Deer Hunting_Free Response

Many people believe hunting deer is cruel and unnecessary. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has a page dedicated to precisely this subject. PETA explained that when hunters do not kill the deer right away, it causes prolonged pain and suffering. This suffering includes a disruption of their migration patterns, destroying families. PETA assured readers that nature would allow the populations to sustain themselves as long as they are left alone. This is because natural predators will kill off the weakest animals, allowing the strong to survive. This is survival of the fittest. The article went on to warn against canned cruelty – for-profit hunting reserves. Their alternative was to control the populations by neutering the deer and returning them to their natural habitats.

While these are great ideas on paper, it is easy to pick apart the argument.

First, PETA stated that “Nature takes care of its own”. “The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their survival – if they are left unaltered.” I do not argue with this statement – if they really were left unaltered. However, society does not leave them unaltered. Statistics show that farm land is disappearing, taking wild animals homes.  Our society continues urbanization, and humans now “dominate the local ecosystem”. While one could try to argue against this expansion, it does not seem like this trend will end. Deer, and many other wild animals, have (and will continue to have) much less land to survive on.

On this little property they do have, the deer continue with their natural instincts – they will (at least attempt to) multiply. The more animals that are born, the more food that is needed. However, there is not an over abundance of land to give to the deer. They will be forced to travel for food. When this happens, they wander into streets, highways, and property of people. This can be worse than hunting the deer – much more painful for them and much more costly to us. After wandering does not work, they will begin to starve. This, too, is much more painful than hunting.

So, while it is true that natural predators will allow the balance of the eco-system, it is only if they are left alone. Their eco systems are not left alone in this day and age.

Hunting is used to regulate the population. It keeps the animals at numbers that the present eco-system can sustain. Because their habitats are no longer completely natural, hunters step in to help. However, I am sure there are hunters do not have helping in mind. That is why there are hunting rules and regulations – licenses, specific times to hunt, specific ages of deer to hunt, a specific number allowed to be killed per person, etc. These laws protect the deer population. 

On the one hand, PETA does make a good point. If our only goal of hunting is to protect the deer population, why not give them contraceptives? Indeed. It appears, however, to be a very costly and time-consuming process. Plus, not many people would have the medical knowledge to perform the procedure on the animals. In the end, it does not seem like the most logical answer. Also, PETA is looking to maintain their natural habitat. How is this natural?

On the other hand, hunting does not have one goal. While the laws protect the deer, the hunters probably have different reasons for hunting.

Many cook with deer meat. The argument could be made that this is cruel in itself. However, what animals are eaten is simply cultural norms. For example, if an American were to eat their dog or cat, they would probably be greeted with a very negative response. It is culturally unacceptable in America, but happens in China every day.  What animals are eaten are simply cultural norms.

Animals will always have to be killed in order to be eaten. Hunters are simply heading to the woods to get a meal instead of a grocery store. They do the dirty work instead of mass factories (where the animals probably are treated worse than an animal in the woods).

When everyone in the world becomes a vegetarian, then the argument can be made that deer should not be hunted.

Deer hunting is also enjoyable. It gives a fantastic reason to sit in the woods all day and enjoy nature. It also allows family and friends to come together. For me, my uncles, grandpa, and cousins come together from hours away to spend a weekend hunting. Stories shared in the woods creates a great bonding experience.

Conclusion: Deer hunting is not cruel and unnecessary. While it is cruel for a deer to be injured instead of killed, this is not the goal of hunting. In reality, it is much worse for the deer to wander and be hit by a car or starve than to risk a bad shot. Hunting controls the population instead of relying on only natural predators. Natural instincts cannot simply be relied on when society has already taken so much land. In addition, hunting is regulated by laws and is used for food.

At least your neighbor isn’t shooting your cat.

Week 5 Text Response

This political cartoon, drawn by Brain Fairrington, deals with the topic of freedom of speech. The pre-reading question in the book “Argument!” is written as follows: “Should authorities ever resort to force in response to a student’s outspokenness?” (Argument! 352) In addition, the sign in the cartoon, “Warning: Colleges are Free Speech Free Zones” also makes the topic clear. The cartoon itself is referring to an incident with a Senator and Student at a college event. The excerpt from Argument summarized the incident as:

“In September 2007, Senator John Kerry spoke at the University of Florida’s Constitution Day, an event organized by the UF student government. Upon hearing the organizers would take only one more question for Senator Kerry, Andrew Meyer, a senior telecommunications major, grabbed a microphone and demanded to be heard. Meyer then became increasingly unruly, prompting the campus security to intervene; according to accounts, Meyer resisted UF police, who then resorted to Tasering him. The student’s exclamation, ‘Don’t taze me, bro!” pervaded media channels for several weeks, with people uploading numerous videos to YouTube spotlighting his plea. Brain Fairrington, the cartoonist, uses the incident to make a broader claim about free speech on college campuses” (Argument! 352).

I agree that students have a right to freedom of speech on college campuses. This political cartoon and the book’s question are assuming that the student, Andrew Meyer, was tasered due to his infringement on this right. However, this is not the reason that he was tasered. This cartoon is missing the point of protection and freedom of speech. I believe that it was not unlawful to take these measures against Andrew Meyer.

Citizens of America have a right to protection under the Second Amendment. Because of this, bodyguards and security guards are lawful - as long as they act out of defense. If this police were to have tasered this boy only because of his words, it would not be lawful.

This is because citizens of America also have the right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Citizens have the right to speak their beliefs. However, it is to be done “peaceably” and orderly. The Second Amendment helps to ensure the orderliness.

Andrew Meyer was not speaking peaceably or orderly. The Senator was clear that he would only take one more question, and Meyer was not chosen. Out of anger, he grabbed the microphone and began to speak. If the police were to taser him at this moment, it still would have been unlawful. However, they did not. “Meyer then became increasingly unruly [opposite of peace and orderliness], prompting the campus security to intervene…” (Argument! 352). Only when Meyer “resisted the police” was he tasered.

The tasering was not in response to the student’s outspokenness, it was in response to resisting the police. Even so, was this student’s right to freedom of speech taken away? Absolutely not! His statement could easily have been posted somewhere else, put on a banner and protested, or seen in many other ways. He simply could not have said it in that one place. Also, the Senator did not take only one question. Meyer did not have an unfair chance of being chosen. If he were to make questions unlimited, the entire campus could have been held there for weeks. In fact, by speaking out, he was not allowing the Senator to speak, thus taking away another’s rights to Freedom of Speech.

While I understand the point that Fairrington is trying to get across, this is a poor example of colleges taking away Freedom of Speech. In reality, the tasering was an example of the people’s right to protection; it was not a response to the student’s outspokenness. It was a response to resisting the police. This tasering was absolutely constitutional and, therefore, should not be used as an example of college’s lack of Freedom of Speech.

College a Waste of Time? Week 4

Mixergy.com posted an article about why college is a waste of time and money. This post was a response to Seth Godin’s article about problems with college textbooks. The responding author proposed that the problem is more than the books. “Aren’t we really looking at a 4-year time and money drain?” While the problem of insufficient time and money in college can be real, I do not believe that the author supported himself (or herself) well.

He (or she) created a list of what is wrong with the college system.

It creates corporate drones. It causes students to “become pawns of whatever company pays them enough to help make payments on their debt”. Maybe. But if you do not go to college, the jobs that you can acquire are limited. The best jobs without a degree are jobs such as a web developer, a secretary, a mechanic, a surveyor, a cosmetologist, a machine operator, etc. Even these jobs require some schooling. However, I recognize that they are less expensive. They also bring in less income. While there may be less dead from school, there will be more debt from normal life. It will be harder to pay of mortgages, pay taxes, support a family, buy groceries, pay for gas, and many other things that a citizen of the United States must pay. Career Cast recorded average income levels for jobs that do not require a college degree and for jobs that do require a college degree. The job bringing in the college degree makes abut double the salary. That adds up over a few years. Yes, debts from college cause employees to be dependent on their job and boss, but won’t that happen no matter what the job is? Money will always be difficult to obtain, whether in college or out.

It doesn’t teach the way people learn. The author claims that people learn by doing, not by sitting in class and being lectured to. This is an incorrect claim. There are three learning styles that people may have. Indiana University said, “Everyone processes and learns new information in different ways. There are three maincognitive learning styles: visual [seeing], auditory [hearing], and kinesthetic [doing].” The reality is that college is indeed mostly reading, writing papers, and listening to lectures. The visual learner will learn well in college as much of the homework is reading and writing. The auditory learner will retain information through the lectures. In the lectures, visual learners will retain information through taking notes. The kinesthetic learner may be at a disadvantage in gen-ed classes. However, kinesthetic learners typically major in science or math. These degrees are much more hands on in definition; especially science. Most classes taken have labs. Thus, the kinesthetic learner is still being taught in the way they personally learn. The author of the article was assuming that no one learns from lectures. Readers can assume that the author does not learn from lectures… The author is probably either a kinesthetic/hands on learner... or should have learned to take better notes. 

Four years of information is too much too retain. True. There is a lot of information that will be forgotten. But once learned, it is easier recalled. If a student cannot remember what they learned previously, it probably shows their study style – cramming. While college can encourage cramming, it is really encouraging freedom. Students have the syllabus from the beginning and are very capable of spacing their time out appropriately. If a student makes sure they learn the information best suited to their learning style, there is much more of a chance they will remember it. However, not every piece of information will be used in the workplace. They must be aware of certain concepts, but will not need to know every detail. So then why is college important, you ask? Many details will be needed, and employers still require all of the classes.

Its promise is a hoax. “A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college.” Okay. But if more “smart people” do not go to college, aren’t you just creating people that are less smart? I do not see how resisting college fixes this problem.

Also, that implies that college does not increase the intelligence of people who attend college. Intelligent people may attend college. But they become more intelligent. Without the neurosurgeoun attending college, I certainly would not have trusted Mayo clinicians to remove my dad’s brain tumor this past year.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/college-degree-job_n_4142797.html

Whether the intelligence of graduates is depending on their abilities or their studies, statistics show that the unemployment rate of people who went to college is significantly lower than those who did not. It’s promise is not a hoax.

The truth is that college is one big party. Before my next statement, I would like to preface with my personal decision. I will be attending Taylor University because of my love for their discipleship community. I love that their focus is solely on the glory of God. Education and community fall in line with that. I choose to glorify God with my body and with my actions, because of my huge love for Him and what He has done. Thus, I will not be taking part in parties and neither will the school that I will be attending. However, regardless of my personal decision, this problem still must be addressed.

“Are there some students who study hard and learn a lot in college? Yes, but most of those students are learning despite the environment, not because of it.” (emphasis added) I think the author just proved that it does not matter whether it is a party school or not. Students are learning at college.

I agree that college is expensive (and I would love for it to be less expensive), but that is a completely different argument than the one the author was making.  

College is not a waste of time or money.

"Turning Goys into Girls" - Week 3

Michelle Cottle’s astonishing Washington Monthly essay, “Turning Goys into Girls”, does an excellent job explaining how the equality of men and women is being achieved. Many without reading this article would think that this means women are becoming more like men - less concerned about how they look and what they wear and more concerned with their social and economical statuses. While the status quo may be heading that way as well, this is not what the author was writing about. “The irony is rich and bittersweet. Gender equity is at last headed our way-not in the form of women being less obsessed with looking like Calvin Klein models, but of men becoming hysterical over the first signs of crows-feet. Gradually, guys are no longer pumping up and primping simply to get babes, but because they feel it’s something everyone expects them to do” (Argument! 263). Men’s magazines such as Men’s Health, GQ, Details, and Men’s Journal are matching women’s magazines with messages about achieving the perfect image. Statistics show that men are buying these messages as U.S. men’s toiletries brought in $3.5 billion the year that this essay was published, 20% of men get manicures and pedicures, and 18% use skin treatments. The author’s point of the article is this: Equality is finally being reached. However, it is creating men that are closer to women, not women that are closer to men. I am in agreement with Cottle until this point: She applauds this trend.

In fact, the first sentence of the essay displays the fact that this trend, in her mind, has a positive connotation. “I love Men’s Health magazine” (Argument! 260). She loves it. She loves that  “this magazine, and a few others like it, are leveling the playing field of in a way that Ms. can only dream of (Argument! 260). Although the essay never states it outright, Cottle speaks in a way that suggests she dislikes the fact that women are told to be their own kind of beautiful and yet are still pushed from articles and famous stars to be the most beautiful, artificial, skinny woman possible. Instead of addressing these facts, she basks in the light of the fact that we as women are now pulling men down with us. If we can’t lift up the generation of women, let’s pull down the men with us, right? Equality.

She recognizes that this is bittersweet. In fact, her wish is for everyone to understand that Hollywood stars are not regular people. The media creates an unrealistic image. But she still says, “Until they do, however, I guess my consolation will have to be the image of thousands of once-proud men... lining up for their laser peels” (Argument! 263) Cottle has a positive connotation on this subject because it is consolation for her. She has a positive connotation because she believes the truth of what is really happening to be negative.

In her argument, she does a fantastic job of getting her point across using her tone. She does this in a few ways. First, she puts words into quotation marks. For example, Cottle will describe actions as “girly” or “a guy thing”. The use of these quotation marks questions their validity and suggests that they are no longer “girly” or only for guys. She is furthering her point of equality. Second, she uses a fairly simple sentence structure and addresses the reader. “Don’t you see, ladies? (Argument! 260) This does two things. First, it shows that her tone is more relaxed. This is because of who the audience is. This point leads us to the second thing that the structure does. It identifies who her readers are: the average ladies. Her simple sentence structure encourages all women to read it. Her use of the word “ladies” obviously shows us that she is directing this article to a female audience. Second, it makes the essay easier to read for the average person. Her last strategic tone method is wording. The best example is seen in the title. The word “Goys” means a non-jew; a gentile; a believer. The author’s point of using this word stresses the fact that moral guys are turning into girls.

Cottle’s writing has very credible sources. She has statistics or quotes for practically every statement she makes, coming anywhere from The American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery to the March “winner” basketball coach, Bobby Knight. Because her facts are so credible, I do not question that this equality is true.

This brings my back to where I disagree with Michelle Cottle. I do not applaud this new trend.

Are any of these aspirations of beauty fulfilling? As these statistics show more and more men and women continually changing themselves, we can see that self-fulfilling actions are not fulfilling. Sandra Oh from Grey’s Anatomy even admits that making money and fame is not fulfilling.

"It's too hard to be an actor in this business -- especially now, I don't know why but I feel like it's harder now -- to not have a way bigger picture, and to be aligned with something much greater than getting a part, or being famous, or making money. For me, that's not fulfilling" (http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/videos/sandra-oh-on-choosing-not-to-be-a-celebrity).

I have personally seen that these things are not fulfilling. I am never completely satisfied with how I look in the mirror. Getting perfect grades never satisfied, because there was always the next grade. I never completely acted the right way. The reality is, by following these magazines, readers will always be left saying “if I could just do this”. I don’t want to be left unsatisfied. I am tired of that life.

That is why I turned to the Almighty God, who gives eternal life and forgiveness to people that mess up. He holds the world together and promises rest.

Now, everything I do filters through: What does the Bible say?

I believe that God is sovereign and He is the highest level of Authority. Because the Bible is “God breathed” (it is His words), I believe that it also holds the highest level of authority. Thus, all of my beliefs are filtered through what the Bible says.

The Bible is very clear about a biblical man.

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” (1 Corinthians 16:13-14)

Yes, be strong. But is the Bible really looking for men to lift weights and eat protein drinks?

“Whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Thus, being strong is not so that you are “considered attractive and desirable” (Argument! 261). It is for the glory of God! It is so that believers of Him can please Him with their actions as a worship offering to Him.

Work willingly at whatever you do, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people. (Colossians 3:23)

Men and women are called to work hard and take care of their bodies because they are working for the Lord, not so that they can be better than the person next to them. That small self-serving goal is incredibly unsatisfying, isn’t it, readers?

In fact, believers are called to flee temptations of self-serving things.

“Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” (2 Timothy 2:22)

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests, but each of you to the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:3-4)

For the roles of men, the Bible is clear that they are to be leaders. “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

The Bible is also clear that women are to be the keepers of the house and submit to their husbands. Proverbs 31 explains that a godly woman is a hard worker, provides food for her household, is strong, is a mother, shops, is encouraging, and many other things. It does not say that she may not have an outside job. Thus, I agree that equality of women is a very good thing. However, I only agree to a certain extent. She still has a responsibility to respect men and take care of a house. If she wants to have an outside job as well, I believe she should have equal opportunity. Even in that job, though, she is called to be respectful.

What am I saying? On one hand, I agree that this trend is happening. I agree that men and women are becoming more equal – both are falling into self-glorifying actions. On the other hand, I do not address this with a positive connotation.

These verses given are not meant to be an impossible thing to attain either. I realize that no one is perfect, and so does the Bible. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) I agree that we will never be perfect, and I understand that asking men and women to do these things is hard.

However, God promises amazing blessings from following Him.

“And my God will supply ever need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:19)

“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you and help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.” (Isaiah 41:10)

“And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.” (Phillipians 4:7)

He promises forgiveness, not judgment like the world gives, when we mess up.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)

“I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” (Isaiah 43:25)

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)

I see the trends showing that gender equality is continually being strengthened. I do not argue with Michelle Cottle on this fact; she has fantastic support, a thorough connotation, and an impactful tone. I applaud the work of this author. However, I do not applaud her for her overall view on the work. I believe that men are to be leaders, looking first to the glory of God and second to the good of others. I believe women are to first follow God, second respect men and others, and yet still have a chance at equal opportunity for jobs. This might sound like it is taking away rights. However, I assure you that God’s plan is “immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine” (Ephesians 3:20). God gives His believers perfect and fulfilling forgiveness, strength, peace, and love.

Now that has a positive connotation.