New York may be an empire in name only, but on Tuesday it demonstrated a global reach.
appeal to emotion for hope once again
New York may be an empire in name only, but on Tuesday it demonstrated a global reach.
appeal to emotion for hope once again
concerted global battle against climate change—it is, after all, the first truly global problem we’ve ever faced.
appeals to emotion to unite many people together
It’s likely that the actions of the pension funds will prove contagious to some degree. Other states and cities will begin to wonder whether they’re going to be left holding the bag.
evidence that the idea will gain a sort of chain effect by spreading throughout the world
s thoroughly as Trump and the G.O.P.
hints of bias and bashing this audience
Emmanuel Macron, sent out a tweet announcing that his country would no longer grant any licenses for oil and gas exploration in its various territories. He concluded with “#keepitintheground,” a hashtag until now confined to campaigners.
logical evidence that this is a plausible solution to the epidemic
Norway, for instance, last month began work to divest its giant sovereign-wealth fund, which is bigger even than New York’s combined pensions. The World Bank, last week, said it would no longer be lending money for oil and gas exploration.
evidence appeals to the emotion of hope for a better and prosperous change
The future lies elsewhere.
poses the question of where to the reader
ery center of world finance, sentiment is turning sharply against fossil-fuel investing. Activists have urged divestment for what you might call moral reasons: if it’s wrong to wreck the planet, it’s wrong to profit from the wreckage.
ethical and logical appeal that is evidence for Mckibbens overall purpose about how these companies should not e funded.
process collectively manage more than six trillion dollars in assets
very impressive, gains credibility
have been working for years to spur divestment from fossil-fuel stocks,
goal or purpose in a way
the nonprofit that I founded
gains credibility by explaining how he owns the non profit organization
many of them at 350.org,
appeal to gain credibility
Bill McKibben, a former New Yorker staff writer, is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College, where he was the faculty adviser to the Nordic ski team. His forthcoming book is “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?”
Bill Mckibens persosa
actively investigating methods for “ceasing additional investments in fossil fuels, divesting current holdings in fossil-fuel companies, and increasing investments in clean energy.”
logical appeal that serves as data to support his purpose that fossil fuel companies need to salaries need to be ceased
The pension fund under Albany’s control totals two hundred billion dollars, making it one of the twenty largest pools of money on Earth.
evidence and data to support the purpose.
“ceasing all new investments in entities with significant fossil-fuel-related activities
Quote is relating to Bill Mckibben's purpose that fossil fuel industries can be stopped with new policies that prevent them from making money
Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office, saying that New York was going to divest its vast pension-fund investments in fossil fuels.
This is an example of a logical appeal as it explains how the Governor is depriving the industries.
permission to go a-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that is soon to be drilled appeals to the emotion of environmentalists.
Bill Mckibben introduces an ethical appeal by presenting the G.O.P bill which reduces federal tax burdan
I certainly don’t wish to see any animal mistreated, but I don’t believe that any animal has the same rights as any human being.
this is exactly what i wish to introduce with the counter argument as it does disagree with my view, but not entirely contradict it
should it be up to someone other than the elephants to determine where to place them
this is a great explanation. I love how it questions an aspect that is not plausible in order to illustrate that which is impossible
recognize the elephants as legal persons with the fundamental right to bodily liberty
animals should not be directly compared to humans, they are not the exact same as a human being, but giving animals more rights is a different story
valid reason for that person’s detention
this is not a supporting detail as it describes people are in jail for potentially abusing animals, which sounds horrible
but we still have a number. He’s not a person.
illustrates the extent to which they care fore animals and other individuals as well
I will cry alligator tears when my cat dies
personal anecdote to reinforce the position that these people do in fact care for animals
Practicing animal welfare was from the very beginning an integral part of our philosophy. It was and is an inherent part of who we are.
animal welfare is almost viewed as a derogatory term in my opinion; however, it is also stating that these individuals do treat animals well enough to an extent
deep-rooted passion for raising livestock
illiterates that not all people who are not advocates of never killing animals are not entirely heartless monsters.
I do not believe that any animal should have the same rights as human beings.
I, and many other people, can stand behind this statement. This is a good argument for the counter-view as it is not stating animals should have no rights, but they should not be viewed the same as humans
great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales have been scientifically proven to be autonomous.
this is a interesting statement; however, it does not completely coincide with the points i am attempting to develop in my paper
those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them
explains that it is humans responsibility to ensure animals are treated fairly which is true, but not in all cases.
secure legally recognized fundamental rights for nonhuman animals through litigation, advocacy, and education.
the article will explain why animals should not have rights only detailing one group which may weaken the argument
Animal rights or animal welfare? That is often the question being asked
This is an interesting statement for the opposition as it compares animals to lesser beings requiring help. This is a question in regard to ones morals
leaving the animals alone to live their lives
animal rights should be improved when human impact is present, which is the major source of my argument, not leaving the animals alone
are free from torture
I believe any creature should be free from torture,killing is another story; however, torture is immoral and simply wrong
vegan world
this is a huge flaw that should not be in any argument, not everyone wants to be vegan
No one is asking for animals to have the same rights as humans, but in an animal rights activist's ideal world, animals would have the right to live free of human use and exploitation
animals must be used in some circumstances but it is vital that their conditions and manors in which they are treated be improved
prevent unjust suffering. Similarly, the reason that animal rights activists want animals to have rights is to prevent them from suffering unjustly
I entirely agree with this statement. Animals should not undergo unjust suffering under any circumstances
tortured and slaughtered and there is no reason to morally distinguish
illistrates mistreatment but needs facts to support
the only reason humans are treated differently is speciesism, which is an arbitrary distinction based on the incorrect belief that humans are the only species deserving of moral consideration
comparing animals to humans shows that we are all living beings but must be done so carefully in order not to insult ones pride
sentient
able to perceive or feel things- which is something that everyone in the world should believe in physical terms and very many people believe it in emotional terms as well
humanitarians
concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.
non-human animals have consciousness
ultimately boils down to what someone believes on the issue, do animals possess the ability of being conscious or not?
speciesism
the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals.
Why should animals have rights? What rights should animals have? How are those rights different from human rights?
engaging the reader and making them question their own morals and beliefs
he idea of treating animals humanely is vague and means something different to everyone
this is an entirely true statement which makes the subject f animal rights such a controversial topic.
Some advocate for not using animals as food, clothing or other goods and others such as vegans even go as far as to denounce the use of animal by-products.
Topic of why it is a problem
killing animals infringe on the animals' rights, no matter how "humanely" they are treated.
argument that killing animals is wrong no matter what, which is something that i do not entirely agree with because food needs to come from somewhere
humans can use and exploit animals as long as the animals are treated humanely and the use is not too frivolous
counter argument as to why animals do have rights, as why aspects surrounding animals lives are ethical
Animal Welfare Act
The rights have remained the same since 1966?
Advocacy groups and humanitarians alike have long argued for the rights of animals around the world, fighting for their right as sentient creatures to a life free of torture and suffering.
Hooks the reader with a great rhetorical question, that is unbiased and a good example for my own paper