Lord Chesterfield Diction and Syntax

Lord Chesterfield’s adequate insight reveals his own values from his past. By reminiscing his mistakes, he strives to establish an understanding with his son and his own independent life: while also hoping to befriend and sway his son to exercise good judgment.

Lord Chesterfield uses strong diction when his sagacious nature implements his son to not follow in his father’s footsteps. This happens especially when a father’s advice can be taken as “moroseness,” “imperiousness,” or as a “garrulity of old age.” He tells his son that he once was that age, that he had many experiences in the “progress of youth, of those thorns and briars which scratched and disfigured [him] in the course of [his life],” and to not take this counsel as a motion to “censor” his mind, but as a guidance in his future. Lord Chesterfield also “hints” to his son that he had better take this advice for his own caution too, for without his father, he would be nothing, with no money, home, or maybe even no education. By affirming that his son is “absolutely dependent” on his father and that he “neither have, nor can have a shilling in the world but from [him],” he makes a statement in hopes to penetrate the youth mind and prevent history from repeating itself. However, he is “convinced that [his son] will act right, upon more noble and generous principles: for the sake of doing right, and out of affection and gratitude” for his father. Lord Chesterfield expects his son to turn his “attention and application to whatever [he] learns” and especially now that he is self-regulated and able to make decisions for himself. Lord Chesterfield points out that it is “absolutely necessary” to take in this consideration “because everybody knows the uncommon care which has been taken of [his son’s] education, and the opportunities [he] has had of knowing more than others of [his] age [did].” He tells his son that by pushing himself, there can be a great pleasure in “[excelling] those of one’s own age and manner of life,” but consequently, being excelled by them can be even more mortifying, something his son may or may not have to witness.

In Lord Chesterfield’s letter, his syntax shifts from elongated sentences to alternately switching from colon to semi-colon and finally to using only complex sentences with semi-colons. In the beginning, he is unsure of himself as he writes, molding a foundation for what he is about to say in long sentences. He uses these long sentences to state the many reasons why his son would not take his advice into consideration and that he often has “doubts whether it is to any purpose” to even write the letter. He incessantly says “I flatter myself” claiming it as an anaphora, and meaning he impresses even himself for not being so shallow about his son’s situation. As his letter continues, Lord Chesterfield uses a series of colons and semi-colons, to enhance and contrast the second part of the sentence with the first. He says he means to not “dictate as a parent; [but] only mean to advise as a friend,” trying to convince his son that if he will not listen to his father, than at least listen to him as a friend. He says “I have no interests but yours in the advice I give you; and that consequently, you will at least weigh and consider it well: in which case, some of it will, I hope, have its effect,” knowing that he was once young, and that he understands how easy it is to reject parental advice. The last part uses semi-colons to compare his thoughts. He lectures that he only “point them out to [his son] as conducive, nay, absolutely necessary to [his] pleasure;” insinuating that his son’s duties can be very beneficial to him, and that it will prevent any embarrassment or shame to the family name. He also says, “Can there be a greater pleasure than to be universally allowed to excel those of one’s own age and manner of life? And, consequently, can there be anything more mortifying than to be excelled by them?” which are rhetorical questions that is suppose to boost his son’s motivation to succeed in school. By using semi-colons, he expresses his thoughts on his son’s pleasures and education.

In conclusion, Lord Chesterfield’s adequate insight reveals that while his son might be carelessly forgetting his “duties”, it is better for him to “not know a thing at all, as know it but imperfectly. To know a little of anything, gives neither satisfaction nor credit; but often brings disgrace or ridicule.” He writes in hopes that this intervention would help his son make good choices that he, in his past, did not do very well.

Style Analysis of Professions for Women

Virginia Woolf’s extroverted dignity shows she is a figure for many other women to look at. She stresses her dexterity to fight against what society has in mind for women like her, encouraging women to be who they want to be. In doing so, she hopes to have cracked the glass ceiling that holds women from their natural rights. 

 

The author uses clear diction when she depicts three unique metaphors: the Angel in the House, the fisherman, and the empty rooms. While telling the story of the Angel of the House, she showed extreme disgust for the woman who “bothered” and “wasted” her time, and “tormented” her to ignore her calling. Although the Angel was “pure,” Woolf recalls that if the Angel were not rid of, she would have “plucked the heart out of [her] writing,” so instead, Woolf killed her. The author then describes the metaphor of the fisherman in the form of a girl. In the girl’s dream, she let her “imagination sweep unchecked round every rock and cranny of the world” able to explore and think what she wanted to without a second thought. Then before the fisherman knew it, her “line” was lost, her imagination “dashed” into “something hard,” and the girl was “roused from her dream.” By telling about the fisherman, she was able to show how censored woman’s minds were because they were always “impeded by the extreme conventionality of the other sex.” Woolf then speaks of the empty rooms that women were able to possess, “though not without great labour and effort to pay the rent.” She challenges women to “decorate” and “furnish” the room with their accomplishments and beliefs and were they to “share” it, to do so with caution and to an extent. She affirms this to explain that when one has achieved so much independently, not to let a man come to take one’s achievement away.The author’s syntax moves from parallelism to short sentences to anaphora’s. In the beginning, Woolf uses parallelism. She says many women had been before her, “making the path smooth,” and “regulating [her] steps. The use of the same verb tense gives a smooth rhythm or flow just as women before her gave her a smooth path. Woolf establishes her ethos by crediting these female authors, reminding her audience that these women overcame many of the “obstacles” to widen the barrier for a future generation of women. As her speech continues, Woolf includes the use of short, simple sentences to describe the “Angel in the House.” She does this to mirror women as being simplistic and not thinking broad, complex thoughts. Due to the Angel being adamant about woman’s intuition, Woolf indicates that she despises the idea of even being the “Angel in the House” through her brusque descriptions. To conclude her speech, Woolf uses anaphora’s. By repeating the word “you,” she puts weight on the women in her audience. She indicates that only they can make change for themselves, that they can only one day find equality with men, and they they can only be the ones “to decide for [themselves] what the answers should be.”

 

In conclusion, Woolf’s extroverted dignity reveals that while women of her time did not question the authority of society, she did. She inspired many women to think beyond their imagination into deep depths, to not let man’s judgment taint their thoughts. By doing so, she became a role model for many bright women, beginning the crack on the glass. 

Woolf’s use of detail gives off an understatement when viewing her own accomplishments. She said her profession was literature, but that the “road was cut many years ago” making her “path smooth, and regulating [her] steps,” which helped her career build. In doing so she created a sense of serenity among humble women too tentative to start a profession. Along with this, she names a list of very famous classical authors before her time. When Woolf did this, she was actually comparing and including herself with these adept women. She also felt that “the reason why women have succeeded as writers before” was because of “the cheapness of writing paper,” which did not “demand” any money from the “family purse.” Woolf’s logic was to emphasize on how anybody could write, just as long as “one has a mind that way.” Surprisingly, men also played a small part in women writer’s success. They viewed women as harmless and having only thoughts of socializing and “housework.” This stereotype made women work harder and step out of man’s shadow to “[succeed] in other professions.”

Should the Government Issue Compulsory Voting?

   Every four years in America, a president is elected or re-elected. Millions of voters turn up that day to vote, hoping in earnest that their candidate shall have the most electoral votes. When results are tallied and T’s are crossed, some find that their candidate has not won and are furious; people that showed up to vote had no clue which issues each candidate stood for in the election. That is why voting should not be mandatory.

    First of all, voters are adults. As adults, they have a fully mature brain that tells them whether or not they want to take on something. Especially living in the big USA, Americans are big on their rights and don’t take being told what to do too easily. When the government issues a law on compulsory voting, be assured that there will likely be a riot of people waiting on the steps of Congress, demanding that they can decide for themselves whether they want to vote or not. Mainly, Americans view voting as a right and a privilege. If voting were the number one priority and they wanted to be part of their country’s decision making process, then kudos to those people. If not, then it should be their business, not the governments, to make them take the initiative to vote. After all, it is a free country.

    Second, many people do not care about the issues that go on in the country. If countries made their people vote, voting results would be flawed. If they don’t care about the issues, they don’t know about them either, so why should they be made to vote? Their two cents may go towards a good cause, but is the result effective? A great number of people also do not have the time dedicated to voting. Some would say, if you don’t have time, then make time. How ever these words of wisdom may be taken, if adults do not even have time to spend with their kids, how are they supposed to put voting before their family? Most would say that a person that lives in a country should have to be part of the changes that happen in it. However, many would also say that the only reason for being a citizen is to use the country’s resources. For example, I have family members who came all the way from Asia to live in the United States. Once here, they apply for citizenship, take the test, and once they have passed, become a citizen. To put it bluntly, they are here for two reasons: to be free and make money. They care little about candidates or issues. If these were the people that were made to vote, could they vote if they were not educated and informed about the constant changes and debates? The issue isn’t just getting everyone to participate in voting, but to educate them as well so that elections would be fair and an ingenious candidate would be chosen. If compulsory voting is to be passed, then with it should be laws requiring all voters to understand issues and beliefs of all candidates running for an election.

    Fortunately, America is a Democracy: by the people and for the people. The people should decide whether voting is right for them or not, and I, as part of the people, have decided that voting should not be mandatory.

Psychology Paper on Reign Over Me explaining symptoms to prove that Charlie was depressed/suicidal

    Reign Over Me is a classic example of a character going through symptoms of depression and suicide. Depression is a mood disorder characterized by intense feelings of sadness that last longer than a few weeks, affecting social behaviors and the sense of physical well-being. Two neurotransmitters are involved in depression: serotonin and norepinephrine. Serotin monitors the nerve impulses which helps maintain a feeling of happiness and keeps in check your other moods. Norepinephrine acts to give the body sudden energy in times of stress, a process known as the “fight or flight” response.

    Some symptoms of depression are feelings of helplessness, loss of interest in daily activities, appetite or weight changes, sleep changes, psychomotor agitation or retardation, loss of energy, self-loathing, and concentration problems. Unfortunately, these symptoms are not always recognized as signs of depression. There are also many stereotypes that go along with depression, such as: depressed people are seen as weak or lazy, social stigma causes people to avoid treatment, and the symptoms are so disabling that the people affected won’t, and can’t, reach out for help. While this may be true for a few cases, every case has a cause different than the last.

    Some causes that link to depression is that it is genetically passed down, there is chemical imbalance in the brain, occur in people with a low self-esteem, with people who have gone through a serious loss, and with people dealing with any other unwelcome life change. These causes lead to four classified depressions: major depression, dysthymic depression, adjustment disorder depression, and bipolar depression. Major depression is the most severe, containing a majority of the symptoms. Dysthymic disorder is a low to moderate level of depression that persists for at least two years, and often longer. While the symptoms of dysthymia are not as severe, they are more enduring and resistant to treatment and can sometimes lead to a major depression. An adjustment disorder, also known as a reactive depression, describes depression that occurs in response to a major life stressor or crisis and is used to categorize mild to moderate depression. Last is the bipolar depression including both high and low mood swings, as well as a variety of other significant symptoms not present in other depressions.

    There are two ways to treat these different depressions. One is to turn to medications, such as antidepressants. These allow you to gain relatively quick symptom relief, but does not cure the depression. The second is psychotherapy, which helps you to learn more effective ways to deal with life’s problems and to change the negative thoughts and attitudes that have caused you to develop depression. In many cases, patients turn to both. When depression is not treated, it can lead to suicide. Suicide is not always planned and most of the time it happens impulsively, in a moment of feeling desperately upset. There are many warning signs that can determine whether or not a person is suicidal, for example: talking about suicide or death in general, talking about going away, referring to things they won’t be needing and giving away possessions, pulling away from friends or family and losing the desire to go out, having trouble concentrating or thinking clearly, experiencing changes in eating or sleeping habits, and engaging in self-destructive behavior.

    In the movie, Adam Sandler plays a character named Charlie Fineman, a normal middle aged man with three daughters and a perfect wife until one day a traumatic life experience changed his life: his wife and kids died in the September 11 plane crash. Often when a traumatic event occurs, a person would go through the five stages of mourning, however with Charlie, he was stuck in the first stage (denial and isolation) even after a year, he still enclosed himself in his own world and chose to forget everything about his past. He was to the point where he could not function in normal, every day life, such as working as a dentist and socializing with his former friends. A sign of reactive depression.

    While wheeling around on his scooter, Charlie’s former college roommate, Alan Johnson, repeatedly called out his name. After finally catching his attention, Alan mentioned that he was once Charlie’s old college roommate. With a puzzled look on his face, Charlie admitted that he did not remember Alan. This behavior is one of the symptoms for depression. Charlie has trouble concentrating on remembering things because he had forced himself to forget about his past.

    When old memories are brought up, Charlie got very defensive. He would be in a state of relaxation one minute and in the next, he would burst into a sudden act of bitter rage. He would then result to violence; knocking things over, pushing people against the walls, and threatening them, asking “who sent you?” in pure hatred. When he would finally calm down, he would act as if nothing ever happened. Charlie acted without justifying his actions showing a symptom of bipolar depression. In one instance, he acted irrationally when he offered one million dollars as a peace offering to Alan after bursting in rage. If Charlie could help it, he would instead put his headphones over his ears and turn his music up all the way to block out everyone’s voices, as a substitute to his uncontrolled rage.

    One night, around nine o’ clock, Alan and his family were getting ready for bed, and hear a knock on the front door and find that Charlie is outside. He asks if Alan is able to come with him to “hang out.” Alan explains that he must sleep early and wake up for work the next morning. As Alan keeps turning Charlie down, Charlie gets more persistent until finally Alan decides to join him. Following that day, they both begin to hang out during the nighttime. Since Charlie likes music so much, he took Alan to a local bar where Charlie had a gig as a drummer. Another night, they went to an old movie theater and stayed until five in the morning. This type of behavior is another symptom of depression. Charlie has a sleep disorder.

    Another example is when Alan finds out over the phone that his father had just died. Instead of sympathizing with Alan, Charlie is obsessed only with where to get some Chinese food. He does not comprehend anymore that a death of a family member is really serious.

    Lastly, Charlie almost tried to commit suicide. He dug out his gun and went for a walk. After choosing a good spot where two policemen were dining and could see out the window to where Charlie was standing, he decided to cross the cross-walk. He timed it perfectly, because right then, a taxi nearly ran him over. Knowing he did something very daring, Charlie started accusing the taxi driver of almost hitting him. After a few angry words, the taxi driver told Charlie to move, but instead of doing as he was told, he pulled out a gun and demanded that the taxi driver watch where he was going next time. As he did this, the two policemen darted out the restaurant and yelled for Charlie to put the gun down. Once again, instead of doing what he was told, he kept the gun aimed at the driver. While the policeman had his gun aimed on Charlie, Charlie kept repeating “do it,” wanting the police officer to shoot him making this a suicide attempt.     

    In conclusion, I do not think that the movie ,Reign Over Me, makes Charlie fit any of Hyler’s stereotypes because he was only depressed and suicidal and nothing more. Which shows that not everything can be labeled. Reign Over Me was a very inspirational story and has taught me that when true friends stick together, things can start turning for the better.

Is knowledge Power or is Ignorance Bliss?

Knowledge in the real world today is a very special trait to have. To replace it with ignorance would be to make a “fool” out of one’s self. Once knowledge is obtained, great wonders could be achieved.

Looking back into prehistoric times, man did not start out in fancy suits, but rather with nearly no clothing at all and no knowledge of the outside world. As time progresses, so does knowledge. Notice where the world is today, we learned that there is more than just the planet earth, we learned how putting elements together creates something totally new, and much more that a mere essay could not begin to list. With knowledge, we have all the advancements that no other being before has, giving us “power” over them.

Another great reason for having knowledge is that it helps us to further advance into the future. Without knowledge, we would no longer have the automobile that we love so much to drive, the microwave that makes cooking much easier, the internet that helps us find our research faster, or the advancement in medicine that have helped and encouraged generations of people to keep moving forward.

Although gaining knowledge is very ideal, sometimes it can be abused. Some would wonder if maybe “ignorance is [really] bliss.” In the dictionary, bliss is defined as to have supreme happiness and ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge or training. If a person was trying to find a job, but practices the idea of “ignorance is bliss” then how could that person ever find a job if training was required. The person couldn’t; therefore, the person would be unhappy, contradicting the idea of “ignorance is bliss.” Which is why, to be ignorant, is to ignore and live like there is nothing going on. If a person were to live like that, it is to live life with everyone knowing something you don’t know. It is to be out of the loop, not knowing what people think. It is to live an un-blissful life.

Whatever life a person has, knowledge is still power and it’s what someone does with that power that makes knowledge so incredibly special.

Should Animals Have The Same Rights As People

Animal equality has always been an issue at hand. We eat them, we test them, and we keep them as pets, but is it enough to give them rights? I feel that they should at least have moral rights.

Animal testing is looked down upon by many, yet others find that because it benefits humans, it’s okay. Well it shouldn’t be. With advanced technology, we should be able to alter the way to find cures for diseases.  When the U.S. bombed Japan, we destroyed a lot of their factories and technology. They had to start all over. With this new beginning, they created top of the line advanced technology. If they can do it, why can’t we develop “top of the line advanced technology” too. There is more than one way to do things and as dominant as we think we are, then let’s try a new way to cure diseases instead of using animals as the victim. People debate that torturing is wrong, yet half of the people that think that are hipocrites. Those hipocrites believe that torturing is wrong for people, but when it comes to animals, torture is not wrong because it saves a human life from that same torture.  Animals are not much different from humans. Tim Radford, contributer to the UK Guardian explains that animals “can feel pain, experience fear, and react in disgust.” (Tim Radford) Radford goes on to say that “if a wildebeest did not feel pain, it would carry on grazing as lions chewed at its hind leg” and “if a canine did not experience disgust, it would not vomit.”  In some senses, animals are also smarter than humans too. For instance, Cleveland Gonnawinn made a good point by asking “When was the last time you saw an animal smoking crack, cigarettes and/or drink a beer?” (Cleveland Gonnawinn) We are literally committing suicide. We may say we are superior but that does not make it true when half of our population is majorly flawed.  Another good point Gonnawinn made was “we are said to be the smartest species on the earth, and that is because we as a people collectively support and made that comment.” Ironic right?

With animals should come rights that we as humans would want for ourselves. I’m not saying we should let them vote in our elections or anything, but morally can we at least treat them the way we wanted to be treated?

More to: Should Schools Require That Children Be Vaccinated

With kids exposed to many viruses and harmful bacteria, the mandation of vaccines should be enforced all over the country.

Little do parents, or people in general, know what vaccines actually do. When a person is injected with a vaccination, he is exposing his body to the weakened virus or bacteria. Once in, he develops immunity to the pathogen. So if this person were really exposed to the injected virus/bacteria, his immune system would be ready to defend itself. Because of current times, there are less and less people infected with a disease, such as polio. However, there could always be a comeback of a disease, therefore everyone, including children, need to be vaccinated so there isn’t that risk. To really fight off another epidemic, we need to perform whats called herd immunity.  According to the Manual of Epidemiology, herd immunity is when “a high proportion of individuals of a group” are “resistance to infection”. (Manual of Epidemiology) Dr. Vincent Iannelli explains that because “most people around you are immune to an infection and can’t get sick, then there is no one around to infect you, even if you aren’t immune to the infection.” (Pediatrics) Not only would you be “immune to an infection,” there are also many benefits of a vaccine. In the long run, vaccinations save many lives, reduce pain, suffering and disability, and they save a ton of money. A blogger for the Economist’s View adds that other benefits included are that “healthy people live longer” and “healthy children are more likely to attend school and are better able to learn” in class. (Economist’s View)

Although we all know that their aren’t many outbreaks of old diseases any more, it is easy to refocus our attention on the risks instead of the benefits. People do not realize that an epidemic could come back. This realization is why schools know what is in the students best interest to receive a vaccination: they want to prevent the risk of getting any student sick.

Should Schools Require That Children Be Vaccinated? (flopped argument)

Vaccines are supposed to eliminate any harmful viruses, however many also pose as threats to the human body. Some will ask themselves, “Can I take the risk?”

Contributer Tatiana Morales of the CBS Early Show says that every day, there are “11,000 babies born.” (CBS News) Morales also mentions that with these new born babies, doctors recommend a total of “20 shots” before the baby reaches “18 months.” These “vaccinations” are suppose to strengthen their immune system and prevent “11 diseases.” However, as a child continuely grows, more vaccinations are required, especially entering the elementary schools.  Morales quotes from The American Academy of Pediatrics that “immunizing a child is far more beneficial than not immunizing.”  Although this may not seem so bad, there are reports of children’s health altering after receiving a vaccination.  As ironic as that seems, parents do not realize that not all children’s bodies are exactly the same. Some respond differently to certain stimulus’s. For example, when my little sister was about five, she needed to have a vaccination for the chicken pox. We had no idea that when getting a vaccination, there could be any potential side effects, all we could think about was that it was one less disease to worry about. However, a couple hours after the vaccination, my sister started twitching uncontrollably and her eyes had rolled into the back of her head, drool falling out of her mouth everytime her body shook. We were all freaking out because we had no clue what was happening, so my mom immediately drove her into the emergency room. After the doctor calmed the seizures and did some blood work, he explained that Emily (my sister) had had a bad reaction to the chicken pox vaccination, but was going to be okay. As a sigh of relief was let out, the harmful effects of a vaccine can be very scary and even deadly. Many parents object to the vaccinations required for school, claiming for religious purposes or other personal reasons. Whether there is a reason or not, the child belongs to the parents, not the school, so why are the schools trying to take over? For instance, some schools require that children receive the hepatitis B shots. For those of you that do not know what that is, North Shore University defines it as “a virus commonly spread by sexual intercourse or blood transfusion, or from mother to newborn from birth. Another way it spreads is by using a needle that was used by an infected person.” (North Shore) I can understand if a mother passes this disease onto her newborn, the shot would be neccessary. On the other hand, I don’t exactly know any child that would participate in any “sexual intercourse” or shoot up an “infected” needle. Why then, would this vaccine be neccessary for kids? The answer: “because high-risk groups—sexually promiscuous adults and IV drug users—are difficult to reach or have rejected this vaccine.” (Opposing Views) So while these adults are exposing the disease, the younger generation must go through the transitions to prevent it, which doesn’t seem exactly fair. It seems that if children were made to receive mandatory vaccinations, then so should the “sexually promiscuous adults and IV drug users.”

While schools debate whether vaccinations should be recommended or required, parents and children alike need to know the risks that come with a vaccine and whether or not those risks are worth the trip to the doctors office.

Should Schools Require That Children Be Vaccinated?

Some schools require that kids entering grades k-12 and sometimes even college be given shots that prevent diseases. Many argue that this is not neccessary and that it should not be up to the schools to mandate someone else’s child’s health issues. Getting a vaccine is painful, especially when seeing a kid go through it, however seeing a kid suffer through whooping cough is even worse.  The need for vaccinations are imperative and would, in the long run, prevent many future out breaks.

The saying, “better be safe than sorry,” can very well apply to getting a vaccination. The CDC (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) states that “Vaccine-preventable diseases have many social and economic costs: sick children miss school and can cause parents to lose time from work. These diseases also result in doctor’s visits, hospitalizations, and even premature deaths.” (CDC) Hearing this, many would say that maybe vaccines aren’t so bad after all. They save money and time. For people without health insurance, going to the Doctor can get pricey, especially if the child was so sick, x-rays or even surgeries were needed. Also, if vaccinations were stopped, millions of deaths worldwide could be expected. Because of the success of vaccinations, people do not realize that diseases, such as measles or polio, are dangerous. Many parents argue that instead of vaccinations curing their kid, it caused them severe health problems, like seizures or autism. According to an article in the New York Times, on Vashon Island, a ten month old baby died in his crib 2 weeks after an immunization.  In another, a little girl suffered four years of seizures that began minutes after her first whooping-cough shot. Their doctors disagreed, but these mothers were sure the indictment was on the vaccinations. (NYTimes) These many blames may sound convincing, however researchers have shown that these vaccinations and diseases have no corralation. They say that parents often link vaccines with their children’s symptoms because they are vaccinated at an age when disorders are often first diagnosed.

As new diseases pop up and old ones drift away, our love or hate for vaccinations will always be here, and so will those diseases, hovering and waiting to come back for a second round. So will we be there to catch it?

Toulmin Theory of Argument: Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People?

Evidence: The Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that “Humans are morally considerable because of the distinctively human capacities we possess, capacities that only we humans have. But which campacities mark out all and only humans as the kinds of beings that can be wronged? A number of candidate capacities have been proposed–developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly, are just a few. As it turns out, none of these activities is uncontroversially unique to human. Both scholarly and popular work on animal behavior suggests that many of the activites that are thought to be distinct to humans occurs in non-humans. ”

Claim: Animals should have moral rights.

Warant: Although human beings and animals have a different genetic make-up, they share a lot of the same characteristics.As noted, animals basicly have the same wants and needs to survive as we do, showing that man-kind and animal are really not that different.  When the world starts questioning whether or not animals should be given the privilage to have rights, then we have major selfish issues. They have feelings. They are not the ones with the problem, and they especially do not want to be stuck in a cage having harmful tests done to them. If we wanted something that bad, then we should have the integrity to go forth and do it ourselves, not be a coward and have an innocent animal do it for us.  Animals are not something that can be disposed of when we need. They were put on this earth too, to live their life in peace and while they do no harm to us, is it fair to do harm to them, to take advantage of them?

Backing:If we were to put a human being into that tested animals place, we would find ourselves outraged and disgusted that someone could do that. Animals go through the same pain you would if you were both subjected to painful and deadly experiments. If products were pumped into your stomach, rubbed on your skin, or squirted in your eyes, I don’t think you would be able to sit there and just take it. Animals, like monkeys, that have to sit in their cages, never to see any of their family and friends and just waiting to die. If everyone and everything has feelings and experiences pain, then who are we to say that humans shouldn’t have to go through it, but other animals should? Millions of animals are tortured and killed each year for testing (peta.org) when most of those tests aren’t even 100 percent accurate.

Rebuttle: Although you don’t have that same compassion for animals, think about how that animal has to sit there everyday, not able to say a word, to take the pain, hoping for it to stop, but knowing that they have no control over it, until they take their last dying breath. That is what should be considered. That is why animals should have rights.

Qualifier: Not always do we have to consider moral rights for animals. A fly, for instance, is one that we don’t have to be defensive about.