Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Topic: Hunting with Dogs Running for your life, but yet knowing deep inside you that you're going to be ripped limb from limb. The last thing you hear is your screams for help and the sound of cheering by a group of humans. The last thing you see is your killer's face covered in your blood. Some people call this morally wrong act of cruelty a 'sport'. It is turning into a more common 'sport' around the country and it needs to stop"¦not for the distant future, but NOW! Reports and tests show that 96.9% of animals hunted and then killed by dogs die a slow painful death due to their atrocious injuries. The other 3.1% of animals killed by dogs die from exhaustion and die more quickly from its injuries. Either way the hunted animal dies from the effects of being hunted. Surely this has to stop? "Why" do you say? Well 'why' do hunting packs only hunt foxes, deer's, hares and minks? I'll tell you why, its because these animals don't defend themselves against the hounds. They aren't strong enough to attack back. They just run, run as far as they can go, until the hounds catch up and kill them. Easy targets. More animals hunted in one go. Quick and 'effective' games. If this isn't cruelty to animals, then I don't know and can't see, what is! RSPCA, CPHA and LACS are the most highly praised organisations that try to prevent these hunting games from carrying on. They try to their highest ability to try and ban hunting with dogs, but sadly the government and the House of Lords are too strong and believe this morally wrong blood sport is perfectly 'normal'. They say the sport can go ahead because it keeps control over the numbers of Foxes, Deer's, Hares and Minks. However, studies show that the number of those animals doesn't need controlling and could decrease at alarming rates in the near future. If they thought this sport helps keep control and that it's the only way, well they're wrong! Scientists show that the only rightful way to keep control over the numbers of animals is not to hunt them with dogs but to shoot them with a type of tranquilliser which would cause the animal to die a quiet, non painful death. This is kind to the animal without the outrage of a bloodthirsty dog ripping them limb from limb. Are the government and the House of Lords being stubborn? Scared to face up to the situation and the blood sports team members? Among the supporters of hunting there is a fear that if it is banned there will be a severe shortage of jobs in rural areas. However I feel that this argument does not stand up in today's modern world with its very low overall unemployment rates. In addition to this the rapid increase in opportunities for working at home coupled with the advances in computer technology and the associated training courses available make it easier to replace any lost jobs. "Hunting is natural. Humans have been hunting since the moment we were created, so why stop now?" says Mr Robert Burns, a farmer from Somerset. Everybody aggress initially we were barbaric in nature but surely we're suppose to have progressively become more civilised. Or have we? Picture the scene: You're looking for food for your loved one and your 4 children. You hear a noise, which you've heard before, but you carry on hunting for food for your family. Then suddenly out of the bushes jump 15 hounds, thirsty for blood, your blood. You run until you can run no more; you collapse. Fighting for your breath, you try to get up but before you know it you're being ripped apart. You're dead. Your body is covered in blood and taken away by a human on a horse. Your skin to make clothes. Your flesh to be eaten by your killers. Your bones crushed to mark various items. Your family is left to starve. Your family is dead. But worse the, perpetrators revel in it. The question we need to ask is, who are the real animals, the Foxes, Deer's, Hares and Minks, or US? Let us make positive steps to change this situation by getting the law changed to ban hunting with dogs.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 732 Views: 269 Comments: 0
Topic: Hunting with Dogs Running for your life, but yet knowing deep inside you that you're going to be ripped limb from limb. The last thing you hear is your screams for help and the sound of cheering by a group of humans. The last thing you see is your killer's face covered in your blood. Some people call this morally wrong act of cruelty a 'sport'. It is turning into a more common 'sport' around the country and it needs to stop…not for the distant future, but NOW! Reports and tests show that 96.9% of animals hunted...
know it you're being ripped apart. You're dead. Your body is covered in blood and taken away by a human on a horse. Your skin to make clothes. Your flesh to be eaten by your killers. Your bones crushed to mark various items. Your family is left to starve. Your family is dead. But worse the, perpetrators revel in it.

The question we need to ask is, who are the real animals, the Foxes, Deer's, Hares and Minks, or US? Let us make positive steps to change this situation by getting the law changed to ban hunting with dogs.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

The theme that is brought... The theme that is brought up early in this play is "fate and predestination". This was very much part of the Protestant belief at the time of Macbeth. Ones future was mapped out to a certain extent ultimately leading to salvation or damnation. In Macbeth's case it was damnation and failure. This theme was displayed early in the play. Macbeth and Banquo have recently been in a tough battle with rebels and have won the victory for Scotland. Duncan rewards Macbeth for his courage by giving him the title 'Thane of Cawdor'. This title previously belonged to one who was a 'most disloyal traitor' so it seems Macbeth was destined to become one himself. But Duncan himself does not tell Macbeth. He is told by three witches he meets on the 'lonely moor'. Macbeth is surprised to be told by the witches but even more so when they proclaim he will be King: Act 1 Scene 3 "First Witch All hail Macbeth, hail to thee, Thane of Glamis Second Witch All hail Macbeth, hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor Third Witch All hail Macbeth, that shall be King here after." However, certain issues must be raised. The question has to be asked "“ "Are the witches predicting his future or are they trying to manipulate him into doing something he would regret?" The witches may have been told by someone about Macbeth receiving the honour of being Thane of Cawdor before the information got to him. Macbeth was destined to fail as soon as he thought about being King. Thinking about being would have made him exercise thoughts about killing Duncan in order to be King more quickly. In those days it was believed that the Monarch was appointed by God and therefore any attempt to usurp the Monarch was sacrilegious. This is made clear to us when Duncan's sons discover their father dead. McDuff says: Act 2 Scene 3 "Confusion now hath made his masterpiece Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope The Lord's appointed temple and stole thence The life o'th'building." McDuff says that the life of the 'Lord's anointed temple' has been stolen. He means that Duncan was the life of God and this life was stolen because he is dead. This shows a strong belief that Kings were appointed by God. This belief is called "The Divine Rights of Monarchs" and once again shows that Macbeth was destined to fail when he killed Duncan. Macbeth's moral dilemma when considering murdering Duncan, and the religious terminology he uses illustrates how he knows that the act he is considering is immoral and that he will be punished accordingly. However he is still seduced by offers of greatness. He says: Act 1 Scene 7 "But in these cases We still have judgement here that we but teach Bloody instructions, which being taught, return To plague th'inventor" Even though he will receive greatness for murdering Duncan, it will come back to haunt him or he might even be killed himself. This once again shows that Macbeth was destined to fail. It is obvious to us that Macbeth is attracted to the idea of murdering Duncan but he knows it is an evil act: Act 2 Scene 1 "Nature seems dead"¦ wicked dreams"¦ Witchcraft celebrates Pale Hecate's off'ring"¦ Withered murder"¦ wolf"¦ howl's"¦ Tarquin's Ravishing strides"¦ ghost" All of these things represent evil and it shows what was going through Macbeth's mind. Even still he contemplated murdering Duncan. This shows that he was once again destined to fail. The murder of Duncan and the upsetting of the pre-ordained order is illustrated symbolically by the in incident with the owl and the falcon: Act 2 Scene 4 "old man 'Tis unnatural, Even like the deed that's done on Tuesday last At a falcon tow' ring in her pride of place Was by a mousing owl hawked at and killed" This is showing that the less powerful and important is killing the more powerful and important. It is a parallel to Macbeth killing Duncan. Macbeth usurped Duncan's position and this is unnatural or wrong occurrence. Macbeth is defying the natural order and therefore defying God therefore he will be punished and this punishment will be failure. This manifestation of God's will was central to the belief system of Low Church Christians in the early 17th Century, of which James I was one. This play serves as a warning to those wanting to kill the monarch at the time of the play. The Gunpowder Plot is referred to at the beginning of Act 2 Scene 3: "Knock, knock. Who's there in th'other devils name? Faith, here's an equivocator that could swear in both the Scales against either scale, who committed treason Enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to Heaven. O, come in, equivocator." The Porter seems to be referring to the Jesuit father Garnet, who tried to save his life with his specious arguments but who was executed in 1606 for complicity in the Gunpowder Plot. He especially refers to the Jesuit priest's equivocal oaths when he says "for God's sake". The plotters were condemned and this is parallel to Macbeth being condemned "“ his madness and suffering along with that of his wife are symbolic of the punishment awaiting the traitors. His punishment comes in several ways. Firstly he cannot sleep at night, secondly he keeps visualising the ghost of Banquo and thirdly and ultimately he himself is killed. James I defeating the plotters and Malcom and McDuff defeating Macbeth are examples of the theme good versus evil. If good were not to prevail then the whole socio-cultural fabric that underpinned 17th Century life would be destroyed making society unstable. This is proved in the years following the death of James I. His successor Charles I was impeached and he was eventually executed after the Civil War. Also the governments of the Interregnum and the Protectorate had failed.   

The theme that is brought up early in this play is "fate and predestination". This was very much part of the Protestant belief at the time of Macbeth. Ones future was mapped out to a certain extent ultimately leading to salvation or damnation. In Macbeth's case it was damnation...

Words: 1038 View(s): 278 Comment(s): 0
In this essay I will be...In this essay I will be looking at two stories one written in the nineteenth century "The signalman" and the other in the twentieth century "Lamb to the Slaughter". I will look at these two stories and compare all the similarities and differences between them, especially in terms of style, content and language. At the beginning of Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter" Dahl sets the scene very well by using a lot of adjectives, this gives the reader a better description of where and when the story is set "the room was warm and clean the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight "“ hers and the one by the empty chair opposite." "There was a slow smiling air about her" From these quotes we can see that Dahl has set the scene and it is happy and relaxed. At the beginning of "The Signalman" Dickens begins with speech, this makes you want to read on I think, he also uses the narrator to make the story more interesting. These are two very different ways of beginning a story, the readers expectation depends on how they interpret the beginning but I think that Dahl tried to make the reader ask them self who is this woman waiting why is she so happy, but Dickens on the other hand wants the reader to think who is this shouting who is this person telling the story, both beginnings make you want to read on. Dahl creates suspense by building the scene and using a lot of adjectives, this helps build up the suspense very well. Dickens builds suspense by keeping the characters very secretive so the reader is always asking questions so they will read on this I think is a very good way of building suspense. We aren't told what Patrick says to Mary in "Lamb to the Slaughter" because this would be a bit of a predictable story, I think not being told also creates more suspense. Where "Lamb to the slaughter" is set at home adds to the story it is homely but at the same time deadly because anything can happen behind closed doors "the room was warm and clean the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight "“ hers and the one by the empty chair opposite." "The Signalman" is set in a valley like place on a train track this sets a scary mood because down there anything could happen "his post was in as solitary and dismal a place as ever I saw". Both of the stories were written at different times "Lamb to the Slaughter" in the twentieth century and "The signalman" in the nineteenth century so the styles are very different. "Lamb to the slaughter" is written in the third person and so there is lots of direct speech, but "The Signalman is written in the first person and so there is not really any direct speech. I think direct speech is better and adds more to the story. I think the language used by Dickens, because it is older makes the story more eerie. The stories do have different purposes I think they both have morals but they are very different in the way that I think Dahl wrote his story with a moral but also made the story funny to prove that not all stories have to be serious to have a moral. On the other hand, Dickens wrote his story to warn people. Dickens didn't support new technology like trains and so wanted to warn people about the terrible tragedies that could happen. Dahl, on the other hand, wanted to express that even if you love someone they can still make you angry enough to kill them. I think both of the authors use the same sort of main characters even though the stories were completely different! Both of the characters had been very nervous and unsure about themselves. I think the authors used violence and death to put across their stories because it grabs people's attention and makes them think about what is going on in the stories. I don't think it is very important that the stories are written in the First person or the third person "she might as well have hit him with a steel club" "I was not sure, I told him that I did fully understand" these ways of telling the story are just as good as each other. Dickens wrote about a train killing someone because people were afraid of trains in those days, in 1866 trains were relatively a new invention. Dickens didn't support new technology and trains so in his story he could express his dislike for train and warm people of what they could do. Dahl's massage had more of a moral to it the concerns about the rights and wrongs murder. He used Mary Maloney as an example that murder is a spur of the moment thing and you can even use the anger to hurt someone you love. This shows that both writers suggested in their stories that new technology is not always helpful for example trains, forensic science-finger printing etc. For the time we are in now Dahl is more up to date and writes for a more modern audience and often his work is written for television and radio, he would assume that his readers would know what a typical household would look like because they would have seem many on the television. This is because Dahl's story was written in 1979 when the TV and radon had been invented "she carried it upstairs, holding the thin bone-end of it with both her hands, and she went through the living room she saw him." This quote does not use a lot of description about what the living room and stairs etc looked like because it would be the same as on TV every other suburban household. Dickens wrote his story in a lot more detail because people only had access to books and written words they would need to build a picture of this story in their imaginations, and because this story was a ghost story this would have thrilled and excited them. Televisions were not invented when this story was written in 1866 "there was a fire, a desk for an official book in which he had to make certain entries, a telegraphic instrument with its dial, face, and needles, and a little bell of which he had spoken." This quote uses a lot of description because if you had a TV you would have probably seen an example of a signalman box or a little hut before but because the television hadn't been invented Dickens had to use a lot of description. I have found the difference between these two stories are, "The signalman" is supernatural "Lamb to the Slaughter" is not, both writers have a serious but different purpose for writing their stories, both writers suggest that modern science and technology don't give you all the answers in life, both have central characters who have seem to have "lost their minds", both writers involve violence and death in their stories to draw the readers attention, and the ending to both stories had a twist which in both of the stories I did not expect. "Lamb to the Slaughter" is very funny but at the same time ends on a cliff hanger, but "The signalman" is not really a cliff hanger but leaves you thinking.   

In this essay I will be looking at two stories one written in the nineteenth century "The signalman" and the other in the twentieth century "Lamb to the Slaughter". I will look at these two stories and compare all the similarities and differences between them, especially in terms of style,...

Words: 1256 View(s): 168 Comment(s): 0