Commentary #4 - Nick

The author does very well at offering an alternative proposal as a solution to his claim on the ethics of vivisection. I would never have thought of the solution to make use of human tissue in the place of vivisection on animals and actually think that this is very feasible and that the problem with vivisection is possible to solve. His first reason adds strength to why his solution would be plausible and he cites a reliable peer reviewed source to support his reason. His second reason, that drug companies would ultimately save money through research and litigation. The support for cutting research costs down is well supported well with cost and time comparison between human tissue and live animals. Something that might make this a little more solid might be to actually add some comparative figures so that the difference in monetary value can easily be seen by the reader and/or skeptic. This was shown in his next reason citing percentage of failure in testing on animals, but again, a specific figure might make his point resonate clearly in the mind of the reader. His third and final reason, which is that there is an endless supply of tissue to use in experimentation, is a valid point. He gives examples that make sense in respect to actual methods of tissue collection for use in research.

For the most part his reasons are well thought out and articulated. One question that came to mind is if testing on human tissue has been attempted and how well it worked. Evidence on this would make the writer’s solution all the more strong. This might help a skeptic who doubts the effectiveness of the solution become convinced. For his refutation the author chose a valid point (live human testing) but I think that some skeptics might also bring up the fact that animal testing should be continued. Human testing seems to be a slightly extreme alternative and I see myself wondering what the ratifications of continued vivisection would entail.

Rachel Tapper

Professor Christopher Brown

English 1B

6 August 2013

Restoration of Equality

            An alternative solution desperately needs to be implemented in the place of state and federal hate crime laws that have been enacted since the 1990s. Aside from the notion that these laws do not deter criminal behavior of this nature, it is evident that they are indicative of an overuse of the law.  This system is currently cluttered with confusion, inequality and endless complications in prosecuting under accurate and just terms. The accused have received extra sentencing for technicalities under current provisions and we once again have reached a scenario where not everyone is offered the same rights by our government. If we are already supposed to receive equal protection under the law, wouldn’t these statutes and legislations therefore be redundant through there adherence to sympathy for targeted groups? In order to restore fairness and constitutionality to the judicial system, it is proposed that hate crime legislation be repealed and justice served through when it is due under current laws through harsher penalties according to specifics of the crime.

These statutes in themselves are superfluous to current state and federal policy. To clarify the delegation of power between state and federal governments, the article Repeal Tyrannical ‘Hate Crime’ Laws Beware Efforts to Control thought and Speech quotes James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state" (Wayne).

If hate crime legislation were to be repealed, people would continue to be offered the rights and protection guaranteed by the government. The fact is that, because they do more harm than good, laws against bias-motivated actually take away the rights afforded to us by the government under existing laws by delegating persons whom have more protection than others. Murder is murder any way you slice it, and if you add on instances which make it worse with respect to the characteristics of the victim, no one can ever be proven guilty efficiently and effectively. The message that these laws are attempting to send is not being seen through complication of determining the extent of the motive, much less the extent of the victim’s identity.

Another reason to immediately repeal state and federal hate crime legislation is that those accused of bias-motivated crime are not accurately prosecuted as a result of these legislations. Quite the opposite occurs with most recent laws because prosecutors are faced with the burden of proof in regards to whether or not motive was driven by prejudice. According to the article  The Problem of Motive in Hate Crimes: The Argument against Presumptions of Racial Motivation, “States' failure to clarify the evidentiary standard intended by the requirement of proof that the accused attacked his or her victim "because of" racial motivation allows many expressions of racial animus to go unprosecuted under current statutes”  (Morsch). This is mostly because these laws do nothing but complicate the system so much that the nuts and bolts of a case have turned into endless debates on definition of the defendant’s nature. If the legislations were repealed and the law was left alone to simply determine how heinous a crime was, prosecutors would escape the pressure to prove how much of the defendant’s motives were biased and to what degree, and instead be able to focus on the extent of the action taken in order to make the case that sentencing for harsher punishment should be implemented. Determining what was done to a victim is much easier than speculating on internal beliefs which are far beyond provable. Right to a fair trial needs to be restored and can only be done so with the absence of these micro-managing statutes.

            Advocates and supporters of hate crime legislation have offered that additional revisions are needed for the laws to be fair and more beneficial to society in adequately covering potentially targeted victims. If we continue to add to the list of epithets that deserve more sympathy than others, we will continue to throw off the balance of the justice system. Some will ask what is to be done with the problem that these types of crimes will still happen. Cases where a person is targeted as a result of prejudice based on substantial evidence of should receive harsher sentencing according to the degree of atrocity in action. For example, in the tragic case of Matthew Sheppard, a twenty-one year old homosexual who was brutally murdered by two straight men, which was a horrific account cruelty, the two defendants are currently serving their life sentences for the monstrous acts they committed. They were not prosecuted under any hate-crime laws yet received increased penalties of life sentencing for what they had done, which was two consecutive life sentences for Russell A. Henderson and a life sentence for Aaron J. McKinney for his part (Brooke). This sentencing can be applied under current laws against arson, assault, murder, and rape. Perhaps what needs to be done is a careful revisiting of current sentencing guidelines and penalties to be enhanced accordingly. After all, these actions are a result of one form of hate or another and the message should be sent that all forms of these crimes are unacceptable.

Legislation that was meant to promote equality has consequently created inequality. While it is true that there was a time that these laws were applicable to the nature of society before the Civil Rights movement, hate crime legislation is out-dated.  There are current policies in effect which already protect American’s in regards to equality under the law and subsequently, these laws have taken some of that away. Someone is trying to fix something that is not broken and repeal is necessary in order to keep freedoms offered by the First Amendment intact. Instead of ineffective hate-crime accusations, and similar to additional sentencing for the degree in which murder was committed, especially heinous acts should be examined and dealt with accordingly outside of these laws. If we were created equal, and should be afforded the same rights, than resolve needs to be met to continue down that road.

Works Cited

Brooke, James. "Gay Murder Trial Ends With Guilty Plea." The New York Times 6 April 1999. <http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/06/us/gay-murder-trial-ends-with-guilty-plea.html?ref=aaronjamesmckinney>.

Morsch, James. "The Problem of Motive in Hate Crimes: The Argument against Presumptions of Racial Motivation." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82.3 (1991): 659-689.

Wayne, Carlson. "REPEAL TYRANNICAL 'HATE CRIME' LAWS BEWARE EFFORTS TO CONTROL THOUGHT AND." Roanoke Times & World News 18 October 2000. Proquest.

Commentary #3

Commentary #4

The author’s thesis is that benefits to humans do not outweigh the violation of moral principles in practicing vivisection. I had to read the thesis statement a few times to get it because it seems to be worded a bit awkwardly. This may be something that needs to be fine-tuned for more clarity because the beginning of the intro is a quote from the bible stating that humans are superior to animals. The second paragraph supports the thesis through the assertion that humans are not superior to animals, thus making vivisection immoral. The first criterion the author uses to support his thesis is that, according to the theory of Darwinism, humans and animals are equal. This is supported with from scientific research. The only argument I can foresee is that Christianity rests on the belief that humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, not evolved apes. The evidence gives strength to his reason that animals should be treated equally because they are biologically related to us, and if human experimentation is wrong therefore vivisection is wrong as well.

The second reason the author gives to support his reason is based on U.S. legislation to protect animals from exploitation that causes pain. He cites a clause that dictates that “pain must be kept to a minimum” and gives examples of some experiments that are clearly painful to animals. The refutation notes a slippery slope where humans could become the subject of vivisection if things go too far and that the greater good should apply to all species. There are not any quotes or evidence to support his refutation, so he might find something to make it a bit more concrete. The conclusion is well written and restates the refutation of hierarchy with humans at the top of the chain.

The author’s criteria/ match arguments support his thesis well. I think he may want to touch on evidence that supports the claim that the animals experience significant pain and suffering while undergoing vivisection. As far as the opposing religious views he may want to note that and refute it by citing other values within Christianity (etc.) that would support the claim that vivisection is wrong… maybe do unto others or thou shall not kill? This might be where a skeptic refuses to accept his argument.

Is it a pain to make this kind of gain?

·         Does the infliction of pain become less cruel if it is done for a cause that is essential to survival?

·         Can advances in science occur without taking the occasional risk?

·         Is cruelty to animals a fair exchange for the alleviation of human suffering?

Is cruelty to animals a fair exchange for the alleviation of human suffering? I would sacrifice a house cat in a heartbeat if it led to the discovery of the cure for cancer or AIDS. I guess that heartbeat comes from the ones that are not beating anymore due to either epidemic. Maybe I am heartless and insensitive. Perhaps I think that risks should occasionally be taken to break beyond boundaries and reach a greater good. I am not really sure. Mostly I think it depends on the situation. I think that in the case of vivisection, while I admit that alternative, less painful methods should be used when available and applicable, a necessity arises in some cases. While I don’t think that these methods should be used on animals that are at risk of endangerment, I can see breeding and using lab rats as a practice that is not totally morally wrong. Where would advances in science be if research was constantly being stopped because someone disagreed with it? I wonder what other ways there are to learn about anatomy without studying… well… the anatomy of things not visible under normal circumstances.

I guess can see the other side of the argument which states that it is cruelty towards other living beings, but that is a part of nature. Are we going to make the lion stop eating its prey because emotional distress and physical pain is experienced by the hunted? It is true that the line has to be drawn somewhere in the middle to determine what makes it okay and what makes it cruelty towards another living thing. This one, however, puts me on the fence as to whether it is ethical behavior. On one hand there is exploitation of the existence of another living creature, on the other, this exploitation could very well be essential to the survival of another.

Peer Pressure?

• ·         Do high expectations of behavior create certain behavior?
• ·         Is it ethical to conform to the majority opinion regardless of personal view?
• ·         Do imperialistic regimes reach a “no turning back” point in which they cannot show weakness in fear of severe consequences?

The power of peer pressure can be amazing and appalling. It can lead a person to behave in a way that would normally be unthinkable, but pressure and an audience or group of people, as well as their behavior and expectations, can lead to action that is totally out of character. The balance of power can be set up so that, regardless of unethical mistakes made by a regime, certain patterns must be adhered to in order to avoid chaos. Do imperialistic regimes reach a “no turning back” point in which they cannot show weakness in fear of severe consequences? Orwell experienced this when faced with the ethical dilemma of shooting an elephant that, at least for the time being, seemed to have overcome its rampage. In already placing himself in a position of ridicule from natives resistant to colonization, as a sub-divisional police officer among a population that harbored little to no respect for him or the country he came from, he comes to the conclusion that he must follow the cues of the masses, anxiously awaiting the death of this animal.   

Had he decided not to shoot the elephant he would have no doubt been the object of societal mockery to an extent that his position of power (a police officer) would not have held any value whatsoever. Until this point Orwell had been able to just do his job and keep his opinions to himself with aspirations of an end to this endeavor, but when expectation called for action his part, he had no choice to obey. His position of authority would have been compromised because they would have seen his weakness and used that as a way to gain the upper hand. A revolution could have possibly ensued because flaws were detected in the ruling regime. If an oppressed group sees an opportunity to reverse roles you better bet your life that they are going to jump at the chance to end an empire.

Commentary #2

The title of the essay gives strength to the overall topic of the essay which is that personal experience is what made Hitchens so convincing. The overall direction of my partner’s essay is off to a great start. She clearly states her position on the success of the article, but is a little vague when it comes to the specific strategies, stating that the author used “many different techniques”. I think that her thesis needs to be more specific in order to persuade her reader by citing how the success of the article was gained.

Her first paragraph has a strong topic sentence with a good transition from the introduction. She makes it clear that she is discussing ethos with use of personal experience giving strength to the author’s argument. The quote she used, however, looks like it would appeal more to pathos.  The next paragraph brings up the use of ethos in using the strategy of fairness to opposing views, but seems to lack a topic sentence, quote and support for assertion. She can definitely build on this point and make it a strong paragraph. In switching to the subject of the appeal of pathos, the writer needs to incorporate more transition in her topic sentence. She makes it clear, however which appeal and technique (language) she is discussing. A Quote or paraphrase is needed before the critique of the method. In the sixth paragraph the writer gives another example of appeal to pathos. This paragraph has a nice transition, but I think she needs to be more specific on the strategy used in her topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph is good, providing a quote and critique of the author’s use of narrative tone. The next paragraph seems a little out of place because it goes back to the appeal to ethos with noting alternate views as well as touching on pathos and language. In her eighth paragraph, I believe the writer gave an example of the pathos appeal, but may have been trying to touch on the subject of logos through a testimony from Malcom Nance. A transitional topic sentence seems to be missing and her point on the quote used discusses pathos. I believe she needs to revisit the paragraph as well as give mention to logos in her essay.

Finally the conclusion again states the writer’s position on the success of the article. She makes note of one way the author appealed to his audience, but I think she can definitely build on this and make the paragraph a little longer and less vague about the technique used to adhere to all of the appeals required. Once she makes this a stronger recap to the essay she should have a better conclusion.

Colinial Takeover

• ·        Are standards lowered when rule makers do not have to endure the setting they create?
• ·        Is colonization and creating civilization in countries deemed “uncivilized” a mask for exploiting resources and people in weaker communities?
• ·        How effective is help if it is forced upon someone who was not seeking it and what is the end result?

Throughout history first world countries that possess all the power, money, and Godly behavior in the world have somehow managed to spread corruption through the mistakes made against humanity. Things are taken without permission and changed despite the lack of need for the alternate lifestyle being imposed upon a group of people. This leads me to focus on the question: Is colonization and creating civilization in countries deemed “uncivilized” a mask for exploiting resources and people in weaker communities? Rich and powerful white men have repeatedly reaped the benefits from people and places that were not originally a part of their world to begin with. Slavery is a huge trade that has not totally gone away despite the current stigma it has gained. Regardless of the fact that most slavery has been abolished, what was left of the remnants? According to the author the corruption that was created in Antigua can never be undone. The grudge will never go away. The world of these people was turned completely upside town, exploited for whatever its colonials deemed pertinent and resourceful, and tossed aside like a box of leftover pizza, destined to rot and fester.

The thing that is festering is contempt, which only fuels lawless behavior and exploitation of each other. When rebellious nature begins, sometimes this rebelliousness is reflected towards all areas of authority, regardless of warrant. Colonized people rarely ask to be saved by someone else’s God or molded into a lifestyle that is completely alienating to their culture of origin. Kinkaid talks about the fact that tourists who visit her tiny island don’t bother thinking about the struggle of the land or its inhabitants because they too are exploiting it. All it is is a form of entertainment and escape from a mundane life others would be quite satisfied with. I think that as I looked through the author’s eyes I can understand her feelings towards foreign visitors, who show up to get what they want and leave their mess behind.