Response to "PETA."

Response #21

There are a variety of animal right's groups but PETA is the most famous, or rather, infamous. Emily brought up, in her blog, how PETA uses offensive advertisements to advocate animal rights but what they show also portrays false information and is always over the top. In Emily's example, PETA's add shows a half naked woman ready for the TSA scan (the full-body can in order to fly an airplane) whose underwear reads "Be proud of your body scan: Go Vegan." This ad is not only exploitative of the woman in the ad but it assumes the vegan diet always makes a person healthier, thin, and sexy. It also implies people do not want to go through the scan because they are ashamed of their bodies (and not because it is an invasion of privacy, Emily pointed out). PETA tends to play off of a serious problem to get the public's attention but the result is a public who does not take animal rights more seriously because they are revolted by the ways PETA protests and speaks up. Emily asked, "Why is PETA the most well-known animal rights group if their methods of effecting change are so problematic?"

PETA is the most well-known animal rights group because they try anything to be noticed. They like to get a rise out of people if it means maybe someone will look past the offensiveness and actually think about animal rights. They like to shock the public but it only gives PETA a bad reputation. In my blog, I have referred to PETA a couple of times because they do have good statistics and information on their site. However, this does not mean I support how they portray women. When I was googling PETA images to put in this blog, there were so many of naked women shown in cages, tied up, put on display as pieces of meat, shown as bloodied body parts, and so on. I understand PETA wants to give off some sort of message... but I have no idea what that message is because I can't get past the fact that these women are being so degraded. PETA could really make a difference for the lives of animals but I don't think their current methods are really helping animals out.

My question to you is: What should PETA do (or not do) in order to grow in popularity, actually get support from the public, and save the lives of animals at the same time?

The least offensive PETA advertisement I could find... and she isn't even wearing pants.

The Effects of Overpopulation.

The world's population is on its way to seven billion. Not only are their harsh effects for the standards of living for humans but animal habitats are being destroyed. Human activities such as mining, transportation, pollution, agriculture, development, and logging are all taking away habitat from wild animals as well as killing animals directly. These activities also contribute to climate change which threatens even the most remote wild life habitats on this planet as well as our own survival. More than 80% of the world’s old growth forests have been destroyed, wetlands are being drained for real estate development, and demands for biofuels take arable land away from crop production. Life on earth is currently experiencing its sixth extinction, and it has been estimated that we are losing approximately 30,000 species every year. The most famous major extinction was the fifth one, which occurred about 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs. The major extinction that we are now facing is the first that is caused not by an asteroid collision or other natural causes but by a single species: human beings.

My question to you is: Is it possible for human beings to slow down overpopulation and protect wildlife? What needs to be done?

Something to think about:

Response to "Dogs and Cats."

Response #20

For as long as I can remember, there has been a 'war' between dogs and cats. As children and even into adulthood, we see movies and television shows where the cats are seen as evil and dogs as the good guys and they always despise each other. I do think it is interesting how cats and dogs are so different even though they sometimes live in the same households. It's also interesting how some people are clearly dog lovers and others prefer the independence of cats. This makes me wonder if it's because our personalities match the ways of one species more than the other or if there are other undiscovered reasons for choosing one domesticated animal over another. In Courtney's blog, she talked about how dogs have been domesticated much longer than cats: 15,000 years compared to 9,500 years. She compares common characteristics of dogs and cats saying dogs are more dependent while cats are independent animals. Cats are able to survive in the wild while dogs do not last as long. She then said it may be because dogs have been domesticated longer but that has not really been a proven answer. She asked, "What makes dogs so different from cats that they need to depend on us, while cats do not?"

For starters, even though they are both domesticated animals, they are different species of animals. Even treating them the same would give the owner two completely different animals and they are verrry different. For instance, dogs come when you call them while cats take their time and do so only if they want to. Dogs provide unconditional love while cats make you work for it and seem to hold grudges. Dogs let owners bathe and brush them but cats will put up a fight. Dogs bark to be heard but cats like to hide and be discrete. The list goes on. There are good reasons why cats and dogs have such distinctive personalities and behaviors which makes dogs dependent and cats the total opposite. The largest reason I see is that they have different social patterns and ways of interacting. Dogs are from packs and the members of their packs or families are critical to them. They see their owners as their packs and look for a leader. Some dogs strive for the leadership role but of course the owner does not let that happen. Carts are not pack animals and don't look for a human leader to follow. However, they aren't solitary animals as some may think. The relationships they form are more based on behavior, treatment, and territorial and survival concerns. If a cat is being treated badly, it won't stick around. However, if a dog is being abused, it will stay with the owner if there was once a connection between them because the owner is still the leader. In the wild, cats do form groups but this is influenced by whether there is enough food to hunt and if they are accepting of other cats around. Cats hunt independently; even pet cats hunt when they already have a supply of food. The ways cats and dogs interact with people and animals are fundamentally different.

Another difference is their physical make up. Cats, being solitary hunters, are physically unique. From the smallest house cat to their wild big cat cousins, they are physically suited as exceptional hunters. They have a good sense of smell and excellent hearing. They do not need humans to supply everything for them and if they do, cats hunt anyways because it is in their nature to be independent. They are flexible, excellent runners and jumpers, with other capabilities that are unmatched by other animals, even dogs. Dogs are best suited for finding prey and they have unbelievable tracking skills. This can be seen in many working dogs that use their tracking abilities for search and rescue, or to detect particular substances such as illegal drugs or explosives. This shows both a remarkable nose and an ability to be trained, along with a desire to please. Typically dogs have exceptional hearing too. Dogs have also been bred by people to have particular traits. Therefore some breeds are particularly good at picking up a scent, others are suited to hunt and retrieve, others are particularly fast runners, and unfortunately some dogs have been bred to fight making them much more aggressive than the average dog. Many dogs are bred mainly to be pets which usually leads to a good even tempered dog. While cats are bred too, it isn’t to the same extent as dogs and cats aren’t typically bred for a particular ability like dogs are, consequently it hasn’t affected the species the same way as dogs. There can be quite a range in personality and demeanor for both cats and dogs, but each has basics elements that are unique to their own species.

My question to you is: Are you a cat person or a dog lover and what makes you particular to one species over the other?

Cows With Guns

Just for fun...

"Turkey Day."

There are over 300 million turkeys killed each year, in the US, and 65 million of them are killed for the Thanksgiving Holiday, according to GentleThanksgiving.com. As I was visiting sites that stressed the importance of going meat free this Thanksgiving, there were endless comments about how pointless it is and how people should enjoy their food, the meat on their plates. Some comments would say they support PETA (People for Eating Tasty Animals) and how trying to change tradition will not get any followers. This got me thinking, why are people so set in their ways? What's so good about a dried out 20 pound turkey, anyways? I personally look forward to the sweet potatoes and apple pie. If the word 'tofurky' is even mentioned, people shutter like its a disease. You can't even look up 'Thanksgiving' on the internet without getting a picture of a cooked turkey. Benjamin Franklin even wanted the turkey to be our national bird but the eagle won that competition. There are countless vegan holiday recipes which could satisfy everyone but people still insist on going out and buying a turkey. Do you think this 'tradition' will ever end?

My question to you is: What's so bad about tofurcky? What's it going to take for Americans to realize Thanksgiving is not about the 20 pound bird in the middle of the table but more about bringing family together? It's still Thanksgiving even if there isn't a turkey.

Response to Becky and Freedom.

Response #19

In Becky's blog, she talked about how humans use animals in many ways but most are not necessary. For example, animals are used in medicine, as pets, transportation, clothing, zoos, farm hands, and food. She responded to Todd's question of whether or not animals can have freedom and liberty by defining freedom as, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action," and liberty as, "the power to do as one pleases." According to these Mariam-Webster dictionary answers, liberty and freedom go hand in hand. Animals used for clothing and food have no freedoms because they die for humans. Becky stated, in medical testing facilities, animals have a bit more freedom in their cages but they are still very restricted to do what they want, eat what they want, etc. They do not have the freedom to change their own living situations or say what they want/need. They suffer the most. Pets, Becky said, have even less freedom than cows and other farm animals depending on the owner. However, I think pets have the most freedom because they have the right to live and, in some homes, well. Farm animals, like cows and chickens, are killed mercilessly for our consumption. Many farm animals are treated much worse than pets because some families see their pets as part of the family, or as valuable property, but farm animals are simply a means of production. Zoo animals also have such little freedom because they are put on display their whole lives. Becky then asked, "Are humans even free? Who has more freedom: wild animals or humans?"

This is a very debatable question. The bottom line is, I do not think there is such thing as total freedom. People and animals have freedoms but they are still restricted in all that they do. In some places, humans have much more freedom than wild animals because humans are able to wipe out whole species, like the buffalo, just for their 'needs' and without a second thought. However, wild animals do not have to pay taxes, follow laws, or purchase anything for that matter. They aren't limited to certain spaces, in some countries, and are not trapped by the greed of other people. Wild animals can kill without consequences, they can live where they please, they have few worries, especially animals higher up on the ladder who have very few predators. However, animals still need to worry about feeding their young and other dangers/predators but if there is a steady supply of food and good shelter, then they are fine.

Humans have fought for freedom since the beginning and are still fighting today, especially for women and minority races. Everything boils down to money and if you don't have it, you can't do a thing. You don't have food or shelter; you don't have anything. Our society, however, does not leave the wild animals alone. I think humans want to limit the freedom of animals just like their freedoms are limited. If a person breaks the law, he or she gets locked up. However, animals do not have to do anything wrong in order to be locked up. Humans are driven by their superiority and do not like to let wild animals stay free. Humans lock them up, poke them with needles, examine them, try to put them on display, and restrict where they can go by creating industrialized worlds and ruining habitation. Although humans don't actually have freedom, wild animals are losing theirs as the world advances. I think no one is really free. No matter where a person goes or what a person does, he or she has laws and people that restrict him or her to the fullest. At first, I would say wild animals are more free but I think they are losing their freedom every day just as humans are.

My question to you is: Do you think wild animals and humans can both be free simultaneously and what needs to happen for both species to be granted more freedoms in such a restrictive, controlling world?

Response to Hallie and Jenna on "Leashes."

Response #18

In Hallie's blog, she talks about how, before this class, she never really looked at leashes as disturbing or as a way for humans to yet again be superior and in control. She decided there is really no reason to use them since it restricts the animal's freedom and it is obvious the dog knows a leash is being used on him or her. It is hard to argue that dogs are persons when they are on leashes; when they are being pulled one way or another and being restricted to where they can go. This brings up the idea of children on leashes and how disturbing it is to see this taking place. Hallie then brought up the point that we are not as shocked or disturbed to see dogs on leashes as we are children even though dogs are placed somewhere between friend and child. People who leash dogs are trying to control them while people who leash children want to protect them. Jenna then responds to this by saying it is the law to have a dog on a leash but it isn't required for children to be. She points out that having leashes on dogs is hard to get around because it is required but no one deserves to be locked in or controlled in such a way.

Jenna then asked, "Why do we look at child leashes negatively? It is better than seeing a parent who lets their child run way ahead of them while talking to another adult, to me that is abuse. Children need boundaries to keep them safe, at all ages. What do you think?" I think we look at child leashes negatively because it's just so odd to see. It's rare so when we do see it, we are shocked and pin the mother or father as controlling, overprotective, and a bit cruel. Personally, I would never want to be put on a leash, even when I was a child. Seeing parents hold the hand of their children instead of keeping them on leashes is a much more caring gesture. It shows the parents are protecting the child but letting him or her walk on his or her own. When I picture a dog or child on a leash, I see the person holding the leash tugging on it and controlling where the dog or child goes. I understand it is a way to protect a child or animal but it is degrading, in my opinion, even for young children. It's a sign of superiority. Also, when a person calls another person a dog, this is an insult. So when we see children with leashes, we may see this as insulting as well. Even though many people see dogs as family or as persons, it seems as though calling someone a dog is not a nice name. So, we see putting leashes on children as negative.

I would be perfectly content holding the hand of my child or carrying him or her. I don't see the reason for having a leash on a child. To me, it's unnatural and kind of cruel. To the public, it is like treating a child as a dog and a lot of pet owners don't treat their dogs like persons. I understand the reason for leashes on dogs because they can be more dangerous than children. They are more unpredictable and quick. I would encourage not using a leash on a dog whenever a pet owner can but I do understand it is a law that should be followed or else poorly trained and aggressive dogs could really hurt someone or be hurt. I use a leash on my dog to protect him but I think there are other ways to protect children than to leash them.

My question to you is: Would you ever leash your child and do you leash your dog? Why is this? What are the differences between leashing a child and leashing a dog?