Question.2393 - Assignment Let's stick to the same routine: Write a minimum of 350 words (which doesn't mean you have to stop at 350 words) about the assigned readings. When you respond to texts, try to formulate claims. That makes it much easier to find and use specific textual evidence and examples to support your ideas. Using quotes in summaries doesn't open texts up, and that's ultimately what we want to do. We want to read critically. Keep the analysis sandwich in mind. Basically, if you analyze the texts, I'll be pretty stoked. If you need a break from my prompts, you're in luck! At this point in the semester, you probably don't need me to provide them anyway. However, if you do like them, let me know. I might be able to spice the Pollan journals up. That said, I've provided an example thesis. We are reading four texts this week. One is in the anthology. Two are posted as PDFs. One is the introduction to a book we will be reading for the remainder of the semester. Note: You don't have to write about the Scott Pilgrim clip. It's just for fun and to add another perspective on attitudes towards vegans/veganism. Example Thesis In "Why I Stopped Being a Vegetarian," Laura Fraser doesn't really make an argument against vegetarianism. Instead, she makes a disingenuous critique of vegetarians that portrays them as selfish people striving to fit in rather than people motivated by ethics or specific interpretations of health. Criteria for Evaluation +Your entry is at least 350 words +You write about every text assigned for the week +You provide the titles and author names for each of the texts you write about +Your entry provides enough detail to effectively demonstrate that have you read the assigned texts thoroughly +You use specific examples and textual evidence to support your claims and ideas; that means you should provide quotes that demonstrate your point and interpret those quotes +You write in college level prose and maintain the basic writer standards of college writing +You use MLA style
Answer Below:
The concept shown by the author is not that vegetable are interesting but quipped and lack the sense of purpose while unaccompanied through good cut of meat. Around thousands of people got martyred for refusal of eating meat, veganism presently that is suffering merely a species for social death. Research upon psychology for eating behavior usually treats vegetarians like a monolithic group. Research upon psychology of pescatarianism has been profoundly lacking and might hinder future interventionist effort for improving diet. The research might get advantage from studying pescatarian like a distinct dietary group by paying greater attention to whether or not it get identified as vegetarian. Vegetarianism comes with a history that stretches within Paleolithic mist while hunting and gathering. Homo sapiens have differentiated themselves from other hominids through feeding upon flesh. Apart from persecution, vegetarianism had existed and are less prone towards cardio issue, cancer with other odds that meat eater are heir to, has thrived (Kellman 85). As per adage a man’s meat is another’s poison and as per present research meat could be toxic to any man or woman. Politicians has gained and owing towards corporate clout for those who process and market animal carcasses for losing through embracing vegetarianism. In the phase of WWI meat got withheld from civilian women for providing a steady supply to fight men. A meat-and- potatoes man had been a redundancy, for the reason that, echoing cannibalistic cultures wherein warriors accumulate power by devouring their foes, males nourish and verify their virility via ingesting flesh. If, like butcher stores, taverns are a person's area, salad bar is an oxymoron. Most history reveal that meat has been a mark of energy and privilege and a rare delicacy for the peasantry. The origins of "pecuniary" in pecus, the Latin phrase for herd, and of "capital" in capita, Latin for head (of livestock), are a reminder that meat become lengthy a degree of wealth JOURNAL 3 Politicians have little to gain and, attributable to the company clout of people who procedure and marketplace animal carcasses, plenty to lose by way of publicly embracing vegetarianism. , ascertaining the quantity of vegetarians is an imprecise science, considering comply with-up questions screen that some who perceive themselves as "vegetarian" eat fish or chicken or from time to time even eat beef. . Supermarkets and restaurants are arenas for pressing moral combat, and people who favor to abstain from fish, flesh, and chook ought not to be reviled or ridiculed. JOURNAL 4 Work Cited Kellman, Steven G. "Fish, flesh, and foul: The anti-vegetarian animus." The American Scholar 69.4 (2000): 85-96.More Articles From Humanities
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
