Laureano, Jorge

Activity #7 Letters to the Editor (Rifkin)

Get your books and open to p. 35. This page contains two different letters to Rifkin in

response to “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Read the two letters, circling one

counterclaim from each letter, and finding two pieces of evidence that the author

provides to support each counterclaim.

Closing Questions for Discussion

1. Bob Stevens disagrees with Rifkin and makes several points. Does Stevens refute

Rifkin’s arguments?

Stevens doesn't refute Rifkin’s arguments, he just disagrees with Rifkins ideals, he

doesn’t prove him wrong, he just uses logic and reasoning to back up his side of the

argument.

2. In his first paragraph, Stevens argues that because a predator (such as a hawk) does

not feel empathy for its prey, humans do not need to feel empathy for the animals they

eat and that such feelings would be unnatural. Do you agree?

I’d say I disagree with this claim because there are many other animals that you need to

take into consideration, you can’t just focus on hawks.

3. Stevens notes that some animals can mimic human speech but argues that they do not

understand what they are saying. What would Rifkin say to this?

I feel like Rifkin would agree but also disagree with this statement because it’s true that

some of these animals are just mimicking what a human would be saying, but there are

some others that can understand human language such as sign language.
4. Is it true, as Stevens argues, that Rifkin wants animals to have more rights than

humans?

No, this isn’t true because Rifkins main point of his article was to raise awareness and to

treat animals better than how some have been treated.

5. Lois Frazier says that pet owners know that animals have feelings and abilities not too

different from humans. Do some pet owners treat their pets like people? Is this a good

move? Why or why not?

Yes, there are some pet owners that treat their pets like humans, I do think that’s a good

move to certain extent though because not everyone has to do this.

6. Frazier argues that Rifkin needs to take his argument further and promote a vegetarian

lifestyle with no animal products. Is this a reasonable conclusion to draw from Rifkin’s

arguments? Do you agree with her?

No, I don’t think this was a reasonable conclusion because Frazier didn’t really listen to

other side of the argument.