In your post, you should first and foremost reflect on the way it is synthesizing and presenting research and information. How does it make an argument, is it effective? After addressing the genre of this piece as a research essay, you can feel free to respond holistically to the content: do you agree/disagree and why?
Your response should be no less than 200 words. You do not need to comment on a peers' post, but you most certainly can.
Here is the link again:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/why-we-should-close-all-zoos-778
Judley Joseph
ReplyDeleteThis article does in fact, make an argument. It is effective in the sense that it uses strong sources and valid statistics from reliable resources. It also uses pictures to strengthen the argument. I find myself agreeing to this article as a whole. The entire concept of captivity for the entertainment of humans gradually ceases to make sense. According to the article, by stealing an animal from the wild and placing it into captivity, you automatically decreasing their lifespan. For their entire lives they are confined to a space substantially smaller than their actual homes, thus causing these animals depression and behavioral issues. These facts do not only apply to one species, it happens to literally every animal. Tigers, elephants, lions, or giraffes, zoos treats them too unfairly. These zoo creatures are easily forgotten due to the majority of people being uniformed or not thinking about how they are treated. The reason I agree with the author so much on his stance is due to the fact that there is virtually no reason for zoos to treat animals the way they do, and for zoos to exist altogether. The only reason why they exist is for the entertainment of the populous. If zoos really wanted animals to be admired, they would not trap them in captivity, they would release all of them into the wild.
This article presented its argument about zoos needing to be banned perfectly clear. The author, James Nolan, backed up his argument with numerous of sources that he cited. Also, he even suggested another article to read about to give his audience a different point of view. The article was well structured. Nolan spoke about his personal views on the situation and stated his beliefs, then continued on with statistics to give the article credibility. To make the argument stronger, Nolan touched on the opposing argument stating why it’s bad and how false it is. The article was an easy read and got its point across with valuable information, as well as. Personally, I 100% agree with the article and belief that zoos should no longer be a thing. Animals shouldn’t spend their lives living in a small space with no interaction with other animals or the wild. Imagine, being trapped in a room with no one to talk to, no place to go, being consumed in your own thought. Humans, like animals, have feelings and need the ability to expand and live. We shouldn’t be using these innocent creatures for our own stupid entertainment and taking them away from their homes.
ReplyDeleteDavian Smith
ReplyDeleteThe author is presenting his research by creating statements and using factual information to back it up. Throughout the essay, the author informs the audience of a problem and then uses citation to refer to the information she has found in order to speak on a problem. She used what she has found through research and it has made her argument more plausible. One may be able to argue and easily revoke opinionated statements but when an argument is backed using facts, it becomes harder to challenge. I also noticed that the author stayed content with the topic from beginning to the end. The article was repeatedly giving out facts and information that supported her argument. She did mention little reason as to why one would argue against her but such a small portion doesn’t affect her topic at hand. According to the research, I cannot say that I agree or disagree with what she is saying but I believe the argument was presented well and is justifiable. The only problem with this type of argument is that both sides were not considered to the full extent. The research that supported the argument was explicitly given but info that may have revoked wasn’t as present.
Angelie Jean-Brice
ReplyDeletein my opinion, i believe that this article is presenting its readers with an argument about why zoos should be banned. this is a strong argumentative article because it presents strong facts and sources for the argument. but because it only gives cons about zoos, i had to do my own personal research on some pros about keeping animals in zoos. from my research i learned that there are more cons than pros on this topic. personally, i agree with the sense that keeping an animal in captivity is wrong and should be banned. you are decreasing the life span of the animal by putting them in a new environment to be watched by people. by keeping the animal in a smaller place than its use to, they will start to develop behavioral issues. animals aren't meant to be kept in a small space and paraded for the enjoyment of others. to me, that is morally wrong. i think zoos are trying to do the right thing for the animals but are going about it the wrong way. the day where we find a way to admire animals but not take them out of their natural home will be a step forward for mankind and animal kind. this is easier said than done but if we really put our minds to it, it could happen.
After reading this article I believe that it is trying to make an argument about how zoos are unsafe and that they are not kept properly. In the situation with the flood that was not the zoos fault that natural disaster struck. The zoo keepers were trying to save their families before the animals like any human would. In a crisis you think about family not about work or animals first. Now I do not believe all zoos should be banned. For one it is a great place to learn about animals and to be able to see them. Many animals kept in zoos are not going to be seen in a lifetime if you don't go to a zoo. In a zoo back home most animals are rescued animals ones that have a disorder, disability or are injured. They take these animals in and they help them. While it is not right to keep animals in captivity I do believe there is a right way to keep an animal protected.I believe that animals should only be kept in captivity if they are needing extra care and can be rescued and have a place to recover. We all have pets right?
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article uses many credible sources, sites many helpful statistics, and chooses a very strong form of syntax and diction to construct a very effective argument as to why all zoos should be banned. He even gives some counterpoints often brought up by those who choose to disagree with his statement and offers a strong rebuttal to these claims. Overall, his argument was strong, straightforward, and logical. He makes it extremely clear that he finds zoos to be an unacceptable place for these animals to be raised. And I agree with his point. I do not find any reason why these animals should be held in captivation all day in an unnatural environment where they are likely to live a less fulfilling life and risk dying sooner than they would if they were not in captivation. Animals are not needed for our entertainment as we have many other large scale methods to do so such as amusement parks. Sure they may provide some form of education for young children, but again we have many other ways of educating our children about these animals, such as books and movies. We also should keep in mind that we need to keep these animals alive and not let their species become extinct.
ReplyDeleteMax Dou
ReplyDeleteJames Nolan uses a combination of researched facts as well as emotion to draw the reader towards his argument. The way he does this is by using a long list of sources that back up and using a less formal dialect to communicate with the reader in a more personal and approachable level. There are many people that are animal-friendly and the structure of the article as well as the documented unreliableness presented by the author effectively creates a reasonable and thought through argument as well as getting the support of the readers that share a love for animals. The aspect that James Nolan presents about zoos is not a new fact, however, his message carries extra weight regarding the horrors committed by zoo's, an example of such atrocity that escalated to gargantuan level was the case in the Cincinnati zoo where the gorilla named as Harambe was put down. Cases like the one in Cincinnati, unfortunately, are more common than it appears, when animals are seen as an object capable of producing capital, we, humans become desensitized to the pain and suffering we bring to the other owners we share our planet with. Only by giving a voice and supporting those who cannot protect themselves against human greed can animals finally free themselves of the shackles by which we have bound them. That's the importance that this article holds.
Foster Dore
ReplyDeleteThe first thing about this article that caught my eye was its structure. The introduction is captivating and immediately the author portrays his voice. It is clear from the beginning that the author is going to take the side that zoos should be banned. From the introduction, he goes onto a brief yet informative background about zoos themselves, and then begins his argument. This way of writing is effectively persuasive because it allows readers, who might not be too aware of the subject, become informed of its content, and eventually form opinions of their own. I will be using a similar format when I go to write my research paper. Overall, I thought this was a very well written piece, the arguments were strong, and it was an interesting argument that I had not heard in a while. In my opinion, maybe zoo staff or zoo conditions need to be modified but I support zoos. Most wild animals live a life purposed around hunting and often face many life threatening challenges will trying to provide for themselves and their families. Therefore zoos provide a healthy tradeoff between human enjoyment and the animals satisfaction.
I really enjoyed this article, written by James Nolan. I believe that Nolan did a great job in writing this article and presenting the facts. Nolan definitely was able to keep up with the laidback and causal vibes the articles that the Vice website usually produces, while also keeping the topic serious. The language Nolan used made the information easy to understand and very relatable, as if a friend was telling you about this problem. It is very effective in convincing you of the information, with links to all the facts, and even giving the reader a brief history on the origins of zoos. Using the correct language, Nolan was also able to provide his input in the subject, without turning the article into an opinion piece. I completely agree with Nolan on his stance to end zoos. Although I love animals and have always enjoyed being able to go to the zoo and see them close up, I also understand that everything has a place, and animals belong in the wild in their natural habitat. Their purpose definitely is not to entertain humans and act as pets for us whenever we want. Like Nolan states, everything about animals can be learned through websites such as YouTube or articles and documents online.
ReplyDeleteThe author of “All of the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned” creates an effective argument. The author does so by presenting valid facts, as well as statistics to support his opinion. These sources and valid statistics are all cited, causing readers to know they are valid, and therefore creating an effective argumentative research paper. It was a strong article, supported by the author’s well-known knowledge as well as his personal opinions and thoughts. Personally I agreed with the argument that zoos are a dangerous and non -beneficial sanctuary. As a child growing up in New York, I often visited the zoo, growing up believing in the normality of the captivity of these naturally wild animals. It is very often seen that children grow up just like I did, visiting the zoo and not thinking twice about why the animals were in cages and how they were treated behind the scenes of the entertainment. The cruel treatment of these animals need to come to a stop, and if it takes shutting down zoos, then that is what needs to happen. Another beneficial action that could be taken would be more money being brought into zoos to better them. Overall, there needs to be a positive change, as presented in the article.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the author sprinkles his writing with many phrases along the lines of "I'm no big animal-rights crusader, BUT--" (emphasis mine). This tactic tries to detach him from the lesser appreciated speakers for animal rights such as organizations like PETA, while still showing that he is advocating for something here. He does something that I'm not fond of, he refers to what he is advocating as "common sense" though for those that may differ in opinion form him this comment may be insulting. They do, however, introduce their research quite casually, more like a conversation than a one-sided article, as most are, so that we learn about the cause and the history all at once and not too stiff of a fashion. It is quite clever the way he introduces reasonable sounding arguments in favor of zoos, only to tear them down a sentence later which allow the audience to feel as if he has fended off all opposition to his view, when really they were built to be effortlessly trashed. Overall, an interesting topic that not everyone thinks about, though it's opinions scream a bit too loud in its closing for my taste.
ReplyDeleteIn presenting his argument, the author James Nolan addresses the casualties of both people and animals in the Tbilisi flood, followed by accusations of police officers shooting animals unnecessarily. He then provides facts backing the claim that animals are abused, and that zoo’s should be abolished. Structured with much evidence and a strong claim, this article is extremely effective and makes an argument through logic and figures. As someone who cannot deny the evidence provided, and who has refused to go to the zoo since a young age, I wholeheartedly agree with Nolan. I don’t see the justice in holding animals in captivity for human amusement. Even in an educational setting, one is to learn about the natural habitat and its extensive lengths in land, and one is to remain ignorant of the pain of the animal that sits before them? They are being deprived of instinctual bliss, forced to conform to man’s restrictions.
ReplyDeleteAudrey Lugo
ReplyDeleteThe article “All The Reasons Why Zoos should be Banned” certainly provides an effective argument for why all zoos should be banned. As a research essay, the genre of the piece is persuasive, since the author uses valid statistics and credible sources as a means to back up his main argument of why zoos should be banned. He also challenged the opposing viewpoint on the subject, by giving some insight to the argument that zoos aren’t all that bad, only to further explain himself on why they should be banned in the first place. I myself am a huge animal lover and I completely agree with all of the points Nolan made in his essay. In the last part of the essay, Nolan mentioned how in Costa Rica zoos are already banned, and I remembered how much the people cared about their wildlife when I visited just a couple years ago. Every local I spoke to was so educated and so protective on their wildlife, (especially the monkeys) and would explain how it was bad to touch the monkeys because humans have a bacteria that is bad for the monkeys and by just touching them we could transfer it. I really do believe that more countries should be like Costa Rica.
Damian Williams
ReplyDeleteI feel this this article makes a sound argument for banning all zoos by using pathos and logos as his main forms of persuasion. I agree with is article and I feel that the article derives its strength from the factual information that it presents and sources that it uses to back up those facts. James Nolan did a good job of designing an argumentative essay because in addition to the facts that he presented in his essay, he also appealed to our emotions. Because most people have a heart and actually possess empathy for the animals that are held in captivity it is beneficial for Nolan to appeal to this side of the psyche. Personally, I do not believe that animals should be in captivity. However, I do believe that animals being held in captivity is a vital learning experience that children should have as they grow up. I believe that reading about the animals of the world and actually having the opportunity to see that is two entirely different things. On the other hand, many zoos are not strictly regulated and abuse the animals for capital gain which is the dark side of the zoo industry that I cannot personally support.
Bianca Nogueras
ReplyDeleteThe article makes a clear argument, and it's in the title: "All The Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned." I enjoyed this article, and the author, James Nolan brings up some strong points backed up with factual information. It makes sense as to why the author feels the way that he does. In this great big world we live in, nothing should have to be confined all its life. Humans can't handle it, so why do animals have to suffer? Animals have much less space to roam around and be free, like they're supposed to be. Zoos have gotten better in recent times, but still, there's much room for improvement. Studies have proven that animals live longer when they're out in the wild, rather than in captivity, and it's only a matter of time before things are made right.
In this article, Nolan effectively introduces his argument, almost instantly providing numerous examples supporting his claims of the adverse consequences of keeping animals in captivity. He is without bias, as he claims to not be a "big animal-rights crusader". He uses scientific statistics to support his claims as to why it is not a good idea to hold animals captive. Ultimately, he uses the three rhetorical appeals to make his argument stronger.
ReplyDeleteI am personally against organizations such as zoos and amusement parks that use animals for show. I believe it is our responsibility to protect our environment and every creature in it. I do, however, believe rehabilitation sanctuaries and conservations can be for the animals' benefits if maintained properly. Some animals are not capable of surviving on their own, due to many reasons whatever they be, so they need human attention, but they need it in a positive way. Just look at SeaWorld and their many incidents with the killer whales.
Andrew Stevens
ReplyDeleteI went into this article expecting a very long, explanation, but it was much shorter than I thought it would be. The author takes care not to linger on one point for too long and makes a strong point with his sources. He seems to have very strong feelings about the subject of zoos and why they should be abolished. I would tend to disagree, as watching animals on television is not as powerful or interesting as seeing them in real life, though I suppose that is the reason why there are safari tours: to safely be able to observe animals in their natural habitats. Still, I find it somewhat hard to believe that a fascinating creature such as a lion would have as much respect among the public as it does were it not put on public display at a zoo. Would dolphins be as beloved if people were not able to interact with or swim with them? I very much enjoyed visiting the Georgia Aquarium whenever I was in Atlanta.
I was of the belief that zoos and other animal facilities were something of a necessary evil in order to ensure public awareness and appreciation for these creatures, though this article makes me somewhat reconsider. Though I won’t change my opinion just for one article it does make me feel that there should be harsh(er) penalties for zoos that severely abuse their creatures. Also, the author himself points out that conditions in zoos and aquariums have greatly improved in recent years.
Colleen Towey
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this article. Growing up, I always went to the zoo and to the Tallahassee Museum and wondered how well they take care of their animals. I think that the author presents a very comprehensive argument as to why zoos should be shut down and it included many reasons and examples to back up the argument. I think one of the most shocking statistics for me was to find out that roughly 3,000 to 5,000 animals are killed each year at zoos. As dumb as this sounds, I think the shooting of Harambe at the Cincinnati Zoo really shed light on the animal cruelty issue in America. Seeing people getting upset over Harambe's death emphasized the importance of animal safety and the concept that captivity does not equal conservation. I thought the argument was incredibly wells-written and conveyed his point very well. If he wanted to further convince some of the more hardcore opposers, he could implement some pictures of animal abuse in zoos. Any pictures that he could find would appeal to the pathos of the reader and provide a more convincing argument. I already somewhat sided with the author, so it didn't take much to convince me.
Marissa Latham
ReplyDeleteThis article presents the information in a very biased way but sneaks the facts in almost seamlessly to where the reader does not even notice until later on. The argument it makes is woven into the writing as though it is common fact that zoos are corrupt but it also addresses the viewpoint that zoos conserve the animals but later disputes this viewpoint by showing with factual evidence that zoos actually contribute to the problem conservation is trying to solve. The argument is effective as I now believe that zoos should be shut down for the stress they put on animals. This argument persuaded me through pathos and was very emotionally convincing. I agree because I feel that these facts are all supported very well. Each fact was relevant to the topic and was adequately explained afterward. It was written in a way that I could understand and was not too informative so as to keep the readers interested. I feel that the information given was very supportive of the argument and that paired with the pathos of the argument, the author did a very good job of convincing the readers that zoos are not worth their benefits.
This sounds highly bias, and to disclaim these points, nobody goes to a zoo and teaches kids to "resent animals" this is never the case, as far as food goes its extremely odd to be going after people eating, and though they were once animals we need to eat, we cant stop making a change on the places around us, this argument is the line between conserving wildlife and protecting it, and destroying the basic need to survive, their is no compromise, we simply do the best to keep the planet and beings on it safe and healthy, us included, meaning we need to be provided for too.We simply need to change the standards of our zoos, make smart, healthy decisions that have good moral instead of going about destroying things because of our brash opinions.
ReplyDeleteBt double dubs this is timothy chikafrez
Deletepastnews.org
ReplyDeletePast NewsPast NewsPast NewsPast NewsPast NewsPast News
ReplyDeletePast News
ReplyDelete