In her article on 21st of october named, "Bears and Wolves Find a Voice in the Wilderness", Kathleen parker, a opinion writer for the Washington Post, implies that the politicians and U.S states are letting bear and wolf hunting legal, and she is urging us to vote against it. The wrongdoings of the states are highlighted in her emotional, and ethical appeals, and her personification of these animals with human qualities. Parker suggests that these animals are subject to cruelty, and their only hope is our vote in the ballot to convince her audience to vote against hunting. Her audience is most likely Americans over eighteen with the right to vote, animal activists, and politicians.
The author gains credibility by saying that "human-wolf stories that were found to be false." and saying that everything they hear might not be true. These wolves are hunted down for their mythical actions such as "staring at humans through windows, stalking little girls in red capes, " which are completely false. There have been only one incident of a farmer encountering a wolf after leaving dead carcasses on the lawn. Then she asks the question that's on everybody's mind, "well, what did you expect". With this she gains credibility by using humor and arguing in support for the wolves.
Parker uses many appeals to gain her reader's trust, and persuade them to her cause. Her piece is very convincing, by her emotional appeal such as "corner or fight the poor beast" to provide insight on how bear hunting is really done. Her use of such strong language puts the reader in a mindset to think about humanity. I agree with Kathleen Parker as she says “guaranteed kill,” to symbolize that these bears have no chance of survival. Her piece provides insight on the ways that bears are trapper such as hunting, and baiting, and how much pain and suffering bears go through. The author's comparison "Masai warrior" in Hemingway's stories also shows how the real hunter is cowardly. The author has very good intentions as she argues that her column is not an "anti-hunting column" but a "pro-humanitarian" column aimed at "minimizing animal suffering and restoring a measure of decency and fair play in our dealings with creatures."
To me the author wants her readers to be mad, and contemplative. She discusses how " Maine is the only state that still allows bear baiting, hounding and trapping" to ponder why this state gets the rights to cruelty when all the other states have seen their ill ways. Later on she talks about how bear trapping i done, and invokes a fire in us to to participate in "Ballot initiatives" that would reverse this clause. in doing this she appeals to simple Americans with the right to vote. I agree with the author when she says how we can change the fates of these animals who don't have a voice. She also uses logical appeal by saying that bear hunting creates "unhealthy cycle that only creates more problems" than help these states, and that they should instead practice "fair-chase hunts". I agree with the author because this might stop the vicious cycle and give bears a chance to live, even if it is more dangerous.
Parker has an emotional tone of writing. She creates imagery with the bear hunting practices, and "Winnie in a tree" to evoke an emotional child-like flashback to innocent bears shot down for fun. I have realized that everyday Americans can make a difference in the lives of others , and how Parker hopes that her piece "resonate with people who are disgusted with politics or who abhor cruelty to animals as sport.'"
For me this piece raise questions about the way that American society has treated animals thus far, and whether they're going to change their ways in doing so.
The author gains credibility by saying that "human-wolf stories that were found to be false." and saying that everything they hear might not be true. These wolves are hunted down for their mythical actions such as "staring at humans through windows, stalking little girls in red capes, " which are completely false. There have been only one incident of a farmer encountering a wolf after leaving dead carcasses on the lawn. Then she asks the question that's on everybody's mind, "well, what did you expect". With this she gains credibility by using humor and arguing in support for the wolves.
Parker uses many appeals to gain her reader's trust, and persuade them to her cause. Her piece is very convincing, by her emotional appeal such as "corner or fight the poor beast" to provide insight on how bear hunting is really done. Her use of such strong language puts the reader in a mindset to think about humanity. I agree with Kathleen Parker as she says “guaranteed kill,” to symbolize that these bears have no chance of survival. Her piece provides insight on the ways that bears are trapper such as hunting, and baiting, and how much pain and suffering bears go through. The author's comparison "Masai warrior" in Hemingway's stories also shows how the real hunter is cowardly. The author has very good intentions as she argues that her column is not an "anti-hunting column" but a "pro-humanitarian" column aimed at "minimizing animal suffering and restoring a measure of decency and fair play in our dealings with creatures."
To me the author wants her readers to be mad, and contemplative. She discusses how " Maine is the only state that still allows bear baiting, hounding and trapping" to ponder why this state gets the rights to cruelty when all the other states have seen their ill ways. Later on she talks about how bear trapping i done, and invokes a fire in us to to participate in "Ballot initiatives" that would reverse this clause. in doing this she appeals to simple Americans with the right to vote. I agree with the author when she says how we can change the fates of these animals who don't have a voice. She also uses logical appeal by saying that bear hunting creates "unhealthy cycle that only creates more problems" than help these states, and that they should instead practice "fair-chase hunts". I agree with the author because this might stop the vicious cycle and give bears a chance to live, even if it is more dangerous.
Parker has an emotional tone of writing. She creates imagery with the bear hunting practices, and "Winnie in a tree" to evoke an emotional child-like flashback to innocent bears shot down for fun. I have realized that everyday Americans can make a difference in the lives of others , and how Parker hopes that her piece "resonate with people who are disgusted with politics or who abhor cruelty to animals as sport.'"
For me this piece raise questions about the way that American society has treated animals thus far, and whether they're going to change their ways in doing so.