Planet of Which Apes?
You have David Suzuki on one side, and Frederic A. King on the other. One's a renowned and ardent defender of nature's interests, and the other's a neuroscientist, director of Emory University's primate research centre, and an adherent of animal research and experimentation. Naturally, Suzuki's "The Pain of Animals" and King's "Animals in Research: The Case of Experimentation" contrast in the gist of their respective arguments, specifically on the topic of humans' rights over animals, but also on their views of the opposing arguments, but can still be considered similar in style, in this case in their appeal to our sensitivity. In his plea against the liberal use of animals for basic research and experimentation, David Suzuki denounces humans' "sacrifice" of animals, to advance their own cause. Throughout his essay, he reminds us that animals are "living beings" and that they have shown an ability to feel pain and emotions. In that aspect, he thinks the animal species is no different than men, and that it's no coincidence that men have designated animals as their tool of choice for research: it is because we resemble them so much. As for Frederic King, he believes that although animals s
" He also attempts to downplay the gravity of the "occasional errors" that occur in laboratories, by relating to the reader's own errors in "the rearing of the children, [and] the practicing of a trade or profession] and usually consequent acceptance and understanding of others' errors. King also repeatedly and systematically seeks to weaken not only the animal-rights movement's arguments, but the activists themselves, personally. "Models," "similarity," "biological": they all suggest the inevitable comparisons and similarities pro-animal rights factions have been trying to ascertain between animals and humans. " Throughout his essay, he tries to establish the link between us humans, and animals. Finally, both authors discuss the question of humans' rights over animals. Like I said earlier, Suzuki believes we should reconsider "where we fit in the rest of the natural world. As for Frederic King, to convince us of the benefits of experimental research on animals, he also chooses to try to appeal to our "soft spot," although to a lesser extent. The squirrel started "crying," and that is when Mr Suzuki realized the effect his actions had on that squirrel. You are either with him or against him. " He simply discards the "extremists" out of the equation, and even looks to be trying to bring discord and clashing dissension into the opposing camp. He alludes, as a reference, to the case of gorillas and chimpanzees, which share 99% of our genes" and "are our closest relatives. He barely brings up the beneficial aspects of animal experimentation. In the following lines, my focus will be on both authors' use of argumentum ad hominen, their playing on feelings, their level of consideration for the opposing side's views and opinions, and their perception of man's place in nature. However, he does so with a very precise goal, and that is to completely undermine and destroy their opinions and arguments. Even though he decides to go through his expose without taking into consideration all of the pros and cons of the question, he does so without the least bit sign of arrogance and guile.
Common topics in this essay:
Frederic King,
Frederick King,
David Suzuki,
Suzuki King,
Mountains York,
Frederic King's,
Arthur Kaplan's,
Research Experimentation,
Obviously Suzuki,
David Suzuki's,
frederic king,
david suzuki,
research experimentation,
fit rest natural,
king appeared,
appeal sensitivity,
humans' rights,
throughout essay,
feel pain,
rights animals,
rest natural world,
humans' rights animals,
try appeal,
|
Acceptance Essays
