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.