Name: Yesmakhanova Damira

ID: 200302060
Course: Critical Thinking TFL 333
Tutor: Ainur Rsalina
Date: 13th December 2022 

DEFENDING MY RIGHT TO CLAIM MY “STEAK” IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM 

Eating meat has now become one of the reasons to kill animals. Some people have
become vegetarians in order not to kill more animals. In this critical essay I will evaluate Jack
Pytleskoe’s essay called “Defending my right to claim my “Steak” in the animal kingdom”. The
author has clearly expressed his opinion about eating meat. Нe defends his rights to meat. 
Petlyski’s basic arguments can be summarized as follows:
1. Everyone should take care of their own health and not others.
2. Еxcessive consumption of meat is probably not the best thing for your body.  
3. Once you’re born, death is inevitable. 
4. I am going to enjoy every minute of my allotted time on earth. 
5. Eating meat shortens my natural life span. 
6. It's our personal choice what to do with our bodies. 
7. it is not worth living trying not to eat and control your desires. 
8. Companion animals should be spayed or neutered and properly fed, loved and sheltered.
9. Even animals used for food or clothing ought to be kept in clean and compassionate
surroundings
10.  All animals deserve humane treatment.
Pytleski’s essay is about defending his rights for meat. He obviously found out that he
would eat what he wanted.As a reader, I felt all the aggression of the author. I think the author
wanted to express his opinion on some kind of statement. However, his arguments are a bit
wrong for expressing his words. I want to share my own opinion about what I think about his
essay. 
First, he said that each person should take care of his own health, not others.  There are
people who try to teach people what not to do. the author clearly expressed his answers to such
people by “Your health is your business, not mine.” His point of view is clear and explicit. 
Second, when he said that excessive consumption of meat was probably not the best thing
for your body. It can be an example of the inconsistency fallacy. The inconsistency fallacy is
committed when he or she makes contradictory claims. As we have seen, the author firstly said
that he would use something that would not be useful for his body. Then he agreed that it could
be harmful for us. And as we will see, his words are a set of beliefs that do not contradict each
other.
Third, he meant that we were born to die. He believed that in his life he would do what he
wanted. But if everyone thought so and had what they wanted, then I think there would be a lot
of people in the world who don't care. They wouldn't have a purpose if he knows he's going to
die anyway. On the other hand, yes, everyone has the right to eat what they want, but I think
there are measures. Also, I noticed that here used the loaded question fallacy. After all he said,
he asked himself “ Am I killing myself?” based on an unjustified assumption. 
In addition, we eat or carry all the animals that live in the forest or have become without
guardians.I think that many people mistreat animals, humiliate, kick, do not feed, do not treat
them as a living being. I think we need to work more on animal rights. Many people do not know
how many animals die for one fur coat or for one dinner in a restaurant. Pytleski offers that
animals should be observed clean and kept in a good environment. 
To sum up, while Pytleski shows that everyone has the right to eat what they want, at that
time, he claims that animals deserve good treatment. Two of Pytleski’s arguments commit the
inconsistency fallacy and the loaded question fallacy. More significantly, he does not consider
the other arguments that are said by others. At the end, in the end he states what he said at the
beginning. Reading this essay, I realized that everyone can defend their rights and stand up for
their words using strong arguments.