Final Paper: 9/24/18

Joey Abely

Dr Drown

9/17/2018

ELA-122

Eating Animals “for fun”

An endless conversation is known by as a conversation that is continues with no end until all parties in the conversation come to some sort of mutual agreement on the subject; then the conversation proceeds in different directions. Usually many other conversations stem from that one endless conversation creating an infinite possibility for conversations. Between two great writers and critical thinkers a conversation and a dream are born. Professional author and critical thinker Pollan, and Singer both engage actively in creating an endless conversation on the means of animal brutality and the consumption of animals by humans. The two engage fiercely with back and forth debates throughout the whole text. Stemming from one thing to the next. The conversations get intense and heated and it is a thrill to engage in.

One of the endless conversations they engaged in was whether it was ethical to kill and eat animals and if so what is the criteria for determining so. According to Pollan,” My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan 6). This alone could be the premises that would most definitely result in a conversation with no end; but in a sense is Pollan right? Singer states, “Wouldn’t life in the wild be worse for these farm animals? Defenders of slavery imposed on black Africans often made a similar point. … The life of freedom is to be preferred” (Singer 6). Singer as of right now is siding with Pollan by stating that it these animals that are being killed for our food would be at a more significant disadvantage if they were stuck out in the wild.

So, what is my take on it you ask? My thoughts draw up mixed emotions on this subject; how can we adequately respond to this knowing that every day many human lives are taken by that of another human? Does that make us any more profound than the animals we are killing and eating every day for our own pleasure? On the other hand, siding with Pollan it does make sense to agree due to the fact that humans are more intelligent and have a higher thought capacity than almost all animals, so therefore we can justify our killing one another so we can eat the precious meat we crave. I have always heard the phrase,” it is a dog eat dog world”. In making this comment I believe that we can justify killing animals for a source of food because if we did not then it would be extremely difficult to get adequate sources of protein that are a necessity to our salvation. Of course, you could always supplement in non-animal sources of protein such as protein powder, but will that really give you the same effect as eating a piece of chicken? The answer to that question differs depending on who the intended recipient of the question is. Answers could vary from supplementing in protein powder to just cutting out meat out of our Everday diets. I am in no way for saving these animals as I feel that it has been a way of life for us since the begging of time, but I have always heard the saying,” you can eat the sausage but never ask how it’s made”. Which draws me to feel for the people who want to save these animals because let us face it they are not treated with any care or respect even though they are about to be killed for food. So why do we continue to keep brutally killing these animals for our pleasure? Pollan states,” O.K.; the suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first! Sounds good, and yet all the animal people are asking me to do is stop eating meat and wearing animal furs and hides. There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankinds’ problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” (Pollan 6). In making this comment Pollan is stating that there are too many bigger picture problems than worrying about animal consumption just because a small percentage of the world feels like it is unjust to do so. Also, Pollan articulates his sense of humor by throwing in an innuendo at the end of the quote; obviously Pollan will not be solving any of humankinds’ problems and if he was he definitely would not be a vegetarian wearing “fake” clothes.

Famous philosopher Daniel C. Dennett states, “… we would do well to draw a distinction between pain, which a great many animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command. Suffering in this view not just lots of pain but intensified by human emotions like loss, sadness, worry, regret, self-pity, shame, humilities and dread.” (Dennett 9). Dennett is stating that many animals experience pain and suffering that we humans are blind to see through the naked eye without some guidance, and that when we see it our emotions are “intensified” to the point where certain groups of people feel the need to stick up and fight for these animals who appear to have no voice in this debate. This however is a pivotal moment in the endless conversation. Both parties of the argument have somewhat reached an agreeing point. Pollan does feel for the suffering and the brutality for these animals as does Singer, but Pollan also states that humankinds’ issues are far more important and there are too many issues to worry about and solve before they worry about solving that of the animals. Pollan has done extremely well with trying to find the same view as Singer. He has done countless hours of research and even reached out to singer in an email trying to be informed and persuaded into thinking the same way that Singer does to get a better vantage point on this argument. But in turn it is to no avail. Well actually, only partially, Pollan does receive a reply from Singer that helps him in even the slightest of ways to see Singers point but I am not convinced that Pollan is persuaded wholly to the other side of this argument. Nevertheless, the endless conversation is born and now opinions from all sides will be thrown into this matter. In conclusion an endless conversation was born from two opposing views and will continue to go on and let millions of views to be shared with it.

Heres the link to MLA form: https://une1-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/jabely_une_edu/Documents/English%20Essay%201.docx?d=w8215a4dade614fe3b0617499cb71c3fd&csf=1&e=Di8tTQ

revised essay 2 : 9/21/18

Joey Abely

Dr Drown

9/17/2018

ELA-122

Endless Conversation

An endless conversation is known as a conversation that continues with no end until all parties in the conversation come to some sort of mutual agreement on the subject; then the conversation proceeds in different directions. Usually many other conversations stem from that one endless conversation creating an infinite possibility for conversations. Between two great writers and critical thinkers a conversation and a dream is born. Professional author and critical thinker Pollan, and Singer both engage actively in creating an endless conversation on the means of animal brutality and the consumption of animals by humans. The two engage fiercely with back and forth debates throughout the whole text. Stemming from one thing to the next. The conversations get intense and heated and it is a thrill to engage in. One of the endless conversations they engaged in was whether it was ethical to kill and eat animals and if so what is the criteria for determining so. According to Pollan,” My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan paragraph 20, page 6). This alone could be the premises that would most definitely result in a conversation with no end; but in a sense is Pollan right? My thoughts draw up mixed emotions on this subject; how can we adequately respond to this knowing that every day many human lives are taken by that of another human? Does that make us any more profound than the animals we are killing and eating every day for our own pleasure? On the other hand, siding with Pollan it does make sense to agree due to the fact that humans are more intelligent and have a higher thought capacity than almost all animals, so therefore we can justify our killing one another so we can eat the precious meat we crave. I have always heard the phrase,” it is a dog eat dog world”. In making this comment I believe that we can justify killing animals for a source of food because if we did not then it would be extremely difficult to get adequate sources of protein that are a necessity to our salvation. Of course, you could always supplement in non-animal sources of protein such as protein powder, but will that really give you the same effect as eating a piece of chicken? The answer to that question differs depending on who the intended recipient of the question is. Answers could vary from supplementing in protein powder to just cutting out meat out of our Everday diets. I am in no way for saving these animals as I feel that it has been a way of life for us since the begging of time, but I have always heard the saying,” you can eat the sausage but never ask how it’s made”. Which draws me to feel for the people who want to save these animals because lets face it they are not treated with any care or respect even though they are about to be killed for food. So why do we continue to keep brutally killing these animals for our pleasure? Pollan states,” O.K.; the suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first! Sounds good, and yet all the animal people are asking me to do is stop eating meat and wearing animal furs and hides. There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankinds’ problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” (Pollan, paragraph 24, page 6). In making this comment Pollan is stating that there are too many bigger picture problems than worrying about animal consumption just because a small percentage of the world feels like it is unjust to do so. Also, Pollan articulates his sense of humor by throwing in an innuendo at the end of the quote; obviously Pollan will not be solving any of humankinds’ problems and if he was he definitely would not be a vegetarian wearing “fake” clothes. This however is a pivotal moment in the endless conversation. Both parties of the argument have somewhat reached an agreeing point. Pollan does feel for the suffering and the brutality for these animals as does Singer, but Pollan also states that humankinds’ issues are far more important and there are too many issues to worry about and solve before they worry about solving that of the animals. So, the endless conversation is born and now opinions from all sides will be thrown into this matter.  In conclusion an endless conversation was born from two opposing views and will continue to go on and let millions of views to be shared with it.

 

 

 

 

Joey Abely

Dr Drown

9/17/2018

ELA-122

Endless Conversation

An endless conversation is known by many but understood by few; it is defined by Merriam Webster as “Being or seeming to be without an end or limit; boundless; continuous”.  Professional author and critical thinker Pollan, and Singer both engage actively in creating an endless conversation on the means of animal brutality and the consumption of animals by humans. The two engage fiercely with back and forth debates throughout the whole text. Stemming from one thing to the next. The conversations get intense and heated and it is a thrill to engage in. One of the endless conversations they engaged in was whether it was ethical to kill and eat animals and if so what is the criteria for determining so. According to Pollan,” My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan paragraph 20, page 6). This alone could be the premises that would most definitely result in a conversation with no end; but in a sense is Pollan right? My thoughts draw up mixed emotions on this subject; how can we adequately respond to this knowing that every day many human lives are taken by that of another human? Does that make us any more profound than the animals we are killing and eating every day for our own pleasure? On the other hand, siding with Pollan it does make sense to agree due to the fact that humans are more intelligent and have a higher thought capacity than almost all animals, so therefore we can justify our killing one another so we can eat the precious meat we crave. I have always heard the phrase,” it is a dog eat dog world”. In making this comment I believe that we can justify killing animals for a source of food because if we did not then it would be extremely difficult to get adequate sources of protein that are a necessity to our salvation. Of course, you could always supplement in non-animal sources of protein such as protein powder, but will that really give you the same effect as eating a piece of chicken? The answer varies depending on who the intended recipient of the question is. Singer himself replies,” animals feel a need to exercise, stretch their limbs or wings, groom themselves and turn around, whether or not they have ever lived in conditions that permit this. The measure of their suffering is not their prior experiences but the unremitting daily frustration of their instincts” (Singer, paragraph 23, page 6). The essence of Singers argument is that animals pertain to do the same things and conceive the same habits as we humans do. So why do we continue to keep killing these animals for our pleasure? Pollan states,” O.K.; the suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first! Sounds good, and yet all the animal people are asking me to do is stop eating mat and wearing animal furs and hides. There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankinds’ problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” (Pollan, paragraph 24, page 6). In making this comment Pollan is stating that there are too many bigger picture problems than worrying about animal consumption just because a small percentage of the world feels like it is unjust to do so. Also, Pollan articulates his sense of humor by throwing in an innuendo at the end of the quote; obviously Pollan will not be solving any of humankinds’ problems and if he was he definitely would not be a vegetarian wearing “fake” clothes. This however is a pivotal moment in the endless conversation. Both parties of the argument have somewhat reached an agreeing point. Pollan does feel for the suffering and the brutality for these animals as does Singer, but Pollan also states that humankinds’ issues are far more important and there are too many issues to worry about and solve before they worry about solving that of the animals. So, the endless conversation is born and now opinions from all sides will be thrown into this matter.  In conclusion an endless conversation was born from two opposing views and will continue to go on and let millions of views to be shared with it.

 

 

Joey Abely

Dr Drown

9/17/2018

ELA-122

Endless Conversation

An endless conversation is known by many but understood by few; it is defined by Merriam Webster as “Being or seeming to be without an end or limit; boundless; continuous”.  Professional author and critical thinker Pollan, and Singer both engage actively in creating an endless conversation on the means of animal brutality and the consumption of animals by humans. The two engage fiercely with back and forth debates throughout the whole text. One of the endless conversations they engaged in was whether it was ethical to kill and eat animals and if so what is the criteria for determining so. According to Pollan,” My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan paragraph 20, page 6). This alone could be the premises that would most definitely result in a conversation with no end; but in a sense is Pollan right? My thoughts draw up mixed emotions on this subject. How can we adequately respond to this knowing that every day many human lives are taken by that of another human? Does that make us any more profound than the animals we are killing and eating every day for our own pleasure? On the other hand, siding with Pollan it does make sense to agree due to the fact that humans are more intelligent and have a higher thought capacity than almost all animals, so therefore we can justify our killing one another so we can eat the precious meat we crave. I have always heard the phrase,” it is a dog eat dog world”. In making this comment I believe that we can justify killing animals for a source of food because if we did not then it would be extremely difficult to get adequate sources of protein that are a necessity to our salvation. Of course, you could always supplement in non-animal sources of protein such as protein powder, but will that really give you the same effect as eating a piece of chicken? The answer varies depending on who the intended recipient of the question is. Singer himself replies,” animals feel a need to exercise, stretch their limbs or wings, groom themselves and turn around, whether or not they have ever lived in conditions that permit this. The measure of their suffering is not their prior experiences but the unremitting daily frustration of their instincts” (Singer, paragraph 23, page 6). The essence of Singers argument is that animals pertain to do the same things and conceive the same habits as we humans do. So why do we continue to keep killing these animals for our pleasure? Pollan states,” O.K.; the suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first! Sounds good, and yet all the animal people are asking me to do is stop eating mat and wearing animal furs and hides. There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankinds’ problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” (Pollan, paragraph 24, page 6). In making this comment Pollan is stating that there are too many bigger picture problems than worrying about animal consumption just because a small percentage of the world feels like it is unjust to do so. Also, Pollan articulates his sense of humor by throwing in an innuendo at the end of the quote; obviously Pollan will not be solving any of humankinds’ problems and if he was he definitely would not be a vegetarian wearing “fake” clothes. So the endless conversation is born and now opinions from all sides will be thrown into this matter.

 

 

revised Sept 19,2018

 

Joey Abely

Dr Drown

9/17/2018

ELA-122

Endless Conversation

An endless conversation is known by many but understood by few; it is defined by Merriam Webster as “Being or seeming to be without an end or limit; boundless; continuous”.  Professional author and critical thinker Pollan, and Singer both engage actively in creating an endless conversation on the means of animal brutality and the consumption of animals by humans. The two engage fiercely with back and forth debates throughout the whole text. Stemming from one thing to the next. The conversations get intense and heated and it is a thrill to engage in. One of the endless conversations they engaged in was whether it was ethical to kill and eat animals and if so what is the criteria for determining so. According to Pollan,” My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan paragraph 20, page 6). This alone could be the premises that would most definitely result in a conversation with no end; but in a sense is Pollan right? My thoughts draw up mixed emotions on this subject; how can we adequately respond to this knowing that every day many human lives are taken by that of another human? Does that make us any more profound than the animals we are killing and eating every day for our own pleasure? On the other hand, siding with Pollan it does make sense to agree due to the fact that humans are more intelligent and have a higher thought capacity than almost all animals, so therefore we can justify our killing one another so we can eat the precious meat we crave. I have always heard the phrase,” it is a dog eat dog world”. In making this comment I believe that we can justify killing animals for a source of food because if we did not then it would be extremely difficult to get adequate sources of protein that are a necessity to our salvation. Of course, you could always supplement in non-animal sources of protein such as protein powder, but will that really give you the same effect as eating a piece of chicken? The answer varies depending on who the intended recipient of the question is. Singer himself replies,” animals feel a need to exercise, stretch their limbs or wings, groom themselves and turn around, whether or not they have ever lived in conditions that permit this. The measure of their suffering is not their prior experiences but the unremitting daily frustration of their instincts” (Singer, paragraph 23, page 6). The essence of Singers argument is that animals pertain to do the same things and conceive the same habits as we humans do. So why do we continue to keep killing these animals for our pleasure? Pollan states,” O.K.; the suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first! Sounds good, and yet all the animal people are asking me to do is stop eating mat and wearing animal furs and hides. There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankinds’ problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” (Pollan, paragraph 24, page 6). In making this comment Pollan is stating that there are too many bigger picture problems than worrying about animal consumption just because a small percentage of the world feels like it is unjust to do so. Also, Pollan articulates his sense of humor by throwing in an innuendo at the end of the quote; obviously Pollan will not be solving any of humankinds’ problems and if he was he definitely would not be a vegetarian wearing “fake” clothes. This however is a pivotal moment in the endless conversation. Both parties of the argument have somewhat reached an agreeing point. Pollan does feel for the suffering and the brutality for these animals as does Singer, but Pollan also states that humankinds’ issues are far more important and there are too many issues to worry about and solve before they worry about solving that of the animals. So, the endless conversation is born and now opinions from all sides will be thrown into this matter.  In conclusion an endless conversation was born from two opposing views and will continue to go on and let millions of views to be shared with it.