Braithwaites article talks about the way mankind see some animals as our friends but others as a way to pass the time. I don't think that this is fair to the "lesser animal". "Hooked on a Myth" says that there have been experiments showing that fish do show pain contrary to what some might think. Though the fish have been shown to have the ability to experience pain these are the kinds of experiments that show we need to change the way we conduct experiments in the science profession. In the article it states that the researchers injected bee venom into the fishes lips just to prove that they can feel pain. This procedure also proved that we should be treating the fish better even thought the experiment contradicted that. This may have proven that we should change but I doesn't prove that we will. Many fisherman wont change their ways because of an experiment and I don't plan on them to. they can do what they know they can this article was not written to be become a law but to simply shed light on the situation. 

Scientific research or animal abuse

In response to Rifkin's quote "all creatures that feel pain should have a basic moral status". I believe that most not animal testing is no longer necessary, note that I say most there are a few things in this world that might be used to research. In my anatomy class last year we had a class project where we had to research animal testing. Here is where I found out that I didn't support most of the tests that the animals were forced to be subjected to. Most of the tests performed were unnecessary for research since we learned about it a long time ago, one of them was pouring drops of bleach into a kitten's eye to see what would happen to them. These animals are also kept in containers the smallest possible size for them to survive or cages throughout all of their life. I believe that these animals should be treated better because these conditions are inhumane.

Rifkin helps show how similar these creatures are to us by using pathos when he gave the animals tested names almost making them seem human. He also goes on to explain how physically and emotionally they are similar to us. These examples help give his readers a way to connect with the animals by the characteristics that they also have. In the end if these animals can be called be superior to us in their brains and some of their senses why are they treated so inferior.

Yes, I Am An Agnostic

What is an agnostic or agnosticism, which a lot of you may be asking yourself right about now. Well I will save you the Google search. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know if gods exist or feel that the answer is not important in their life. Now for the reason I bring this topic to attention is because I consider myself a good person without having a religion. Yes, a person who doesn't know or believe in a god is considered good.No I am not "saved" or will I ever be, but does that make me a bad person? I know there are people who believe they need to be "saved" and I don't disagree with them, some people need a crutch in life. A crutch, meaning an idea of some sort to set standards for themselves to become a better person. As for me I don't need a crutch. I believe in science, I believe in my family, I believe in myself; my beliefs are in what I know, not myths, rituals, or symbols. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against any religions of any sort. I would love to learn about different beliefs, but that doesn't mean I myself believe in a higher power. The point to all of this is I think its wrong for people to be able to USE something such as, a higher power, to make it okay to judge someone. For example, myself, people will criticize me for not believing in a god to make judgement on my character, thinking maybe i do things that are not highely thought of just because I don't have a religion. I rather be where I am knowing I am a good person at heart rather than be something I am not and take precautions as to "if" there is a god because I know I'm a good individual and if the higher power is as holy as others believe they'd understand where I was coming from. Don't judge others, be considerate to all opinions and beliefs because no one knows everything.

Fish.

   Being an animal lover I was excited to read the article 'Hooked on a myth' by Victoria Braithwaite. In her article she  brings up the question "Do fish feel pain?" . Thinking about that question I got to thinking, yes it's correct that fish can't physically show pain. They can't tell you that they are hurting. But that doesn't prove that they can't and don't feel the same way we, as humans feel. Humans have a more complexed brain, therefore we can feel pain, both physical and mental, and we have the ability to express how we feel. Having the strong feelings I have towards animal rights, I feel that just because fish, or all animals , can't express how they feel they shouldn't be treated any differently than we treat others, because fact of the matter is fish can feel the pain. They just can't express it in the same ways we can. In Hooked on a myth Braithwaite goes on talking about how when she gets a headache she takes aspirin, she then starts to wonder what would happen if we put pain killers in the fishes water. Would that help them?  It turns out that the research she did about this shows that it actually helps an you can see a difference in the fishes behavior.
   I personally think that people take advantage of catching fish because it's easy, and they think that it doesn't hurt them. But  is taking a fish out of water the same thing as drowning a human? Think about it.  Do fish feel the same way when they get air in their lungs as we get water in ours? I wish I could make people change their minds about how they treat animals, but sady I can't force anyone to feel or think a certain way.
    Braithwaite's article will hopefully tell people that fish, just like dogs or sheep , can feel pain. They just can't show it the same way.

Survival of the humanity.

Let's be real here, human lives are far superior to any other species and I know you want to deny this theory but believe it or not, deep down you know this is true. For example, what would you do in this situation: you and your friend are stranded on an island, you're both starving and running low on food. How will you survive? Realistically, those trying to survive in the wild would most likely do anything to stay alive whether if it's to hunt or harvest, find shelter, et cetera. Even though most of us probably learned from Man vs Wild, these are our survival instincts. Truly, humans are no different from animals, especially in our principles of survival. But to be fair, animals aren't just animals, fish aren't just fish, and humans aren't just humans. Just like how we adapted to our own invironment, they have done the same. 

A classmate (we'll call him classmate A) brought up a great example of environmental adaptations, he asked the question "How are we different from monkeys in the wild?" My other classmate (classmate B) quickly responded, "Well we don't poop everywhere." Even though that is true, besides our school boys bathrooms, classmate B implies that if we were raised in that type of invironment we wouldn't do the same, though primitively our great great great... Ancestors undoubtedly started this way.

What logically makes us superior is our complexity, they way our physical attributes are structured, our cognitive features - our brain. Our advancements may be our downfalls but the fact that if we ever stop using these gifts of knowledge and learning would actually make us no different than primitive monkeys, frightens me. Our humanity is great and the fact that we can learn to respect other living creatures is even more astonishing.

This Semester is Coming to an End (I think lol)

Well, this semester is coming to an end...and trust me, I was definitely unorganized. This happened to be the class this year, which everything I did just seemed...wrong. In the beginning, I really thought that I was going to get an A. Ms. Fletcher said, "In order to get an A, you have to be above and beyond." Haha, boy was I wrong. My notebook became dysfunctional in my 6th week of school. (The first two weeks of school, I didn't even have a notebook.) My vocabulary was on point though! I actually believe that the vocabulary and blogging is what made my grade go high. Ms. Fletcher is a really great teacher; with that, I cannot blame her for my horrible concept. I honestly didn't pay attention as much as I should have. Ms. Fletcher is the calmest teacher I know! (I hope you are reading this Ms. Fletcher, I deserve some super extra credit for this!) Haha, well to conclude this blog, I believe I could have done way better this semester. I did not manage to reach my full potential. I hope next semester will get me an A!

In a Human's World

The articles that we've been working through this past week regarding animal rights has opened my eyes to the way in which we are expected to value animals. I noticed that most of these articles emphasize constantly on the "feelings" or animals and how closely related they are to humans. I don't see it necessary that we constantly need to personify animals in order to care about them and have a moral judgement on the way we treat them. In the article "Hooked on a Myth", Braithwaite analyzes and confirms that fishes react to the same pain killers the same way we do; therefore, they also feel the initial pain. We are almost encouraged to act on the notion that unless something is relatively human, it is unworthy of consideration. This is the type of thinking that has allowed us to self-justify our throwing trash out of our car windows, and releasing harmful fumes into the air; these same actions that have resulted in the deterioration of ozone and overflowing of landfills.

Nonetheless, more research on the emotions and thought of animals is not going to halt man from mistreatment of wildlife. We will not be able to heal the wound of centuries selfishness and disregard for nature, until we realize that we don't infact need to understand the way a species feels and lives in order to respect it. Technology and advanced science has given us so much knowledge that we feel we have the power to understand, and therefore control every aspect of life. There are somethings that ought to be respected and acknowledged for what they are not broken down to make them seem like anything else. An animal is a life, shouldn't that be enough?

Abuse and the Emotional Impacts on Animals

      It was around springtime when I came home to find a certain white ball of surprise sitting on my living room floor. The little creature looked at me for only a moment before she quickly hid her face to the floor. I reached over to pet her but she shook uncontrollably. I tried to rub her head gently but she backed away and stared at me with large, dark eyes. I noticed that she walked with her tail between her legs and her head to the floor. When I first saw this animal I assumed she just didn't like me so I headed to my room but she cried. I ran back to her because this was the most unusual sound I had ever heard. I didn't know dogs could actually cry as a human does. So I sat back down on the floor and she hesitantly made her way over to me. She looked sad and as I spoke to her she looked up at me with the same expression. So I tried playing with her but she didn't know how.
      Later on I found out that this dog had been brought up in a puppy mill her entire life. She had been abused and pregnant several times. Around humans she was weary and looked at us as though we were the enemy. Her original owners only saw her a worker but treated her as a slave. They had no idea the emotional damage they did to her because to them she was just a dog. I have living proof that animals can feel pain both physical and emotional. The effects are long-lasting because my dog has never forgotten the times she was mistreated.
      I had my little bundle of joy for almost six years and gave her the name Princess because she deserved to be treated as one. Despite her abuse, she is a sweetheart and I can't imagine anyone ever hurting her. Even after all this time she still walks with her tail between her legs, her head down, and shakes when others try to touch her. I don't think that she will ever heal from the scars others left in her heart, but I am just hoping this will make others think twice before they hit their animal for doing something wrong. I hope this will make people realize the emotions animals really do hold and how they should be treated like we would treat a human being. These animals are not slaves and what you do and say does have an impact on their lives.

3 Ways to Persuade
      Aristotle was the founder of the three ways to persuade using ethos, logos, and pathos. What I found most interesting was how I've been using these three techniques my entire life. We use different elements of persuasion depending on who we are speaking with and what we need from our audience.
      Ethos is the first way to persuade and this relates to your first impression of the person who is trying to convince you of something they feel you need. There once was a commercial with a doctor in an overcoat who said, "I'm no doctor, I just play one on TV." I've seen many advertisements that portray a doctor selling a medicine of some sort, and it is that much more appealing because he holds the appearance of an actual doctor who knows what he's talking about. Even the man who wears that certain brand on cologne in the commercial where beautiful ladies flock over to him goes hands-in-hand with ethos. We tend to judge a person based on the first few seconds that we interact with them, so of course we use first impressions as a method of persuasion.
      Logos can be the time when you are informed about someone or something and the logic behind it can change your decision. Even with an idea it's important to use logos to provide reasoning as to why we should follow that certain idea and what the income might be. When someone runs for President they'll typically use logos in their campaign as to inform the voters how they would help the country prosper.
      The last method of persuasion is pathos; the appeal to emotions. Have you ever noticed that during the holidays we kind of hold a warm, giving feeling in our hearts? Don't we tend to feel sorry for and pity those who are without food or are even homeless? These emotions can lead us to lend a helping hand during the season. Even when we are feeling angry at our enemy it is so easy to persuade our friends who might also turn on your enemy. Are emotions are more powerful than we know because many times we can persuade our self.

Summary of "A Change of Heart"

Jeremy Rifkin, the President of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington D.C., in his article, "A Change of Heart About Animals," argues about the fact animals should be guaranteed similar rights as humans. Rifkin supports his argument by describing how similar animals are to humans and by illustrating his evidence through providing many examples of personification within animals. Basically, Rifkin's purpose is to make his audience become aware of animal cruelty within our society in order to bring change in the treatment of animals. Rifkin highly establishes a very caring and respectful tone with his audience of both animal lovers and average Americans. I believe that animals should be treated better.

My Little Sister

             The first thing I do when I get home from school is scream, "Maya, I'm home!!" and she always comes running out of bed and greets me with her uttermost affection. Then I ask, "Maya, are you hungry?"; even if she obviously isn't, I still feed her a snack. Because she's been home alone all day, we usually play outside for around 20 minutes and play catch. After, we lay down on the couch and watch T.V. until about 5 p.m., when she usually hears the garage open, and we both know Daddy is home. Me and Maya then beg to go to the park where we continue to play catch. When we get home, Mommy is already cooking dinner. After we eat, Maya stays with Mom and Dad and then I do my work. Once they go to bed, Maya and I sneak into the living room where we can finally watch T.V. again. We usually fall asleep around midnight, and then our day of fun just has to continue the next day.

                Truthfully, Maya is always there for me. Even if she is only a dog, she acts like my little sister. I notice that although she can't speak, she is still capable of communication. She has different barks or cries that signal different wants and needs-- bark for food, cry to go out to do her business; I know exactly what she wants when she wants it. Sometimes, Maya jumps into my bed at night when it's colder than usual. She proves to be conceptual enough to understand that my bed is warmer than the kitchen floor. When she's left home alone for longer than usual, it's obvious that she is unhappy. She pouts and shows less enthusiasm when we get home; instead of greeting with a wagging tail, she continues to sleep as if we didn’t matter to her. She's so sassy.

                 Brought to my attention by "Of Primates and Personhood" by Ed Yong, I question, "Of all animals in the world, why grant 'a basic set of moral and legal rights' to only apes?" Dogs are used to test pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and household products-- force fed poison until they slowly die. Dogs are used to study human diseases such as heart and hormonal disorders, surgically manipulated and then pushed to exert energy until death. Then their damaged heart tissue is studied. " In a violent experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, puppies were bred to have a degenerative eye disease that culminates in blindness. During the study, 3-week-old beagles had their eyes cut out and were killed." So if we are to finally grant animals basic rights, why limit it to apes? All animals are helpless. All animals are inferior to the human ego. If animal rights are granted, they should be for all or none at all.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos

We all have different approaches to attempting to persuade someone or a group of people and whether we know it or not we use all three methods of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. How much we use of each different method is entirely dependent on who we are trying to persuade. In my opinion Ethos always seems to out way the other two for the reason that image is very important not in just how you look but how you sound or the from of your writing when you are attempting to persuade the person. For comical reasons can you imagine trying to persuade Congress to legalize marijuana when you show up to the courthouse reeking of weed, blood shot eyes, the giggle, constantly asking "when do we get a lunch break I'm hungry", and wearing nothing but tie dye clothing. If congress witnessed that your image would come off as a "stoner" and seeing as Politicians are six times our age they defiantly would not like to see America turn into that. Even if you came into that courthouse with the most spectacular logical arguments on why we should legalize it they would not even consider it because of the image you created walking into the courthouse and the image marijuana has created in general to the public.
The second most important method in my opinion is Pathos. Seeing as we are all human beings we all run on emotion, I have never once heard a great speech delivered by one of our presidents or any great leader in fact where the man calmly and blandly delivered there speech to the crowd, they have never stated those facts or said they're speech in that manner. They instead try to reach their audience on an emotional level because that is the deepest way to reach someone and to persuade them. If I lived during the time of Alexander The Great and I was fighting in his army do you think his speech on his black stallion would consist of him just telling me that if we defeat this Persians we get to have Asia and control half the world, because if it was then I might put my sword down and walk back to Greece cause I don't see the point in dying just so we can have Asia and control half the world I see no reason in doing that. Although it seems logical and would benefit my great country of Greece and might even change the way of life for millions in Asia for the best I see no reason to die for that. If Alexander came in though in his black stallion with a loud voice getting the crowd excited and yelling at us that this is the day men, today you fight for your family, for a better a life, for your country for your heir and all your kinsman and men you have fought alongside with and died with, well that's a different story Persians here I come. The only reason though is that he now approached me at a emotional level he appealed to me in the since of my emotions which was for my family and friends.
Finally Logos although last it is still important because image and emotions can only take you so far without some logic to them. Now you may be wondering why I choose Logos as the least important and that's because a lot of people aren't persuaded by just logic. I feel that Logos is just the cherry on top of the whole ice cream. I would find it much easier to persuade someone with just my image, cause I'm so handsome, and emotionally then I would with logic, because with the other two people seem to react to it more deeply then logic. I could give you good perfect logical reasons why you should go out with me but even though they seem so logical and make since 99% of you wouldn't because your going to look at my image and how I would connect with you emotionally, but don't get me wrong this is just an example I'm giving; sometimes Logos is only useful for certain things such as persuading the teacher how your logathrim came out to be but I'm talking about the big picture when it comes to Ethos, Logos, and Pathos and that's life I feel that Logos should or is only used very little when it comes to persuading someone unlike Ethos and Pathos.

SSR

 I have been told that ever since I was a little girl I have loved to read books.  My mom tells me that I would see her reading her books and I would ask for one to or I would find her books lying around the house and carry them around everywhere we went.  So one day she took me to rent some picture books and I was I love.  As I got older I would go to the library and get longer harder to read books.

In every English class that I have had there has always been a day that is designated to read books for our own entertainment. Starting ERW this school year I remember wondering what day we were going to designate to read our own books.  A couple weeks went by and Ms. Fletcher never mentioned anything about reading and I remember thinking "well I guess we don’t read our own books in twelfth grade".  But now we get to read every Monday and I look forward to going to third period.  I would say that it is because I know that we are going to be able to read out own books.   

Recently we have started to reread a book series written by Simone Elkeles.  The books are about two teens that come from totally different back grounds ethnicity wise and money wise.  But as time goes on they go from hating each other to falling for each other, and they had to put up with the gossip that started going around at school and at home.  I recommend these books to anyone who likes to read teen romance or teen drama books.

        Fate loves the fearless.” ― James Russell Lowell  

     This quote i find every true. Seniors were at the stage in high school where the fear is overwhelming,  and if you denied that well, you must be the person who holds all the fear in . Fear in all i think about and it definitely changing my fate.Why should  I give up college and go to a trade school  just because i have the huge fear of failing the placement exams. then there the money issue too.  the fear it should take control  on anybody's life including mine . I  know that now, so what if i don't pass those test just mean i have to work hard to rise up and get to the place i want be ,cause Fate loves the FEARLESS.             

                                                              Animal Rights

   Does anyone less find this a hard topic to read and disuse about.  I know for me it hard to hear what they do to these poor animals, though i have to emit that some of these thing that we read in these articles are interseting. I was taking to Ashly about the"A Change of Hart about Animals" articel ( if y'all don't  know Ashly, your life in lonely) and knowing Ashly, she has the mind that thinks so logically about things and she pulled this one part out of the article about the pigs and how humans should spend at less 20 seconds with them; she clearly said " it probably the 20secound before the kill them" well something along those lines . I have no clue what i trying to say. this is a really bad blog . There really no point to this, i just wanted to know if anyone finds this topic hard to think about emotionally.                  

Human Perspective #1

Anthropocentrism. This is a word that changed my entire perspective in life and was something I just learned about a few months ago. Reading my novel for APES this past summer, I was given the opportunity to ponder in awe of the world and its tragedy---the human race. The anthropocentric perspective is the idea that humanity will never be able to understand the view of a species other than its self. All things have to do with our life, our needs, our wants, and our survival. That's just how it is. There's no other way going about it. We will never fully understand the mysteries of other life forms and live out what we are all missing. It'll just be empty. That is humanity.

Yup. It's a tragedy. I was really upset discovering this idea of mine. It, of course, is possibly or even entirely, disagreeable or even stupid, but for some reason it really hits home for me. Everything turns ugly and happiness becomes selfish intent. Its a frozen feeling to realize that humanity is all about humanity. We live our lives for ourselves and for no other cycle. We do not contribute willingly. It is difficult for us to sacrifice and understand the reason and purpose of natural, ignorant, animal instinct.

Anthropocentrism is something we all, as the human race, share. We are trapped. It is the religion and the disbelief.

As for animal rights, humans perceive in the act of perceiving something they are familiar with and want, which includes human emotions. Jeremy Rifkin's article "A Change of Heart about Animals" opens up the human idea that animals are capable of emotions and are "more like us than we had ever imagined." (2) This line brought back all the frustrating thoughts. There is no respect given to anything that we don't know. There is instead fear followed by the power of manipulation. We manipulate to defeat what we fear, don't know and don't understand. Animals have an intimidating advantage of seeing a world we will never be able to see. Yet, with our grand minds, we are able to manipulate and use these beings to try to live out a life to figure something out, to be somewhat fulfilled.

Humanity has surely declined in understanding. Everything isn't literal. That is the language of humanity, and with it, barely anything meaningful suffices. Yet, with a certain depth in understanding, a reflection beyond the spectrum of "self", the purpose of an outside perspective, its wisdom and knowledge above this anthropocentric view, found in animals and organisms other that humans, will allow for a different language. It speaks something that goes beyond our humanity and reaches out to the great unknown. And, most importantly, it is nothing "like us" at all.

Annotating!!!

I had always heard that annotating pieces of literature is an excellent thing to do because it helps you understand the piece in depth, that it gives you a better understanding of what the author is trying to communicate through their work. I’ve always heard that but never really played too much attention to it.  Like the teachers said, it was optional. I wouldn’t get points for doing it nor get points taken off if I didn’t.  Because it wasn’t mandatory I wouldn’t annotate.  Why would I do extra work if I didn’t benefit from it?  What I didn’t realize was that annotating these pieces of literature would actually benefit immensely.

In my English 11 class last year at times it was required to annotate, but usually just the main ideas and vocabulary words, which usually would be words the majority of the class didn’t know its meaning.  Now in ERW annotating is a requirement.  In the packets Ms.Fletch gives us we are asked to go over each short story and find the key points, words we don’t understand, or just things that stand out to us.  We’re asked to give our opinions on certain ideas and declare weather we agree or not.  At first when Ms.Fletch told us we would be required to annotate in depth I was a bit mad. Not like oh my mad but just annoyed that I would have to do extra work, but yet again ERW is not easy class.  Before I choose to enroll in it, I was told it would be a course that would require time and dedication.  Therefore I put my whininess aside and did as I was told.

Now that I’m used to annotate the stories I have grown to like this method.  Like Ms.Flecther said, it really does help us understand the stories in depth and unravel their hidden messages. This method has really help me improved on reading and comprehending the authors’ message; especially right now that we’re in the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos theme.  I have never really been able to depict an article and explain why it’s ethos or logos, but now how we break down every little detail I can see which each paragraph and the whole article is trying to convey.  So even though I thought annotating was going to be a drag, I have come to appreciate it.

A realist's views on Animal's rights.

A whole section committed to Animal's rights and how authors use three ways to persuade us. To be honest, I was enthralled when I heard we were doing this. I love animals and I always like it when classes review controversial subjects. Conversation seems to just flow when people's emotions come into play. And believe me, people get fired up over animals and how we use them. (unfortunately, we haven't had any good fights in third period, but i do have a theory as to why.) But this section did leave me deeply disappointed in the readings. Don't get me wrong, the articles were great and thought provoking! But the absence of a counter viewpoint in the readings left me unsatisfied. Only 4 paragraphs were committed to a view that wasn't pro-animal's rights. everything else was for them. This is probably why there haven't been any good arguments in third period. People haven't had the opportunity to digest counter viewpoints in our readings. Notice i haven't said my views on the matter, but you have to admit that when Mrs. Fletcher (D) says that one author is too liberal for her, the impressionable minds of highschoolers will be a lot more susceptible to liberal ideas with no counter balancing conservative ideas.

Now onto my opinion. Animals should simply not be on equal level with humans in any moral regard. they shouldn't even be close. My first reason is aimed towards Christians or Catholics in the class. The bible says that humans have dominion over all the earth. God gave us the responsibilities to tend to his good earth as a his stewards. Now, of course, good stewards wont be  reckless with the master's property and wouldn't destroy it recklessly. We should utilize it to maximize our well being for us and for future generations. If this means using animals in experiments to heal humans, then so be it, but we shouldn't experiment without a purpose and we shouldn't hurt animals without a positive for humanity. . As the late Joseph Stalin once said, you cant make an omelet without crackin a few eggs (sorry my Chicken aficionados). My second argument is for my atheist comrades (man, my Stalin comment has got me thinking Russian). Lets say that humans are the result of millions of years of evolution. Then our superior fitness (ability to procreate and grow) has allowed us to out compete other species. We have utilized our environmental niche to multiply and pass down our genes. We have even used other animals to increase our fitness. Other species do this (viruses and wasps are a couple that come to mind) without hurting their scruples, so we shouldn't have a problem. Still, people think that since we have "morals" then we have an obligation to help other animals. But that is oposite to their beliefs. Since we are just results of evolution, our emotions and consciences and morals are just natural evolutionary steps. they shouldn't have any right or wrong impacts to  us since they are just created by mother nature.

So in  conclusion, humans are superior to other animals in every moral way and we should experiment with a purpose. Feel free to outright call me dumb and bigoted in the comments below! jk im sensitive.

AF: Winter Blogging

Written by E. Phinizy, and swiped by A. Fletcher :)

It's that time again: Time to take our discussion online.  For this round you need to initiate one discussion and comment on two.  Remember to refer to the texts as sources as well as that which keeps your ideas focused.

Procrastination will not work this time, gang.  You've got to start earlier on your entries.  I cannot envision the alternative as even "basically fine" participation.  There is nothing genuine about a discussion when most of the members arrive with five minutes left.

Also, the rules netiquette apply; so, keep the flamewars and trolling to yourself.


The texts:

• Braithwaite, Victoria. “Hooked on a Myth: Do Fish Feel Pain?” Los Angeles Times 8 Oct. 2006: M5. Print.
   
• Edlund, John R. “Letters to the Editor in Response to ‘A Change of Heart About Animals.’” 2003. Print.

• Edlund, John R. “Three Ways to Persuade.” 2011. Print.
   
• Rifkin, Jeremy. “A Change of Heart About Animals.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times 1 Sept. 2003: B15. Print
   
• Yong, Ed. “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and ‘Dignity’ to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?” Seed. Seed Magazine, 12 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Jul. 2012.