PLT

700 word version/ final

Franco Abbatessa

Pollan

In the passage written by Pollan the big story behind pollan’s writing is that it is one big between one side talking to another side about what is humane and what isn’t humane. The reading states that people need to decide to be vegetarian or not just based upon some quick facts given to us by pollan.  Some of the conflicts are shown just by the writer himself along with Singer just because of some good points made in the main idea or conflict throughout the reading.

One of the major conflicts is when they’re stating that animals have no soul and they can’t feel pain so therefore it’s okay to treat them this way.  According to Pollan, Decartes believes that “animals were mere machines, incapable of thought or feeling”  (2). In making this comment, Decartes is making a statement that animals are lesser then humans. If Decartes is right then it is ethical to eat animals.  If Decartes is wrong then it is unethical to eat animals.  I believe that animals do have the ability to have thoughts and feelings, but I also believe that it is ethical to eat animals. This contradictory statement suggests that I am stuck with no way to make  a decision without  thinking about what Pollan and Singer have to say.

Pollan has made some interesting points throughout his passage stating his case and also allowing other such as Singer and also Salitan who has some weird beliefs such as when he says that the animals he kills don’t have feelings and that they don’t look at him like he’s actually hurting them.

Singer has some other interesting points in the reading when he’s stating that it is way better to go vegetarian due to the amount of animals it would save in the world and also how it would help the wildlife and the forests. He believes that animals do have souls along with the ability to have feelings and feel pain when something is happening to them. Others think the opposite way about animals that they don’t have feelings or souls.

Another main idea Pollan has in this writing is how when he is basically telling a story about how the animals and humans aren’t alike at all through using the resources of Saltain and also some stories. One of the ways is that when the reading says “ I won’t eat meat unless I kill it myself” says one of the stories told in the passage. It’s explaining to the reader how that person can’t even eat meat unless it is killed by him. He also states that when he killed the animal the animal didn’t have the stare at him like a human would when it was being killed.

The other portion of the passage is when Pollan is making the reader think through his writing such as when he uses questions and comparisons to make you think.  In the reading it starts comparing a monkey to a kid with special needs and that if the monkey should be treated this way then the kid should be too. But that comparison is inhumane and not right because if you have to choose between keeping the special needs kid alive or the monkey which one would you rather have. Any human with a working heart and a soul would keep the kid alive.

Personally I am not in agreement I will not become a vegetarian becoming a vegetarian means you don’t get the everyday nutrients you need from red meat and chicken and other meats. Am I in a agreement with some of the points that he was making yes there was points where I did agree but it didn’t completely make me into a vegetarian.  There are some changes to the way that I understand this conversation now. The way that this conversation is portrayed at first is almost like a story alongside some good points and some jokes here and there. After the discussion and going back and reading it over again the conversation is so much more broad and diverse in a sense making you think while also catching your eye. Throughout the writing it is easy to just stop and think about what some of the things being said mean. A lot of the explanations have multiple meanings. Some reflection I have on Pollan’s piece is how he uses so many topic changes and techniques to get the reader to change there mind on something that isn’t so easy to just change like that. Some major or key ideas is when he’s using other people’s stories in order to help his own grow in strength.

500 word version

Franco Abbatessa

Pollan

In the passage written by pollan the big story behind pollan’s writing is that it is one big between one side talking to another side about what is humane and what isn’t humane. The reading states that people need to decide to be vegetarian or not just based upon some quick facts given to us by pollan.  Some of the conflicts are shown just by the writer himself along with Singer just because of some good points made in the main idea or conflict throughout the reading.

One of the major conflicts is when they’re stating that animals have no soul and they can’t feel pain so therefore it’s okay to treat them this way. The argument was stated that it is not right to actually treat them this way due to some of the statements given.

Pollan has made some interesting points throughout his passage stating his case and also allowing other such as Singer and also Salitan who has some weird beliefs such as when he says that the animals he kills don’t have feelings and that they don’t look at him like he’s actually hurting them. Singer has some other interesting points in the reading when he’s stating that it is way better to go vegetarian due to the amount of animals it would save in the world and also how it would help the wildlife and the forests. He believes that animals do have souls along with the ability to have feelings and feel pain when something is happening to them. Others think the opposite way about animals that they don’t have feelings or souls.   Another main idea pollan has in this writing is how when he is basically telling a story about how the animals and humans aren’t alike at all through using the resources of Saltain and also some stories. One of the ways is that when the reading says “ i won’t eat meat unless I kill it myself” says one of the stories told in the passage. It’s explaining to the reader how that person can’t even eat meat unless it is killed by him. He also states that when he killed the animal the animal didn’t have the stare at him like a human would when it was being killed.

The other portion of the passage is when Pollen is making the reader think through his writing such as when he uses questions and comparisons to make you think.  In the reading it starts comparing a monkey to a kid with special needs and that if the monkey should be treated this way then the kid should be too. But that comparison is inhumane and not right because if you have to choose between keeping the special needs kid alive or the monkey which one would you rather have. Any human with a working heart and a soul would keep the kid alive.

Personally I am not in a agreement I will not become a vegetarian becoming a vegetarian means you don’t get the everyday nutrients you need from red meat and chicken and other meats.