Animals in Hollywood

Link to Article:

http://www.animalequality.net/entertainment
Conclusions:

     Hopefully, in my future I will be working with all different types of animals and this may mean I may be working with animals in the entertainment business. What I mean is animals that are used in rodeos, racetracks, and maybe even movies. I decided this blog post should be on the topic of entertainment animals, in the future the slogan, " No animals were harmed in the filming of this video" may appear because I was there to ensure the health and safety of that animal. This article is titled, " Amusement ?" and it was published by another animal welfare organization called Animal Equality. They define themselves as, " Animal Equality is an International farmed animal advocacy organisation that is dedicated to defending all animals through public education, campaigns and investigations. We work to create a more just and compassionate world for animals."
Evidence: 

     This group much like many animal welfare organizations do not believe in making animals perform certain tasks to amuse humans. Evidence that proves that animals should not be used for entertainment purposes is , " forms of entertainment have finally been rejected by the majority of society, though still many more forms of abuse are yet to be questioned and eliminated. Many of these legal abuses disgust us, whilst others appear to be perfectly acceptable, but just like the Roman circuses it is probable that they will one day be seen as unacceptable in our society." I actually agree with this quote. It is society that dictates what and what is no acceptable. For example, Roman circuses use to have people in them and these people would be captured from different places. In old Roman society that was acceptable but, today capturing people and sticking them in circuses is unacceptable.

Fallacies:
    There are fallacies in this argument but, I actually enjoyed reading it. I respect this article because it actual makes sense and doesn't really rely on emotional phrases and the personification of animals. There article actually could and should set the example for other animal welfare organizations. However, this article does have a major fallacy for me. They author states, " 
Other spectacles exist where animals are used to serve a human purpose. Rodeos, horse and greyhound racing are just some examples. In all of these the same wrong is repeated: Animals are created, raised, bought, sold and used for human entertainment to their detriment. " The article would have been much stronger without this tiny section. It actually made me think of pets, Everyday we have and even force our pets to act a certain way, to sit when we say sit, to not jump on people for our own enjoyment.. I think if you are going to use statements like the ones above you have to take pets into consideration. In fact, I would love to know what the author thinks regarding animal training for companion animals/ pets.

My Conclusions: 

Referring back to the argument about how societies dictate thing acceptable, I don't believe society thinks that forceful and  abusive animal training methods are acceptable. It is society who adopted widely approved and advocated for positive reinforcement training. Positive reinforcement training is where an animal is rewarded for doing a certain behavior in the hopes that they will repeat the behavior after hearing/seeing/smelling a certain cue. Also, I believe if society deemed aggressive training acceptable people would still be using bull-hooks on elephants and no one would have invented the much preferred vibrating collar to the traditional shock collar. I think positively reinforced animal entertainment is okay because I am a person who competes in sports with both my horse and my dog. My animals love showing off and running around. Also, in all sports involving animals the first thing these instructors usually tell you is to never get mad and harm the animal if it doesn't win. 

Animal Test Tubes

Link to Article:

https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing

Conclusions:

     The topic for this post is animal testing. Animal testing is and has always been a huge topic of controversy and debate. As someone who is an advocate of animal welfare I have heard both the pros and cons of animal testing. I am a Animal Science major at New Brunswick's Rutgers University and I have two lectures where animal welfare and the topic of animal testing was discussed. This article is called " Arguments against animal testing" and is written by a member(s) of Cruelty Free International. Cruelty Free International is the "leading [Animal Rights] organization working to end animal experiments worldwide." 

Evidence:

        This article happens to have a lot of evidence. Mostly everything except the first two paragraphs is facts. But upon closer examination of these facts, I found most of them are not sourced. For example, one fact is, "95% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work." Due to this I would say the other just has bulleted statements that are presented as facts. However, the do mention The Food and Drug Administration and the former director of the cancer institute but, that is almost nothing at all compared to the amount of "facts" presented. It would have been nice if the author include citations so, that readers would be able to actually read the information themselves and decided whether or not the sources were reliable.

Fallacies:

    I am starting to notice a trend when it comes to controversial topics that are hot for debate. There is entirely too much emotionally charged language being used in articles it almost gives off the feeling of propaganda. I believe that animal rights organizations would be more effective if they stopped using emotionally charged language and started using hard facts and evidence to back up there claims. I think it honestly is used so that the reader is easy to manipulate. There should be no reason that anyone would need to manipulate a person into saving animals and this is why I believe facts speak more volumes than emotionally charged phrases. 

My Conclusions:

    Honestly, I am not sure where I stand regarding animal testing, I used to believe it was horrible for animals and should be banned. Similar to my GMO's article this year I meant animal laboratory scientists that opened my eyes to the less known argument. In fact I got to learn all about animal testing and about all the procedures and laws that protect the animals. There are about 4 different authority organizations who are responsible for ensuring the well being of the animals being used in experiments. Also, it was incredible to hear the people who work in these labs say that the United States governments laws regarding animal testing were weak and that scientist actively chose to use these authority organizations to ensure the well being of the animals they want to experiment on.

No more Zoos ???

Link to Article:

http://www.peta.org/living/entertainment/reality-zoos/

Conclusions: 

     The article titled The Reality of Zoos by Michelle Carr was published on PETA's website. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA is a animal activist group well known for its striking campaigns, infiltrating large companies dealing with animals and strong visuals. This article is a response from PETA regarding whether of not Zoos are good or bad. Carr's response aligns with PETA's idea that zoos are terrible places for animals.

Evidence:

    I can tell this author is against zoos and does not want anyone to go to them because she states, " Now that I know the reality behind zoos, I don’t go to the zoo, and I encourage my friends and family to boycott them as well. " This statement embodies the message of her argument the best. Another statement she uses that embodies her argument that zoos are cruel and horrible places that should not exist is , " To put it simply, zoos are imprisoning animals who want to be free. " Carr thinks of Zoos as places that imprison animals that just want to be in the wild. She mentions an incident where a gorilla who wanted to be free escaped from the zoo, only to be shot. Through these quotes it is easily noted that Carr is against zoos.

Fallacies: 

    While reading this article I did find a general fallacy and that fallacy was the Michelle Carr put human emotions on animals. You can not equate human emotion to animal emotion because different animals have different social behaviors and societies. For example, In America eye contact is a sign of respect but, to most animals eye contact is a sign of aggression. In fact if you were to look a dog or a cat in the eyes right now they would probably look away to signal to you they don't want a fight. Carr puts her human emotions on animals when she says, " But once I saw them “up close and personal,” I realized that the animals were miserable. It instantly became very clear to me that the animals imprisoned in zoos are sad." Thinking that an animal is sad does no mean they are sad. To prove, assumptions that someone is feeling a certain way is often false. Some people may have facial features that make them look angry or sad but, that doesn't mean they are. Furthermore, In the gorillas social structure solemn looking faces are a sign of contentedness. Ultimately, when Carr gives animals human emotions her argument becomes a fallacy.

My Conclusions:

       Personally, my opinion on this topic can be seen as bias because I had a wonderful experience volunteering for the Philadelphia Zoo. So, I have had the pleasur of seeing hoe zoos are ran and working with the people who work for zoos. Unfortunatley, I have also dealt with activists who use emotionally charged language and situations out of context in order to gain support for their cause.  I'd like to mention that the Philadelphia Zoo is a non- profit organization and AZA accredited. AZA accreditation means that measures are taken by the zoo so that each animal is cared for properly. For example, each animal must have a certain amount of space that has been deemed appropriate by experts and that each wild animal in our care must have limited contact with humans in order to promote natural behavior. 

        In my experience animals love zoo and zoos provide animals with everything they could ever want. Carr states, "Captive animals are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them." but, what is important to animals? All animals want is safety, to reproduce, to have food ,to have shelter, and to live. Zoos provide animals with a safe place to live all the food they could ever eat , others animals to breed with, enrichment so they are never bored and amazing vet care and nutritionist so they are never sick. Animals in the wild suffer from diseases, hunger, and stress from being hunted by human and other animals. Zoo animals never have these problems in fact zoo animals have a longer life span and are often overweight compared to animals in the wild. The practice of taking animals from the wild is outdated and seldom used most zoos work in conjunction with other zoos through breeding programs. I do believe that some zoos are bad or not the best living situations for animals but, there are also many great zoo who are AZA accredited and strive to have healthy and happy animals.

GMO labeling

Link to Article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/03/18/general-mills-to-label-gmos-on-products/81981314/

Conclusions:

    USA Today is a well known and widely trusted resource and that is why I am using their article. This article discusses the debate on whether or not products with genetically modified organisms should be labeled. Genetically modified organisms or GMO's are defined by the FDA as "genetic modification practices that utilize modern biotechnology. In this process, scientists make targeted changes to a plant’s genetic makeup to give the plant a new desirable trait. " Thus these genetically modified organisms are GMO's. The article titled, "General Mills to label GMOs on Products Across the Country" is written by Hadley Malcolm. In the article she discusses why this labeling by General Mills and other places is occurring. From this article I can infer the author believes GMO's are safe.

Evidence:

     The reason I can infer that she agrees that GMO's are safe is because she only uses quotes that support the idea that GMO's are safe. For example she writes that, "Genetically engineered foods, like corn and soybeans, have been part of the U.S. food supply since the 1990s and the Food and Drug Administration says they are safe to eat." This alone proves my inference is right because she uses the Food and Drug Adminstration to back her idea and doesn't mention a counter idea to her assertion. She also states that, " Some advocacy groups say there hasn't been sufficient testing to determine whether GMOs pose a health risk." Again this is another quote backing up her notion that GMO'S are safe but, she never mentions anything that would counter her notion.

Fallacies:

         

Again similar to an article in an earlier post this article just doesn't have enough information. This article becomes full of fallacies when terms are used that are not clearly or fully explained. Browne and Keeley describe a fallacy called the Equivocation fallacy which occurs when a key word or phrase is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized. The word genetically modified organism is the basis for this articles conclusion yet is never defined. The problem being GMO's are defined differently depending on which organization or scientists are using it. There are mulltiple definitions that describe GMO's but the author never lets the reader know which definition of GMO she is referring to. This important to understanding why or why not she may oppose the use of GMO's. 

 My Conclusions:

    Personally, I do not know enough about GMO's to decide whether of not they are safe. It also doesn't help that the arguments for and against GMO's are very strong. However I am leaning towards believing GMO's are safe only because I had a conversation with a food scientist from Rutgers University. Perhaps after more research is published and criticized by other respected scholars, I will have more of a complete understanding of GMO's and be able actually choose a side on this issues. Another reason my views are conflicted is because I am personally involved with the farming and ranching community and the views on GMO's are 50/ 50 but, leaning towards the idea that organic is the best way to go. 

 

Global Hoax

Link to Article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/#4d7a41d223b9

Conclusions:

    This article is from Forbes magazine, Forbes is a popular business magazine.The article is titled " Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock" by James Taylor who writes about energy and environmental issues. In this article Taylor tries to prove that global warming is not as serious as leading experts seem to think it is. Factual Claims are beliefs about the way the world was,is,or is going to be that the communicator us to accept as "facts". For example, when the author states," Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone." Quotes like these are littered throughout the authors article. They are considered factual claims because the author wrote these as facts without our presenting a source or substantial evidence to back it up.

Evidence: 

    Within the first few sentences of the article it is possible to tell what the author's message is. "Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low." He begins his article by undermining those who believe in global warming. He calls those who believe in global warming alarmist. He also uses strong language such as deplorable and low to describe the assertions global warming believers make.
                         

Fallacies:

    The fallacy most used in this article is the appeal to emotions fallacy. The Browne and Keeley fallacy, Appeals to Emotion is the use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence. Common emotions appealed to are fear, hope, patriotism, pity, and sympathy. This article definitely makes use of emotionally charged language. Quotes that prove this are "Bats drop from the sky", "Lyme Diease spreads" and "National Sequrity threatened." He claims that Enviromental alarmist speak like this to worry people. Then when he tries to prove the alarmist assertions wrong he uses emotionally charged language. For example he states that, " Global warming alarmists' preferred electricity source - wind power- kills nearly one million bats every year." In essence he criticizes environmental alarmists language by using the same emotionally charged language. In my opinion this fight fire with fire type of writing weakens his argument.

My Conclusions:

    I do not at all agree with the writers argument that global warming is a myth. I do however agree that environmental alarmist use emotionally charged language. But, I do think that the author uses emotionally charged language and that this article is almost over whelming to read. There is entirely too much evidence that supports global warming for the author not to believe in it. Also, the bulk of this evidence happens to come leading experts and is constantly criticized. That being said at this point there is enough substantial evidence from highly trusted sources that support the notion of global warming that everyone should agree that it exists. If not these people must educate themselves at least on conceptual ideas of global warming. 

Gorillas on Cell Phones

Link to Article:

http://www.isfoundation.com/news/cell-phones-harming-gorillas-congo

Conclusions:

This article is supported by the Ian Somerholder foundation. Ian Somerholder is a star in The Vampire Diaries and also an active animal welfare advocate. The article on his foundation's website "Cell Phones Harming Gorillas in Congo" is written by Amanda Easterling. This article is about how gorillas are negatively impacted by the mining of coltan. Coltan happens to be a mineral used when making cellphones. Coltan is used in the cellphones battery. Easterling's conclusion is "The mining of this mineral to make cell phone batteries is causing major harm to the gorillas that live there." The habitat of the gorilla is being stripped away in order to support the mining of coltan. A Rival Cause is a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occurred. 
For example, "Because of the lack of food, living space for the gorillas and poverty level; the miners and rebels are killing and selling these poor creatures." and "Kahuzi Biega National Park is the main area where Coltan is mined is the home of the Mountain Gorilla. The gorilla population in Kahuzi Biega National Park has been cut nearly in half, from 258 to 130 as the ground is cleared to make mining easier." are both examples of rival causes.Both of these phrases raise questions in the readers mind that go unanswered. Although the author explains how Gorillas and the cell phone industry correlate. The article only explains this on a basic level leaving questions that the reader may have. For example, the first quote could raise questions about the correlation between the poverty level and actions of the miners and rebels. The second quote raises questions about the mining industry and if there are any organizations or any other actions being made to stop the negative impacts of coltan mining.

Evidence:

One quote that I found that proves the authors message is to raise awareness about the harmful affects on gorillas that coltan mining has is "Kahuzi Biega National Park is the main area where Coltan is mined is the home of the Mountain Gorilla. The gorilla population in Kahuzi Biega National Park has been cut nearly in half, from 258 to 130 as the ground is cleared to make mining easier. (Cellular News, NA)." This quote alone embodies the message of the author. Her argument is that the mining of Coltan is dramatically effecting the gorilla population. In this country economics is the driving force behind this, The people use coltan mining as there means of income. When this happens the negative impacts on the environment becomes second to the economy.

Fallacies:

For this article in particular I did not find any fallacies. That being said I do however think this is only because the article does not provide enough information on the topic. It isn't just evidence that could be weak, it is also a lack of evidence that can make an article weak. Had this article given a fuller description of the impacts of how coltan mining affects not only gorillas but the habit and people of Africa I believe her article would have been a lot stronger.

My Conclusions:

As a person involved and interested in conservation it
dissapointed me that there was not more information given in the article. I also wished that the author used her visuals more effectively. She included a picture of a cellphone but, including pictures of how gorillas are affected would have been a better option. Another thing she could have done was use more trustworthy sources to support her claims. She only sited one article from cellular news so, statistics or studies done regarding this problem would have made her article stronger.

Doggy Fashion Week or Nah ???

A dog without clothes 

A dog with clothes

Link to Article:

http://www.dognotebook.com/dogs-wearing-clothes-is-it-really-necessary/

Conclusion:

    This article is called, " Dogs Wearing Clothes - Is It Really Necessary ?"  and it is written by a member of  www.dognotebook.com. The article details whether dogs actually need clothes. The author concludes that in her opinion it is not necessary for dog to wear clothes but, if it isn't harming the dog then dogs wearing clothes is perfectly acceptable. Descriptive Issues are issues that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future. Include the words: DO, WHAT,WHO, HOW. My last blog focused on Prescriptive Issues so, this blog will focus on Descriptive Issues.

     Examples of Descriptive Issues found in the text are "If you have a tiny dog with little fur, such as Chihuahuas and Yorkies, and you live on a barren tundra in Minnesota, your dear dog might benefit from a well-made sweater or even a down-lined jacket in the middle of winter." and " If it is a warm rain, you and your pet probably won’t mind, but those chillier drizzling runs can become quite uncomfortable for both of you, so you should both put on your rain gear." No matter what type of fur your dog has, in this case, it makes sense to suit up for the elements." The Descriptive Issues in this article speak to WHO and WHAT.  The WHO actually refers to the dogs and if they need the clothes. WHO needs clothes ? According to the author small dogs with little fur need clothes. The second question answered would be WHAT clothes need to be worn ? The author suggest any clothes that shield dogs from uncomfortable weather should be worn.

Evidence:

   To reiterate, the author uses evidence to support his or her's message. These quotes from the article are two examples of  when the author's message can be clearly seen. This article is an opinion based article so understanding the authors message is important. "Under ideal climate conditions, your dog’s coat is beautiful and, as long as you keep it healthy and shiny, why not let it glow on its own? Sometimes just letting your dog be a dog is the best way to go, as long as the conditions are safe for you to do so." and "While there is no harm in it, it certainly isn’t necessary, and it might even feel a bit confining for your pet to wear anything when it is perfectly comfortable in good weather.If you want to dress your dog in clothes, monitor the response. If he or she behaves as if they feel constricted or overheated, reconsider your plan to dress your dog."These two quotes confirm that the author's message is that it isn't necessary for dogs to wear clothes unless it's weather permitting. But, if a dog is comfortable in clothes that is completely okay. Sometimes dogs do not like wearing clothes but, if they do not mind wearing clothes then dressing them is fine. Any weather like snow or rain can be uncomfortable for dogs so, a coat or sweater may help certain dogs.

Fallacies:

   One error in this author's reasoning is that her evidence is all opinion based. Although, this is an opinion piece quotes or statistics from trustworthy sources would have made her message more effective. This issue has been long  debated and having quotes from trustworthy sources such as respected veterinarians and animal welfare organizations. For example, the telegraph mentioned in an article that , "The RSPCA has compared the practice to leaving dogs in cars during hot weather and warned that if people consistently allow their dogs to get too hot when wearing clothing they could face prosecution." The RSPCA is apart of the SPCA. The SPCA is well respected and trusted internationally on issues regarding animal welfare. In all, including sources would have made the authors article stronger.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4214076/Animal-welfare-experts-hot-under-the-collar-over-dogs-in-coats.html)

My Conclusions:

The dogs pictured at the top of the blog are both mine. In my experience owning dogs smaller dogs may actually have a bigger need for clothes. My Cane Corso mastiff also wore clothes but, only on occasion. He had a coat that he only really wore when it was snowing outside. On the other hand my shih tzu/yorkie mix wears clothes a lot more often. She tends to shiver when it's cold. So, she wears a parka when its raining and a coat when it is snowing. Other than that she only wears clothes for my enjoyment although she doesn't seem to mind wearing clothes for herself either.

The Palm Oil Problem

Palm Oil Seed and Oil

Link to Article :

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/nov/09/palm-oil-migrant-workers-orangutans-malaysia-labour-rights-exploitation-environmental-impacts

Conclusion: 

    This article is titled "Palm oil: why do we care more about orangutans than migrant workers?" and written by Laura Villadiego. The article discusses how to Palm Oil Industry affects migrant workers in countries with palm oil plantations. Palm oil is the ingredient used in foods as a replacement for trans fats. Palm oil is in candy, snack food ,and even toothpaste.The message of the article is that migrant workers of palm oil plantations are being exploited and that the palm oil industry is enslaving them.The authors of Asking The Right Questions, Browne and Keeley describe Prescriptive Issues as issues that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad. Include the words: SHOULD, WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE, MUST. 
    Two examples of  Prescriptive Issues found in the text are “It is a very abusive system that includes labour-trafficking, debt bondage and unfair payments,” and  "The laws tie migrants’ work permits to a specific employer, which makes it impossible for them to look for better opportunities in other plantations or sectors." This article focuses on the welfare of people so there are no prescriptive issues present in the article. The prescriptive issues in the article are focused on WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE to help palm oil plantation workers. The article concluded that these laborers were often abused and taken advantage of by the palm oil processor owners. They are basically stuck as indentured servants to the processors and because of work quotas that are almost impossible to reach families are forced to make their young children work. These companies exploit the poverty in countries like Borneo and Sumatra where these plantations are. The laws in these countries often are not in their favor therefore, these workers are at the discretion of the palm oil business.

A child worker processing palm oil seeds

Evidence:

    The writers of articles often use evidence in order to support their argument. Two examples of evidence that the author uses to support the message they are trying to convey are "Malaysia is not a signatory country of the two ILO Conventions on Migrant Workers (Convention 97 and Convention 143), that set the standards for the rights of migrant workforces." and "Working conditions at the plantations are harsh and national Malaysians are generally not willing to harvest the red fruits for the low wages the industry offers, says Eric Gottwald, legal and policy director at the International Labor Rights Forum."

Quotes like these examples are littered throughout the article. Together these quotes paint the picture of countries with palm oil plantations not protecting the people that work within them. Quotes like these help the reader realize that these people are trapped in a vicious cycle of hard labor for almost nothing. Theses poor people have now become slaves to the industry and thus have added to the plethora of environmental, economical, and now social  problems that the palm oil industry has created. 

Fallacies:

    Fallacies are errors in the authors reasoning. One fallacy in the article that Browne and Keeley explain is the False Dilemma. The False Dilemma occurs when the author assumes there are only two alternatives when there are more than two. In this article the two alternatives are the continuous exploitation of migrant workers or the government supporting and protecting migrant workers. Upon further thought and research, one could come up with a third alternative. Another alternative that could have been stated in the article is that major companies are in need of palm oil. Thus, these major companies who are the cause of the palm oil plantations could implement strategies that benefit migrant workers on these plantations. In order to have a strong argument the author must include more alternatives.

My Conclusions:

    This issue is something that I am knowledgeable and well versed on. For four years I worked with the Philadelphia Zoo and educated people on the palm oil crisis. The palm oil industry not only affects orangutans but the people in the third world countries in which these plantations reside. At the zoo I focused only problems that orangutans faced but, finding out about how people are being affected is very interesting. Conservation has the power to help both animals and people, That is why we most be conscious of how we impact the world.