it, it has been a part of how we do things for a very long time. It is a part of our full development as a species. Pollan personally has won my support in his argument, I just think Singer’s arguments are just empty and don’t prove as many points as he needs, because when you think about it, Singer is trying to argue a point that is not as common to the regular human being. Most of the human population will demolish a nice cheesesteak or a burger if you put it in front of them and they are hungry. My point is Pollan believed in the more common side of the argument so he already has a support boost, and then Singer does not help himself with his allies.
September 19
Singer and Pollan, two men, two different beliefs, and one endless argument. Both sides felt strongly about what they believed in and both sides had a handful of valid arguments and ways to counteract the others opinion or facts. Singer’s view is that eating and killing animals is inhumane because he thinks that the animals have feelings and shouldn’t be treated in those ways. On the other hand, Pollan believes the opposite, which is that it is perfectly fine to eat and kill animals. In one of Singers arguments he claims that people eating and killing these animals can be compared to “a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”. (Paragraph 2). I personally thought that was a very risky description, because it is a touchy subject and in my eyes that cannot be compared to racism at all. Pollan states, and I quote “Animals kill one another all the times. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is a very logical point; in which it makes you think about the animal’s lives including yours and how you treat animals and other people.
In this verbal war, reinforcements were called just like every war or fight. So, they both didn’t do this alone, Singer had a couple of sources he used to help prove his point and so did Pollan. Singer went around and talked to a handful of people and got their opinions on the situations who are in support of animal rights. Another one of Singer’s sources is a man who goes by the name of “J.M. Coetzee”, he states that “Will history someday judge us as harshly as it judges the Germans who went about their ordinary lives in the shadow Treblinka?” (Paragraph 20) then after he tries and states that point, “a crime of stupefying proportions”. (Paragraph 20). This quote means, that maybe one day we will get judged and punished for eating meat.
As well as Singer, Pollan had to bring his reinforcements to help him prove his point and back his arguments up. Most of Pollan’s points that he personally made without the help of anyone else were really helpful on his part. In Pollan’s view as well as mine, Pollan himself writes, “animals cannot feel pain because they lack a soul” (paragraph 36). He then begins to relate his argument to the way scientist test the medicines that help treat us, the way “researchers study head trauma by traumatizing chimpanzee heads” (paragraph 36), and “psychologist attempt to induce depression and learned helplessness” (paragraph 36). Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett is one of Pollan’s allies and he suggests to “draw a distinction between pain, which a great many of animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command” (paragraph 37). Basically, his point is if you try to create or attempt to find a way to understand an animal’s reaction to death or anything bad, that you wouldn’t be able to, because we as humans have no way of really understand what goes on in an animal’s mind or head. Humans have plenty of different ways of reacting to suffering and it is a handful of different emotions that these animals do not have. Including the feelings of loss, sadness, worry, regret, or self-pity. On that note, to pretty much end that argument that Pollan placed at hand, Dennett writes “If we fail to find suffering in the animals lives we can see, we can rest assured there is no visible suffering” (paragraph 40).
When I first heard about what we were going to be reading about in class, I personally thought it was a very pointless argument and that it would do nothing but, make me think about why am I even writing this paper? But I was mistaken, this “endless conversation” made me realize a bunch of things, including no matter what I personally believe in and how strongly I feel about that certain belief, there is someone else out there that either feels the exact same way and there is also someone out there that totally disagrees with how I feel. To sum up my belief, I believe that us as humans were bread from way back when to eat meat, even though we can survive without it, it has been a part of how we do things for a very long time. It is a part of our full development as a species. I don’t think either of Singer’s or Pollan’s arguments are wrong because I have no room to judge another person’s beliefs. This was a very interesting way of making me realize a lot about a belief that I never would’ve thought two people felt so strongly about.
September 23
An Animals Place Essay
Singer and Pollan, two men, two different beliefs, and one endless argument. Both sides felt strongly about what they believed in and both sides displayed a number of valid arguments and ways to counteract the others opinion or facts. Singer’s view is that eating and killing animals is inhumane because he thinks that the animals have feelings and shouldn’t be treated like just pieces of meat, Singer is upset that animals get slaughtered for their bodies and used to eat, he believes that these animals should have been able to live a full life and be slaughtered in the most humane ways possible. Which is very understandable, some people have a lot of respect for the environment and what it brings to the world. I feel as if this belief can’t be anything but respected because no matter how much we want to argue about eating a pig or a cow, they all help the environment in some way shape or form. On the other hand, Pollan believes the opposite, which is that it is perfectly fine to eat and kill animals. Pollan and I share something jn common from the start of this reading, and that is his belief, I also am a big meat fan and that is not to bash on Singer’s belief it is just to show how I feel and how I relate to Pollan.
I feel as if this same controversial argument has been going on for a very long time, not just with Singer and Pollan. But with a whole bunch of other activistswho share the same beliefs. Some people who believe in not eating meat, don’t just not eat meat. They may just not trust the farms that these pigs, cows or lamb come from. The people who lack trust in some of the farms that raise these animals, may eat farm fresh or they may go to the farm and watch the way these animals are living and the way they are slaughtered. While I understand both sides of the argument, my own view may favor both sides but lean towards another. I eat meat, it’s that simple, and that won’t stop, but I also sometimes disagree with the way some of these farms treat their animals, I don’t believe animals have a conscious, but any living thing should be treated with at least a little bit of respect. Even though in the past we as humans would hunt, skin and then eat these animals. The still lived a good healthy and free life. Some people just don’t understand that this topic of eating meat has been going on for millions of years.
In one of Singers arguments he claims that people eating and killing animals can be compared to “a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”. (Paragraph 2). I personally thought that was a very risky description, because it is a touchy subject and in my eyes that cannot be compared to racism at all. Pollan states, and I quote “Animals kill one another all the times. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is a very logical point; in which it makes you think about the animal’s lives including yours and how you treat animals and other people. Pollan played a very smart roll using that as an argument, because of the simple fact that he used a common-sense fact. Instead of going all the way out of his way to get clarification on a point that didn’t need to be proven or justified. They are two very respectable arguments, and it is up to you to decide which one you will support.
In this verbal war, reinforcements were called just like every war or fight. So, they both didn’t do this alone, Singer had a couple of sources he used to help prove his point and so did Pollan. Singer went around and talked to a handful of people and got their opinions on the situations who are in support of animal rights. Another one of Singer’s sources is a man who goes by the name of “J.M. Coetzee”, he states “Will history someday judge us as harshly as it judges the Germans who went about their ordinary lives in the shadow Treblinka?” (Paragraph 20) then after he tries and states that point, “a crime of stupefying proportions”. (Paragraph 20). This quote means, that maybe one day we will get judged and punished for eating meat. I believe that if this was a true statement, we as a human race would have been punished a very long time ago for eating meat. This perfectly represents my point that some people get so indulged in their beliefs that they forget their common sense. We have been eating meet for the longest time, and we will be “judged and punished”. The people who eat meat already get judged by people like singer so that makes sense. But like I stated, we should have already been punished if that was going to happen.
As well as Singer, Pollan had to bring his reinforcements to help him prove his point and back his arguments up. Most of Pollan’s points that he personally made without the help of anyone else were really helpful on his part. In Pollan’s view as well as mine, A man who goes by the name of Descartes’s writes, “animals cannot feel pain because they lack a soul” (paragraph 36).He then begins to relate his argument to the way scientist test the medicines that help treat us, the way “researchers study head trauma by traumatizing chimpanzee heads” (paragraph 36), and “psychologist attempt to induce depression and learned helplessness” (paragraph 36). Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett is one of Pollan’s allies and he suggests to “draw a distinction between pain, which a great many of animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command” (paragraph 37). Basically, his point is if you try to create or attempt to find a way to understand an animal’s reaction to death or anything bad, that you wouldn’t be able to, because we as humans have no way of really understanding what goes on in an animal’s mind or head. Humans have plenty of different ways of reacting to suffering and it is a handful of different emotions that these animals do not have. Including the feelings of loss, sadness, worry, regret, or self-pity. On that note, to pretty much end that argument that Pollan placed at hand, Dennett writes “If we fail to find suffering in the animals lives we can see, we can rest assured there is no visible suffering” (paragraph 40).
When I first heard about what we were going to be reading about in class, I personally thought it was a very pointless argument and that it would do nothing but, make me think about why am I even writing this paper? But I was mistaken, this “endless conversation” made me realize a bunch of things, including no matter what I personally believe in and how strongly I feel about that certain belief, there is someone else out there that either feels the exact same way and there is also someone out there that totally disagrees with how I feel. To sum up my belief, I believe that us as humans were bread from way back when to eat meat, even though we can survive without it, it has been a part of how we do things for a very long time. It is a part of our full development as a species. Pollan personally has won my support in his argument, I just think Singer’s arguments are just empty and don’t prove as many points as Pollan did and he didn’t prove as many points as he needed to for his argument, because when you think about it, Singer is trying to argue a point that is not as common to the regular human being. Most of the human population will demolish a nice cheesesteak or a burger if you put it in front of them and they are hungry. My point is Pollan believed in the more common side of the argument, so he already has a support boost, and then Singer does not help himself with his allies.
Even though I weigh into Pollan’s arguments more and play his side as well, Singer had his moments of shine as well as Pollan. Some of Singer’s points weren’t bad, and he also helped me open up my eyes to the problem at hand. Which is the way some of these animals are treating in these farms. So even if Singer didn’t win my whole support, he did his part in making this problem noticeable, and making me realize that these animals are not being treated correctly. I don’t support the way these animals are treated, and I do support Singer in his supports of bringing awareness to the way these animals are treated.
September 24
Final An Animals Place Essay
Singer and Pollan, two men, two different beliefs, and one endless argument. Both sides felt strongly about what they believed in and both sides displayed a number of valid arguments and ways to counteract the others opinion or facts. Singer’s view is that eating and killing animals is inhumane because he thinks that the animals have feelings and shouldn’t be treated like just pieces of meat, Singer is upset that animals get slaughtered for their bodies and used to eat, he believes that these animals should have been able to live a full life and be slaughtered in the most humane ways possible. Which is very understandable, some people have a lot of respect for the environment and what it brings to the world. I feel as if this belief can’t be anything but respected because no matter how much we want to argue about eating a pig or a cow, they all help the environment in some way shape or form. On the other hand, Pollan believes the opposite, which is that it is perfectly fine to eat and kill animals. Pollan and I share something jn common from the start of this reading, and that is his belief, I also am a big meat fan and that is not to bash on Singer’s belief it is just to show how I feel and how I relate to Pollan.
I feel as if this same controversial argument has been going on for a very long time, not just with Singer and Pollan. But with a whole bunch of other activistswho share the same beliefs. Some people who believe in not eating meat, don’t just not eat meat. Pollan took a trip to Polyface farm and that is how he made me realize that people, may just not trust the farms that these pigs, cows or lamb come from. The people who lack trust in some of the farms that raise these animals, may eat farm fresh or theymaygo to the farm and watch the way these animals are living and the way they are slaughtered. While I understand both sides of the argument, my own view may favor both sides but lean towards another. I eat meat, it’s that simple, and that won’t stop, but I also sometimes disagree with the way some of these farms treat their animals, I don’t believe animals have a conscious, but any living thing should be treated with at least a little bit of respect. Even though in the past we as humans would hunt, skin and then eat these animals. The still lived a good healthy and free life. Some people just don’t understand that this topic of eating meat has been going on for millions of years.
In one of Singers arguments he claims that people eating and killing animals can be compared to “a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”. (Paragraph 2). I personally thought that was a very risky description, because it is a touchy subject and in my eyes that cannot be compared to racism at all. Pollan states, and I quote “Animals kill one another all the times. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is a very logical point; in which it makes you think about the animal’s livesincluding yours and how you treat animals and other people. Pollan played a very smart roll using that as an argument, because of the simple fact that he used a common-sense fact. Instead of going all the way out of his way to get clarification on a point that didn’t need to be proven or justified. They are two very respectable arguments, and it is up to you to decide which one you will support.
In this verbal war, reinforcements were called just like every war or fight. So, they both didn’t do this alone, Singer had a couple of sources he used to help prove his point and so did Pollan. Singer went around and talked to a handful of people and got their opinions on the situation, who are in support of animal rights. Another one of Singer’s sources is a man who goes by the name of “J.M. Coetzee”, he states “Will history someday judge us as harshly as it judges the Germans who went about their ordinary lives in the shadow of Treblinka?” (Paragraph 20) then after he tries and states that point, “a crime of stupefying proportions”. (Paragraph 20). This quote means, that maybe one day we will get judged and punished for eating meat. While Singer compares eating meat to a form of racism, I believe that argument set his argument was flawed. And my honest opinion on that situation won’t change. I still believe that that was an argument that was risky, and it set me off. Yes, you can compare the two, but only to a certain extent. One reason is that, people and animals are two totally different things. To this day we still own dogs and cats. Do we still have the right to own humans? No. In your eyes which was the bigger problem if they were to be weighed in? Not to say the argument of animals being mistreated is not valid, but you just can’t compare racism to the argument of animals being mistreated. I say that this “point” was risky because someone can easily take that the wrong way.
As well as Singer, Pollan had to bring his reinforcements to help him prove his point and back his arguments up. Most of Pollan’s points that he personally made without the help of anyone else were really helpful on his part. In Pollan’s view as well as mine, A man who goes by the name of Descartes’s writes, “animals cannot feel pain because they lack a soul” (paragraph 36).He then begins to relate his argument to the way scientist test the medicines that help treat us, the way “researchers study head trauma by traumatizing chimpanzee heads” (paragraph 36), and “psychologist attempt to induce depression and learned helplessness” (paragraph 36). Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett is one of Pollan’s allies and he suggests to “draw a distinction between pain, which a great many of animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command” (paragraph 37). Basically, his point is if you try to create or attempt to find a way to understand an animal’s reaction to death or anything bad, that you wouldn’t be able to, because we as humans have no way of really understanding what goes on in an animal’s mind or head. Humans have plenty of different ways of reacting to suffering and it is a handful of different emotions that these animals do not have. Including the feelings of loss, sadness, worry, regret, or self-pity. On that note, to pretty much end that argument that Pollan placed at hand, Dennett writes “If we fail to find suffering in the animals lives we can see, we can rest assured there is no visible suffering” (paragraph 40).
When I first heard about what we were going to be reading about in class, I personally thought it was a very pointless argument and that it would do nothing, but make me think about why am I even writing this paper? But I was mistaken, this “endless conversation” made me realize a bunch of things, including no matter what I personally believe in and how strongly I feel about that certain belief, there is someone else out there that either feels the exact same way and there is also someone out there that totally disagrees with how I feel. To sum up my belief, I believe that us as humans were bread from a long time ago to hunt, kill and eat animals even though we can survive without it, it has been a part of how we do things for a very long time. It is a part of our full development as a species. Pollan personally has won my support in his argument, I just think Singer’s arguments are just empty and don’t prove as many points as Pollan did, and he didn’t prove as many points as he needed to for his argument, because when you think about it, Singer is trying to argue a point that has less supporters from the start because an average human being would eat a burger if you put it in front of them and they are hungry. Singer just has a smaller support base because of the simple fact that there are more people who eat meat rather than not eat meat.
Even though I weigh into Pollan’s arguments more and play his side as well, Singer had his moments of shine as well as Pollan. Some of Singer’s points weren’t bad, and he also helped me open up my eyes to the problem at hand. Which is the way some of these animals are treated in these farms. So even if Singer didn’t win my whole support, he did his part in making this problem noticeable, and making me realize that these animals are not being treated correctly. I don’t support the way these animals are treated, and I do support Singer in his supports of bringing awareness to the way these animals are treated.
Recent Comments