The Bloody Slaughter On The Slaughter Essay

In “The Way of All Flesh” the author Ted Conover describes his experience working as an undercover USDA inspector in a meat packing plant. He shows how extremely grotesque the industry really is by providing numerous examples on the health and treatment of animals, the conditions of the meat, and the health and treatment of the employees. Conover shows the reader what it is really like in the slaughterhouse by using descriptive language. Throughout the article Conover brings up the treatment and the conditions the animals are put in. Conover supports his arguments by appealing to the reader’s emotions, by making the readers feel sympathetic for both the animals and workers.

On March 5, 1770 a mob of colonists armed with clubs surrounded the customs house in Boston where the kings money was kept. The mob surrounded the guard posted there and threatened his life so the red coats were called in, to disperse the mob and the defend the customs house. The colonists started to attack the redcoats tasked with defending the customs house, Which lead to shots being fired by the soldiers. In document A by Paul Revere it was titled “The Bloody Massacre”. In my opinion that was far from the truth, the Boston Massacre of 1770 was not a massacre because the colonists had weapons and attacked the British troops first. Also there was a every low loss of life which goes against the definition of a massacre, a massacre (insert massacre

To depict the extent to which humans have twisted nature in the food industry, Michael Pollan offers anecdotes detailing modern slaughterhouses and the industrialization of meat, one of which is written about his personal connection with a steer raised for slaughter. Similar to the meat industrialization system he describes, the manner in which Pollan writes is clear and methodical, each animal designated by a number and their histories described succinctly; steer 9534’s name, for example, “signifies she was the thirty fourth cow born in 1995” (Pollan 69). However, this system greatly differs from the original nature of the process which Pollan describes. Before the mechanization of the meat industry, cattle grazed in

As humans, we make decisions based on our comfort levels, choosing one thing over another. We prefer to not think about the way animals are killed or tortured, just to eat and enjoy them. We prefer to believe lobsters don't feel pain, and ignore how they cling to containers’ sides as they are being boiled alive. We prefer to choose our lobsters and watch them die, as opposed to choosing our cows and watch them be slaughtered. We choose which creatures to empathize with, and which to neglect. Wallace admits he cant justify these preferences we all have without sounding selfish towards the end of the essay. According to David Wallace, “the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it is also uncomfortable.” This paper presents the moral complications of animal cruelty and the unclarity of it

The film Death on a Factory Farm, emphasizes on the politics of sight as a vital component in distance and concealment to establish power, laws, and social values within our society that allow human beings to inflict pain on livestock. This film focuses on Ken Wiles’ farm where pigs are being exploited on a daily basis and employees practice hanging as an alternative to euthanasia to kill sick sows. Although Pete, the undercover animal right’s investigator, tries to bring some justice to these pigs by collecting video footage of abuse, filth, disease, cannibalism, violence, death, and executions during his time of employment in Ken Wile’s farm the court fails to convict all defendants with the total of ten counts of animal cruelty because of

Namit Arora’s article On Eating Animals captures the horrors of the meat industry. Arora is a true animal activist who describes instances in which cows try to escape slaughterhouses, but they are usually recaptured and killed. Arora portrays these events and statistics through a reprimanding and critical tone. This tone appeals to the audience’s feelings of guilt about the purchase of meat wherein the inhumane killing of farm animals takes place. He incites guilt in order to reveal the twisted system that Americans call the meat industry.

According to the anthropologist Professor Henry Bunn of Wisconsin University the use of animals for food dates back to two million years ago, when, “our human ancestors were small brained ape-men” (McKie, 2012). The use of animals for a source of food, clothing, and even entertainment is not something new to us. But what is fairly new are the animal rights movement groups as well as legislation that have formed in the last century to protect the rights of animals and preventing animal cruelty in slaughter. There are specific movements and laws such as the 1958 Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the 2015

Can you imagine being left to suffer for countless hours after being wounded by an unknown person? As you lie on the cold ground, feeling your life slowly fade away, wondering what you did to deserve this. And then to end it all, a gunshot to the head. Unfortunately, this is how many animals suffer due to big game, trophy hunting. I am an avid proponent that big game hunting is a merciless tactic that needs to be eradicated from society, because it’s evident it burdens the animal to endure suffering, and by slaying these exotic creatures, it increases the population’s prospect to go extinct.

In today’s world dogs may very well be considered man’s best friend, but in the days of old horses weren’t just man’s best friend, they were the most important tool in his possession. From being a form transportation to being used in competitions and battles to even being a source of food, horses have always been an iconic figure in American history. Movies such as The Horse Whisperer, Dreamer, and Flicka portray horses as majestic and powerful creatures full of grace and beauty that are much more of a companion than a tool. This is quite possibly why the topic of horse slaughter has been such a taboo in today’s culture. While in many countries around the world horsemeat is considered a type of delicacy, to most American’s the idea of eating these exquisite creatures is hard to stomach. There are people who see no wrong in slaughtering horses just like any other livestock animal, though others find it inhumane and cruel. Those who are pro-slaughter have many practical and economic reasons for supporting it, while those opposed have ethical issues against it.

Slaughtering horses for human consumption in the United States started in the early 1970's. Americans do not eat horsemeat; we consider horses to be favored animals, just like dogs and cats. The idea of eating a horse, a cat, or a dog just goes against our very culture. It was foreign interests that brought the horse slaughter industry to the United States and built equine slaughterhouses here. By the 1990's, there were at least sixteen equine slaughterhouses operating all across the United States. At that time, most Americans did not even realize that such an industry even existed in their country. Over the years, the industry grew larger and people began to use slaughter as an opportune way to get rid of their undesired horses. Rather than take responsibility for their horses by either taking the time to place them in a horse sanctuary or by paying a licensed veterinarian put them down humanely, owners would ship them to a slaughter house and get paid for doing so. In today’s United States there is a debate ensuing on whether to lift the ban on equine slaughter which was enacted in 2007. There are practical as well as commercial arguments that can be made in favor of horse slaughter, and there are ethical and environmental reasons to oppose it. In this paper I plan on addressing both sides of the debate as well as explaining each sides main points.

through the Battle of Stalingrad, the bombing in Dresden and the Blitz in Britain. However, the U-boats necessitated violence in order to achieve a strategic aim, challenging the 'pointless ' notion of the aforementioned statement. (48words)

As soon as Ilana Romana heard about the situation in Munich, she expected the worst: "I knew who he was. He would not sit quietly. He was not the type. I knew it would end badly." She spoke of her husband, and, unfortunately, her prediction was correct. Earlier that day, her husband, Yossef, and his teammates were awoken by Arab terrorists beginning an episode that would result in the death of eleven Israeli athletes and forever scar the 1972 Olympics, leaving the games to be remembered for the years to come as the "Munich Massacre."

More than one hundred and fifty billion animals are killed every year. Of these one hundred and fifty billion many of them are used for medical research but also many are used for unnecessary pleasure to humans. We take advantage of animals every day without thinking about the consequences that result. Destruction of animals is essential for providing nutrients and allowing medical discoveries, but not for the sake of entertainment.

All over the world, people sit down to a meal that include of steak, pork chops or chicken. It is not too often these days that the consumer considers the life of the animal in which they are eating. It is also not common to even associate the slab of beef on one’s plate with an actual living, breathing, feeling cow. When one hears cow, images of luscious green fields with spotted cows mooing and grazing peacefully fill your mind; and this is how many of our society think cattle are raised for consumption. Instead, cattle are “raised” in what can be described as holding pens, over crowded stalls with no room to move. Often times, these cows don’t even make it past their first few days of life before being brutally slaughtered. In his article, On Eating Animals, Namit Arora suggests that Americans have something wrong with our way of thinking when it comes to animals. We treat our domesticated pets with love and care as we would a family member; but turn a blind eye to the tortured animals we eat every day. Where do we draw the line on what is okay to do to one living creature and what is considered archaic to do to another? While eating meat is not a crime, or even a bad thing, considering God gave humanity the animals to eat after the floods (Genesis 9, The Bible); is the treatment of said animals something we should consider before we fire up that grill?

In the debate of whether or not animals should be kept for human consumption, animal activists have a strong opinion and a strong voice to back it up. Animal rights groups argue for drastic changes to – or even complete abolition of – animal agriculture. They believe that each year more than 58 billion farm and aquatic animals are unnecessarily killed for human consumption. Activists argues that humans do not need to eat animals to survive, they can do it on a completely plant based diet. The understanding in every day diet has evolved and, in the process, come to learn that plants contain all the vitamins and nutrients that the human body needs to thrive. Humans find it difficult to overcome traditional idea and ways of thinking that they rarely stop to question the fundamental ethics and underlying morality of slaughtering animals for food. “Just because something has been done a certain way for thousands of years, doesn’t make it automatically right (Srinivas). An example that fits this situation well, is the fact that when born into American culture, people are taught to believe that certain animals are for eating, others are companion animals, and others are wild animals. The idea of eating a dog or a cat is repulsive, but in other parts of the world it is something that is perfectly normal and occurs everyday. Furthermore, they stand behind the theory that humans are creating emotional pain and suffering for the animals. These animals