Have i mentioned this video made me want to kill people? It did.
Maybe I could be the animal rights version of Dexter.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Documentary from Hell.
The brutal documentary I watched as the final part of my BLA assignment was called "Meet your Meat", and was filmed and distributed by PETA. I located this documentary because it was actually referenced by a source in my BLA book. And after watching/reading them, if I hadn't already been a vegetarian for the last six and a half years, I would have become one now.
THE ARGUMENTS:
The argument represented in my BLA book, Johanthan Safran Foer's "Eating Animals" was incredibly similar to the one in "Meet your Meat", with a few distinct differences.
"Eating Animals", though written by a vegetarian, is not a pointed case for vegetarianism or for veganism. The argument represented in this book is one simply against factory farming. Foer's research is all about the affects of factory farming on the people, economy, environment, and animals involved. He concludes that factory farming is immoral, wrong, and about a thousand other terrible adjectives. It is because of factory farming that he doesn't eat meat.
The PETA video has a similar argument in that they also argue against factory farming, and show cruel videos of the slaughter houses used in the factory farmers' system. However, the arguments have a distinct difference where eating meat is concerned. Foer recognizes the individuals' decision to or to not eat meat, while the PETA video argues vehemently against any eating of meat or animal products.
RESPONSE:
As I said, if I hadn't already been a vegetarian, after seeing this documentary and reading this book I would have become one. One member of my BLA group, Anni, actually converted about halfway through the book. Two of the others already were.
The strength in these arguments comes from their vivid appeals to emotion. In the video, shots are displayed of animals being brutally tortured and killed. This is an appeal to the readers emotions. As much as I did not enjoy seeing it, and hated the person who made the video for making me watch such cruel treatment, the video tugged at my heartstrings, as it would do to nearly any human capable of emotion.
The vivid video images are represented through text in Foer's book. The detailed and descriptive diction he uses to depict the terrible events taking place are strongly connotative to the reader, and are an incredible use of pathos.
The documentary I hated watching. The book, I hated reading. Yet at the same time I enjoyed both for the arguments they were making. They were both very effective arguments, and I am glad the documentary was made, and I am glad the book was written. Now people can have a chance to see what factory farming is doing to innocent creatures and hopefully respond to it the way Anni and I have.
THE ARGUMENTS:
The argument represented in my BLA book, Johanthan Safran Foer's "Eating Animals" was incredibly similar to the one in "Meet your Meat", with a few distinct differences.
"Eating Animals", though written by a vegetarian, is not a pointed case for vegetarianism or for veganism. The argument represented in this book is one simply against factory farming. Foer's research is all about the affects of factory farming on the people, economy, environment, and animals involved. He concludes that factory farming is immoral, wrong, and about a thousand other terrible adjectives. It is because of factory farming that he doesn't eat meat.
The PETA video has a similar argument in that they also argue against factory farming, and show cruel videos of the slaughter houses used in the factory farmers' system. However, the arguments have a distinct difference where eating meat is concerned. Foer recognizes the individuals' decision to or to not eat meat, while the PETA video argues vehemently against any eating of meat or animal products.
RESPONSE:
As I said, if I hadn't already been a vegetarian, after seeing this documentary and reading this book I would have become one. One member of my BLA group, Anni, actually converted about halfway through the book. Two of the others already were.
The strength in these arguments comes from their vivid appeals to emotion. In the video, shots are displayed of animals being brutally tortured and killed. This is an appeal to the readers emotions. As much as I did not enjoy seeing it, and hated the person who made the video for making me watch such cruel treatment, the video tugged at my heartstrings, as it would do to nearly any human capable of emotion.
The vivid video images are represented through text in Foer's book. The detailed and descriptive diction he uses to depict the terrible events taking place are strongly connotative to the reader, and are an incredible use of pathos.
The documentary I hated watching. The book, I hated reading. Yet at the same time I enjoyed both for the arguments they were making. They were both very effective arguments, and I am glad the documentary was made, and I am glad the book was written. Now people can have a chance to see what factory farming is doing to innocent creatures and hopefully respond to it the way Anni and I have.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Resolutions. Bah, humbug.
So I was thinking this New Years about what my resolutions should be and it occurred to me: why even bother?
Honestly, its not that I don't want to make an effort to "improve myself" or anything like that. I'm sure I probably should, and I could come up with a number of fairly legitimate resolutions. Don't swear as much, stop procrastinating (My 80 question physics is due tomorrow and I started oh, about a half an hour ago.), and I could probably due to be a tad nicer to my mother.
I know though, that any of those resolutions won't be kept well. Its only January, there's twelve whole months (why do I always want to spell it monthes?) for me to cave in on my resolutions, or to just completely forget what they are. And I'll face it. I fight way too often with my mother, and thats not going to change even if I have a resolution telling me it should. I have mopro next semester, so logically my procrastination is only going to get worse. And honestly, every time I miss a gate in ski practice, i swear about it. Loudly. Good thing my coach can't hear me from the chairlift.
So why do people even have resolutions to begin with? I'm sure the percent of people who actually stick to them is incredibly low. The number of people who actually mean their resolutions with sincerity is probably even lower. Do we make them anyway so we can answer people's questions the few weeks after new years without lying to them? Do we make them to feel good about ourselves? Or do we simply need them to make ourselves believe that really, truly, "this year will be better."? I am fairly certain its a combination of these things that drives us to set our resolve once a year only to fail it soon after. And we'll continue to do it for some time.
Me, though. I'm havent thought of a resolution that I will actually keep. Maybe that makes me a bad person. Maybe it just makes me honest.
Honestly, its not that I don't want to make an effort to "improve myself" or anything like that. I'm sure I probably should, and I could come up with a number of fairly legitimate resolutions. Don't swear as much, stop procrastinating (My 80 question physics is due tomorrow and I started oh, about a half an hour ago.), and I could probably due to be a tad nicer to my mother.
I know though, that any of those resolutions won't be kept well. Its only January, there's twelve whole months (why do I always want to spell it monthes?) for me to cave in on my resolutions, or to just completely forget what they are. And I'll face it. I fight way too often with my mother, and thats not going to change even if I have a resolution telling me it should. I have mopro next semester, so logically my procrastination is only going to get worse. And honestly, every time I miss a gate in ski practice, i swear about it. Loudly. Good thing my coach can't hear me from the chairlift.
So why do people even have resolutions to begin with? I'm sure the percent of people who actually stick to them is incredibly low. The number of people who actually mean their resolutions with sincerity is probably even lower. Do we make them anyway so we can answer people's questions the few weeks after new years without lying to them? Do we make them to feel good about ourselves? Or do we simply need them to make ourselves believe that really, truly, "this year will be better."? I am fairly certain its a combination of these things that drives us to set our resolve once a year only to fail it soon after. And we'll continue to do it for some time.
Me, though. I'm havent thought of a resolution that I will actually keep. Maybe that makes me a bad person. Maybe it just makes me honest.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Response: The Inner Ring
The concept of an "inner ring" can be applied to basically anything. It didn't really occur to me until I read this, but it really makes sense. There are inner circles present in every thing. Everyone knows there are cliques in school, in fact that might be the most cliche way to show cliques in society imaginable. But there are those "popular" people that everyone wants to be. It might be more present in middle school than high school, especially wayzata high school since we have so many students, but its there. Everywhere in society there are circles. There are the best dressed people in the work place, there are the captains on the sports team. The people in college that get invited to the coolest parties, which is a more relevent example to what C.S. Lewis is making a point about in his address to college students.
He makes his point about this topic very clear when he comes right out and says he has something to say about the world. The thing that makes this a good address is that he gives examples and tries to relate them to the group he is talking about. He knows who he is speaking to, and is able to cater directly to them. He makes an example about the Russian army and comes right out and says that it might not be the perfect example to use for his audience. He comes right out and says to them that he doesn't think that was a great example and then tries to relate to them. Lewis makes all of his points obvious. Its the perfect way to make his speech, because its clear what he's talking about. It leaves everyone to relate to the point in their own way, like I have in the paragraph above.
He makes his point about this topic very clear when he comes right out and says he has something to say about the world. The thing that makes this a good address is that he gives examples and tries to relate them to the group he is talking about. He knows who he is speaking to, and is able to cater directly to them. He makes an example about the Russian army and comes right out and says that it might not be the perfect example to use for his audience. He comes right out and says to them that he doesn't think that was a great example and then tries to relate to them. Lewis makes all of his points obvious. Its the perfect way to make his speech, because its clear what he's talking about. It leaves everyone to relate to the point in their own way, like I have in the paragraph above.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Epic Speeches
Okay this first one I just found online when I was searching for RFL (relay for life) speeches and I love him. If you can get past the clearly ridiculous scene, the actual speech is pretty inspirational. (He's talking about the 12 hour relay against cancer they did in Phoenix.) So here's the vid:
Okay this second one is from a movie- I heard that was okay- but its clearly the most epic speech ever and I am in love with it :] The courage of men shall never fail us as long as Aragorn is there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reIaKZSMHu8
Okay this second one is from a movie- I heard that was okay- but its clearly the most epic speech ever and I am in love with it :] The courage of men shall never fail us as long as Aragorn is there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reIaKZSMHu8
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Alert
Alert: fully aware, attentive, agile, wide-awake
Part of Speech: adjective
Origin: (according to dictionary.com)
Synonmys:
Part of Speech: adjective
Origin: (according to dictionary.com)
c.1600, from Fr. alerte "vigilant," from phrase à l'erte "on the watch," from It. all'erta "to the height," from erta "lookout, high tower," orig. fem. of erto, pp. of ergere "raise up," from L. erigere "raise." The adv. is the oldest form in Eng.; the adj. is from 1712, the noun from 1803, and the verb from 1868
Synonmys:
- Active-adjective; engaged in action; characterized by energetic work, participation, etc.; busy: an active life. Origin: 1300–50; < L āctīvus
- Attentive-adjective; characterized by or giving attention; observant: an attentive audience. Origin: 1375–1425; late ME (Scots
- Enthralled-adjective; to be held spell-bound. Origin: 1570–80; en + thrall
- Awake-adjective; waking; not sleeping, alert. Origin: bef. 1000; ME awaken,
- Aware-adjective; having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger. Origin: 1100; ME, var. of iwar, OE gewær watchful
- Interested-adjective; having the attention or curiosity engaged. Origin: 1225–75; (n.) ME < ML, L: it concerns, lit., it is between; r. interesse
- Heedful-adjective; taking heed; attentive; mindful; thoughtful; careful.Origin: 1540–50; heed + full
- Vigilant-adjective; ever awake and alert; sleeplessly watchful. Origin: 1470–80; < L vigilant- (s. of vigilāns ), prp. of vigilāre to be watchful.
- Observant-adjective; quick to notice or perceive; alert. Origin: 1425–75; late ME < F, prp. of observer.
- Watchful-adjective; vigilant or alert; closely observant. Origin: 1540–50; watch + full.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Paris
I've recently decided that after college I want to move to Paris. Which might be considered a little odd, considering I've only been there once and don't speak French. However, I just realized I'm not a huge fan of our country. Especially Minnesota. There's nothing here that interests me anymore. And Paris, well, such a different story!
I went to Paris this past summer, during a tour of Europe I was on. We were only there for about four days, and I wish we could have stayed longer. The Louvre, which we spent several hours at, was gorgeous but surprisingly not one of my favorite things. The Eiffel tower, also, was gorgeous. The view from the top was spectacular, well worth all the steps we walked up to see it. My favorite thing about Paris, though, was the atmosphere.
I've always lived in suburbs, and as a little kid wanted to move to a ranch in the middle of Montana. Now, though, I can no more see myself living in the middle of the outdoors than I can see myself enjoying a hamburger. (As a vegetarian, thats a fair comparison). I want to live in the city. Paris in particular, at least during the summer days we were there, was gorgeous. The architecture was beautiful, and there were people everywhere, walking, chattering in French, riding their bikes to work or simply sitting on benches outside enjoying the day. I love the idea of being able to take a bike to work, of being able to walk where I want to go in the streets of Paris.
Now, its not just Paris that interests me. I also loved London, and since my family lives there moving there would be so much easier. In London though, if no one noticed, they speak English. The reason I perfered Paris was that the language was so different, so much prettier. Silly and material, but true. I like the adventure of moving somewhere with a limited knowledge of the language and culture and trying to make my way. I sound as though I'm quoting "Eat, Pray, Love", and maybe I am. Even though I found the movie just a little corny, the actual idea of what that character did excited me. I want to try it someday.
I went to Paris this past summer, during a tour of Europe I was on. We were only there for about four days, and I wish we could have stayed longer. The Louvre, which we spent several hours at, was gorgeous but surprisingly not one of my favorite things. The Eiffel tower, also, was gorgeous. The view from the top was spectacular, well worth all the steps we walked up to see it. My favorite thing about Paris, though, was the atmosphere.
I've always lived in suburbs, and as a little kid wanted to move to a ranch in the middle of Montana. Now, though, I can no more see myself living in the middle of the outdoors than I can see myself enjoying a hamburger. (As a vegetarian, thats a fair comparison). I want to live in the city. Paris in particular, at least during the summer days we were there, was gorgeous. The architecture was beautiful, and there were people everywhere, walking, chattering in French, riding their bikes to work or simply sitting on benches outside enjoying the day. I love the idea of being able to take a bike to work, of being able to walk where I want to go in the streets of Paris.
Now, its not just Paris that interests me. I also loved London, and since my family lives there moving there would be so much easier. In London though, if no one noticed, they speak English. The reason I perfered Paris was that the language was so different, so much prettier. Silly and material, but true. I like the adventure of moving somewhere with a limited knowledge of the language and culture and trying to make my way. I sound as though I'm quoting "Eat, Pray, Love", and maybe I am. Even though I found the movie just a little corny, the actual idea of what that character did excited me. I want to try it someday.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)