Summary Of Let Them Eat Dog By Jonathan Safran Foer

Let them eat dog begins the essay by [Jonathan Safran Foer]. The problem they identify is [The consumption of innocent animals such as a dog]. Don’t eat companion animals. But dogs aren’t kept as companions in all of the places they are eaten. And what about our pet less neighbors? Would we have any right to object if they had dog for dinner? (Jonathan Safran Foer) The author assumes their readers are [New generation of Asian Americans] It's for good reason that the eternal taboos—don't fiddle with your crap, kiss your sister, or eat your companions—are taboo. Evolutionarily speaking, those things are bad for us. But dog eating isn't a taboo in many places, and it isn't in any way bad for us. Properly cooked, dog meat poses no greater health

(Jonathan Safran Foer) They do not appeal to anything else within the article. In this essay, the author addresses the main argument against their thesis, the idea that [It is alright to eat certain animals that do not have compasion]. [Transition into a quote from the reading and cite]. (Jonathan Safran Foer) They refute this argument by saying [Do not eat animals with mental capability]. Don't eat companion animals. But dogs aren't kept as companions in all of the places they are eaten. And what about our pet less neighbors? Would we have any right to object if they had dog for dinner? (Jonathan Safran Foer) Finally, they conclude be making the point that [Eating an animal with mental capability is just like saying you would eat a impaired human]. Don't eat animals with significant mental capacities. If by "significant mental capacities" we mean what a dog has, then good for the dog. But such a definition would also include the pig, cow and chicken. And it would exclude severely impaired humans. (Jonathan Safran Foer) Overall, the argument the author makes is [effective] because [the argument has flow and gives both sides of the argument and his viewpoint is very clear]. [Transition into a quote from the reading