Law v. Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part III

This post is continued from "Stephen Law v. Peter Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part I" (2008, December 10) and "Law v. Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part II" (2008, December 20), below.

________________

In the previous two parts of this now longish essay, I've argued that the most serious problem in Law's support of his thesis that it is immoral to eat meat occurs immediately after his introduction, where he fails to take seriously enough, and fails to answer, both the idea that what matters is the quality of life lived by the animal and the animal's capabilities (2003). When we apply the principle that it ia morally wrong to cause needless suffering, which can be physical, psychological or otherwise, to particular circumstances, it appears, for example, that the Wilson's christmas turkey may be enjoyed with no moral worries: it led a happy life, free of suffering and worry, and was killed painlessly before Mrs Wilson turned it into christmas dinner. Gemma is free to choose not to eat this particular turkey, but it not at all clear that she has any good reason for objecting that it is immoral to eat it. On the other hand, eating mass produced chickens grown in cramped and painful mass production facilities of the type run by companies like CP is immoral: it is morally wrong to eat chicken produced under such inhumane and morally ugly conditions. If you have not already read them, you might like to read, or go back and reread, the first two parts.

At the end of both parts I and II, I suggested that although I think eating meat is in fact morally acceptable, that not everyone who agrees with me on that, and especially not everyone who has agreed with my supporting argument so far, would be so happy when they considered just what their agreement entails.

Ideas, principles and arguments have consequences, and just as you cannot ignore opposing arguments in a persuasive essay, neither can you ignore the consequences of your own supporting ideas. For example, people often argue that smoking must be banned in restaurants because it is unhealthy, in particular, that it harms non-smokers. This sounds plausible, but is really an awful argument. When analysed, it relies on the more general principle that if something is unhealthy or harms other people, then that is a good enough reason that it must be banned: smoking certainly harms others; therefore, it must be banned wherever there are others. The trouble is that smoking is not the only thing that is unhealthy or that harms others. The very tasty kao kha mu (ข้าวขาหมู) that is readily available on the streets of Bangkok is also unhealthy and harmful: it is full of very unhealthy fats and contains approximately zero vegetables, unless you cound some garlic and chillies. If we accept the principle that anything that is unhealthy or harms others must be banned, then all those sellers of that tasty Thai dish must be banned and perhaps thrown into prison! Worse, cars produce pollution that is unhealthy and harmful to everyone in Bangkok, including millions of non-motorists, therefore the government must ban the use of all private cars in Bangkok. These examples might sound ridiculous, and they are. However, they are ridiculous because the general principle is ridiculous. There is nothing ridiculous about the fact that pollution from cars is unhealthy. That is just a well established fact. The problem is in the principle that it is right to ban anything that is unhealthy or harms others. And once we realise that this principle is seriously flawed, it becomes much less obvious that it is right for the government to ban smoking in restaurants. There might still be good supporting reasons for such a ban, but they have to be better than the simple idea that anything unhealthy should be banned.

Similarly, there are consequences elsewhere of agreeing with the general moral principle that I've borrowed from Peter Singer to support the idea that eating meat is not necessarily immoral as Stephen Law argues. Those consequences are so upsetting to many people that Singer received death threats when he published them, which is not so unusual for philosophers. People think that philosophy is a nice, safe sort of occupation messing around with books and words, which is true, but those words have often upset people so much that the writers were either threatened with death or actually murdered. For example, Socrates, often seen as the father of Western philosophy, was murdered by the Athenian mob of democrats in 399 BC because of his ideas. The charges brought by the politician Meletus were that Socrates was corrupting the young and did not believe in the gods (Plato, trans. 1997); perhaps Peter Singer is not in such bad company.

The conclusion of my reason for disagreeing with Stephen Law's thesis that eating meat is immoral is a homework exercise: what are the consequences of the opposing argument I've outlined in parts I, II and III above that so upset people that they wanted to kill Peter Singer? What do you think about those consequences? Do you still think that the argument is right, that it is morally acceptable to eat meat? Feel welcome to share your ideas in a comment.

(I would not advise ending a TOEFL essay with a homework exercise for the marker, although a final question might be OK.)

____________

References

Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files (pp.124 - 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Plato. Euthyphro. Gallop, D. (trans., 1997). In Plato: Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito (p. 1 - 23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York: ECCO.

Law v. Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part II

This post is continued from "Stephen Law v. Peter Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part I" (2008, December 10), below.

________________

In her reply to her father's idea that there are relevant differences between human and non-human animals that justify humans killing and eating other animals, Gemma suggests, but then fails to follow up, the argument that Peter Singer makes. Certainly, Gemma, and Law with his long quote from Peter Singer (2003, p. 130), do make us think about what the implications of her father's suggestion must be, but they do not in fact show that eating meat is immoral. Law skips over this as though he had fully addressed this opposing argument and shown that it was weak, but he has not. Singer, who is more honest, and courageous, follows where reason leads. In Animal Liberation and his other writings, Singer presents powerful arguments that what an animal, such as a human being, a monkey or a chicken is capable of doing, thinking and feeling are the factors that must be considered to decide what are right and wrong ways of treating that animal; to do otherwise is to be guilty of speciesism, which I think Law presents fairly clearly and shows to be morally wrong.

For living things without any nervous system, such as all plants and some very simple animals, there is no reason to think that they can think or have any feeling, so there can be no moral problem in using them for our purposes. They cannot have any purposes, desires, intentions or any other preferences of their own, so we can not do them any moral wrong by chopping them up for dinner. However, as we come across increasingly more complex animals, that changes. The principle that Singer suggests we use is that we may not cause pain to an animal except for a compelling reason, a reason so strong that not causing the pain would be more immoral than causing it, just as a doctor who refused to give an injection because he didn't want to hurt the patient would be acting wrongly if his refusal put the patient in danger. Singer also points out that pain can be of various kinds: physical, mental and psychological. In the case of less complex animals, the only pain is likely to be physical, although this is a matter for zoologists to tell us by doing the necessary research. Prawns and fish, for example, probably do not have very strong emotions and are therefore unlikely to feel emotional pain, although they probably feel some physical pain: fish certainly react to being caught on hooks as though they are in pain. Chickens have more sophisticated nervous systems, and not only feel physical pain, but also seem to suffer depression, anxiety and other emotional pains when put under stress. More complex still are the nervous systems of the mammals we like to eat: cows, pigs, dogs and other mammals all suffer physical pain as much as we do and for the same reasons; they also clearly display emotions, and can suffer the pain of loss, separation, stress and other psychological pains. I assume that no one is so barbaric as to eat apes these days, but they are so very similar to humans that abusing them for no very good reason would be almost as bad, as morally wrong, as abusing humans. For SInger, it is causing needless pain or suffering that makes eating meat wrong, and the more complex an animal's nervous system, the greater the possibility of such pain and suffering being caused in turning it into our lunches and dinners.

If we take a closer look at chickens, or turkeys, we can see the serious mistake that Law makes even before he introduces the concept of speciesism. Immediately after his introduction, where Law clearly states the very strong thesis he is going to support, Gemma complains about the "miserable life that poor [turkey] led" (Law, 2003, p. 125), to which her mother replies that in fact "it never suffered at all, in life or in death" (p. 125). Law then ends this discussion, and moves on to start supporting his much stronger thesis that eating meat is morally wrong even if no pain is involved, but he has not actually answered Gemma's mother's opposing argument, and the same ideas about quality of life and capacity for enjoying life come up again in the discussion of Peter Singer's ideas and in the section "The Mentally Impaired" (p. 129 - 130). In his work, Singer makes what I think is a strong case for his idea that what matters in determining how we are morally obliged to treat non-human animals is their capacity to feel, think, wish, suffer and have goals. I think that's a reasonable enough proposition that I'm not going to present Singer's arguments any more than I explained them in the previous paragraph. But if you think Singer is wrong about this, please feel welcome to argue - you might think it sounds OK now, but then change your mind when you get to the end of this explanation of why I think Law is wrong. Oddly, Law also says something like this on page 125: "The issue is that it was a living thing capable of enjoying life." And as Gemma's father then tells her, a turkey isn't really capable of very much enjoyment, so if we apply Law's own criteria here, which is consistent with Singer's more explicitly developed ideas, it does appear that it was morally acceptable to kill the turkey that had led a life free of suffering before being painlessly killed, and if the killing was morally right, then it is also morally right for Gemma to eat its dead body.

What has been shown so far? All that I've supported is that it can be morally acceptable to eat meat under certain conditions: that the animal not be caused needless pain in its life or in turning it into dinner. This general principle then needs to be applied to particular cases. Gemma's mother sounds right in saying that a turkey that was raised comfortably on a farm and killed painlessly may be morally eaten. However, most chickens that are eaten are not raised in that way: they are raised in cramped, dark sheds, with little or no fresh air, no exercise and no treatment of any medical problems. That is, they life miserable lives so that they can be killed to needlessly satisfy human tastes for chicken. This would seem to be morally wrong, so we should not eat chicken from mass producers such as the CP Group as doing so causes animals to suffer needlessly. KFC is probably also morally wrong. It is, however, perfectly moral to eat chickens that have been raised under decent conditions and killed painlessly. For people in some European countries, strict laws now make it possible to be assured that the chicken they eat was not produced by causing pain or suffering. Similar analyses can be made for other animals that we like to eat, but as the animal's nervous system and emotional life and goals more nearly approach the human, it becomes more difficult to justify eating them. For an animal as intelligent and emotionally aware as a dog, it could only be acceptable to kill and eat it to actually avoid starving to death, so people who eat dogs today are almost always acting immorally.

to be continued ...

Still to come in part III: the consequences that I think those who have agreed with me so far might not like. Can you guess what they are yet?

I didn't realise this would be quite so long when I started. I'm trying to keep it as short as possible, but there also needs to be enough support for my ideas.

Continued at "Law v. Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part III" (2008, December 22), above.

____________

References

Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files (pp.124 - 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York: ECCO.

New house

I so glad to see new house peteraep.blogspot.com. First time I saw, it was nothing difference. But, next time I found there were a little bit different.
I really like new comment text field. it's more convenient to post comments and easier to understand for new users.

second, mini email icon, we can send email easily. And... I found only 2 new features.

If someone found more, tell me please!!!

Stephen Law v. Peter Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part I

In his dialogue "Carving the Roast Beast", the philosopher Stephen Law both presents strong arguments to support his claim that eating meat is immoral and effectively addresses the strongest opposing arguments to his thesis (Law, 2003). There is, however, a weakness at the beginning of his dialogue which he does not address and which refutes Law's main idea. Because of relevant differences between most humans and the non-humans that we normally eat, it is morally acceptable to kill and eat animals, although the reasons that support that have further consequences that Law does briefly touch on.

First, Law is right to point out that religious teachings are not relevant. Religions are not, and cannot be, a reliable guide to what is moral. As Law notes, the Christian bible clearly endorses eating meat, but it also endorses slavery and other clearly immoral behaviour. Buddhism's first precept does suggest that Buddhists today should not normally eat meat, but that does not mean it is immoral, just that Buddhists break their first precept if they eat meat. Law is right to repeat the point made by Plato more than 2,000 years ago in the Euthyphro, also a dialogue, that the teachings of religions and gods do not make things moral or immoral, but that such teachings require solid reasons to support them (Law, 2003, Appeals to the Bible sect., p. 136-7; Plato, trans. 1997).

So, why is Law wrong about the morality of eating meat? In the section titled "The Mentally Impaired", Law includes a long quotation from the philosopher Peter Singer, whose argument appears to support Law's answer to the argument presented by Mr. Wilson that the mental and other differences between humans and the animals that they eat is what makes it morally acceptable to enjoy eating them (2003, p. 128 - 130). However, in Animal Liberation, Singer actually uses the example Law quotes as part of a larger argument that is very different to Law's (2002, p.1 - 23). Singer was the first major philosopher to make a powerful argument that presents and argues against speciesism, which Law explains at the beginning of his dialogue; however, Singer acknowledges that there can be, that there must be, very real differences between humans and other animals, and that those differences are both relevant to, and do in fact justify, treating human animals differently to non-human animals, even though it is the relevant differences that justify the different treatment, not the mere fact of being a human or a non-human animal. That is, Singer would object right at the start of Law's dialogue, where Gemma's parents accept that there are no relevant differences between the numerous different types of animals: humans, apes, pigs, dogs, cows, chickens, and so on. There clearly are very substantial differences, and some of those differences are the kind that do justify different treatment of and moral distinctions amongst the various types of animal that inhabit the Earth. As Mr Wilson tells us: "turkeys are, frankly, pretty dim," whereas human beings are "highly intelligent creature[s]" with "a highly sophisticated range of emotions" (Law, 2003, p. 128). Gemma does not deny these facts about humans and turkeys, but instead answers her father's opposing argument with Singer's idea in the long quotation on page 130. It's a good answer, but not good enough.

to be continued... Can you guess where this argument might be going? Why do I think most people might dislike this answer to Law even more than they dislike Law's ideas?

Continued at "Law v. Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part II" (2008, December 20), above.

____________

References

Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files (pp.124 - 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Plato. Euthyphro. Gallop, D. (trans., 1997). In Plato: Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito (p. 1 - 23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York: ECCO.

To response immediately!!!

Hi everyone!! I'm Mark. Today I gonna answer a famous question that you wanna know after I haven't updated this blog for long time. That question is .... the question is.... is... how Peter can response emails nearly immediately! how peter know the email is sended to him.

Actually, There are many way to do, but now I will give you particular way to do like Peter. I guarantee it's very easy!!

Let's Start!!
1. Go to this site http://toolbar.google.com/gmail-helper/notifier_windows.html
2. Download it
3. Install it
4. During install, there is a dialogbox. you enter your Email and Password into text boxes.
5. Done!! You can see this icon like this.

if there is someone sent email to you, you will see the popup like this!!

see? Very easy! and useful. You can use it on your computer.

You will know when homework is sended to you!! Arrr!!!

requirement
1. Your computer must have Windows XP or Vista.
2. Your computer must have the internet.
3. You must have a Gmail Account.
4. You can install some program on your computer.

Alcohol - MARK

The poplar substances in Thai are alcohol. Thais mans have been drunk alcohol for long time ago, but it’s not popular with Thais women because of Thai culture. We can realize that almost festival in Thailand usually have alcohol inside. Mostly Thai restaurants also have alcohol for selling. In the evening, we can see alcoholics around Thailand.

There are many health problems in Thailand. Many alcoholics die from hepatitis. My grandfather was dies because of hepatitis as well. My brother father was alcoholic. He was no energy and didn’t want to do anything. But now he stop to drunk, his health is much more better.

Health problems from cigarette (AOM)

There are any health problems in Thailand due to use of cigarette; for instant, Heart disease and lung cancer. We are already known that the effect of smoking cigarette is lung cancer, but heart disease is the one in the list of disease that kill smoker. People who smoke cigarettes are more likely than nonsmokers to develop blocked blood vessels to the heart and become to be heart attacks. Here are some reasons why people become to smoke cigarette. Some people get started smoking with their first cigarette from friend or their family. Someone become to smoke because they think that the person who smoke cigarette is cool or fashionable. Although people have known how cigarette affect to body, it is difficult to give up cigarette. This is a link that tells some tip to quit smoke. http://www.thailabonline.com/tobacco2.htm.

Nan on alcohol

The basic purpose of drinking alcohol is to get drunk in India surprises me. Actually, not only in India but also everyone who want to get drunk. I know that drinking alcohol is part of celebration. When they’re drinking with friends, the atmosphere are surrounded by laughing. The next day after celebration, the laughing is replaced by garbage, broken glasses or something I don’t want to see from drinkers’ mouth. I don’t think getting drunk is good feeling. However, I like to see the funny behavior of my friends when they get drunk. My friend danced on a chair for 4 hours. When she got up on the next day, she wondered why her legs hurt. She didn’t remember anything. I told her but she didn‘t believe me. Next time, I have to record her behavior by video camera.

Arto:I like to drink alcohol with my friends

Alcohol is most famous in Thailand. Some people starts drink it since sixteen years old. The ages that start drink alcohol tend to younger. Alcohol is used in many purposes such as making friends, participation in society, traditional celebration. My faculty is engineering which drink a lot because engineer must participate in society. When I was in university, usually I hang out with my friends. Surely, I use alcohol to enjoy with my friend. It makes us more close together because we drink it a lot after that we make something funny. Some friends is talkative, some friends cry when he drunk. It makes me see friend’s dark side. After the night, we talk together about last night that who makes something strange. On the other hand, many problems occur due to alcohol such as car accident, crime, and diseases. In short, the government should curb alcohol and give more information to people.

Peter on Drugs in Australia

In Australia, the most popular and commonly used drug is alcohol. People use alcohol all the time for numerous reasons. People drink wine with meals, especially dinner, where it is also common to serve small quantities to children. I remember the excitment of my first small glass of wine at a family dinner when I was around twleve years old! Australians drink beer when they go to teh pub to relax with friends, or at the traditional Aussie barbecue. I'm not a very good Aussie: I hate beer and I don't much like barbecues either! But I was very fond of nice wines when I was at university: a dinner party with friends just wasn't teh same without a couple of wines, and formal dinners at my college at Sydney Uni, were always accompanied by appropriate wines. 

Unfortunately, alcohol is not a very nice drug, much worse than some illegal drugs like marijuana and heroin, so teh biggest drug problems in Australia, as in most countries, are caused by alcohol. It is very weird that alcohol is legal when other, less harmful drugs are not! I think everyone in my family uses alcohol, but like most people who use alcohol and other drugs, including illegal drugs, they do not have any problems from the alcohol they use, even when a couple of my brothers sometimes get drunk, it doesn't cause any real problem. However, alcohol is also a cause of violence, because a lot of people do become violent then they drink wine and things. Alcohol also used to be a major cause of car crashes in Australia, but that is not a problem now. The laws about drinking and driving are very severe and very strictly enforced, so people do not drive when they use alcohol. 

Addictive substance - maa

Are there any health problems in your country as results of drug use?

Drug abuses in Thailand cause both physical and mental health problems. Different types of drug uses also cause different type of diseases. Some diseases are top epidemic problems for long time. For example, sharing needles of Heroin or other drugs among injection drug user is a significant risk of HIV transmission or Hepatitis B or C virus infections. Higher numbers of smoking people tend to increase chronic diseases such as, vascular or respiratory diseases, including communication diseases like Tuberculosis. Some alcoholic or addicts with tobacco, marijuana or inhalants progress some psychiatric disorders in long term. Also drug uses for “rapid effects” are indirect causes of sexual transmission diseases, because of unawareness of condom use. Drug abuses are a cause for many health problems, apart from other causes, such as genetic, environment, or behaviors and these problems do not happen not only my country but other countries as well.

Reading habit - MARK

I don't read a book too much. Many time I spent with surfing the internet for updating news technology, open source software, game, comic and Japanese animation. Of course, they are mostly Thai. Some website I have to read English but don't much. Sometime I read novel from Oxford publisher, but now I have already finished all books I have.

I prefer to read essay in class because in this term we start to write a essay, knowing other essay is better for writing our essay writing. Moreover a essay usually has academic vocabularies we should know for student who want to study aboard. Essays have many complex sentences, so we need someone to help, Peter is a good person to help us to make we understand the sentences, and using that technic in our writing as well. For novel, I agree, it's fun and relex, but we can read it by ourselves in any free time. it does not have to have someone to help. I think, there is the time only 2 weeks for learning in this term, so we should get knowledge as must as we can. In sum, I prefer reading essay in next reading.

What do I read? : Am

I often carry "Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips", the book that I don't only read it in my free time but I also try to read when I don't really have time. I bought it because I want to have something to read while I'm waiting for something. Newspapers and magazines are too big to put in my purse. I want a useful book that can give knowledge in short time. Moreover, I don't want to read a long material because sometime I have only 4-5 minutes or not over 10 minutes for reading. The writer could make difficult grammar easy. She uses plain English with fun and sincere style. This way even though, I don't understand some grammar, I don't feel bored. However, I don't finish it yet because I don't have time.

By the way, I prefer an article to a novel because of my reading habit above. I like to print out an article from the Internet in 1 or 2 pages, and fold them in my purse and read if I have a chance.

My reading habits - MAA

When I have some time during the week, I usually read academic articles related to my career. I need to update info, or just some parts of them for my work. Still, I prefer to read the Buddha‘s biography or how to books than those articles. I started reading the Buddha cartoon books and then the stories of the Buddha in the past few years. I like it. It proves my reading skill and makes me calm. When I read it, I feel relax. When I travel, I often bring it with me. I can read in everywhere and every time. I am now reading English practice books and just started for a “power of now”. The last one is quite difficult for me not only vocabularies, but also understanding some sentences. Sometime I stays at some pages long time.

PS - I am interested a noval for the next class reading.

Hana

1) What do you read?
I read a Bangkok Post because I wonder news in social situations. I don’t read every part. At First, I read a title. If title is interesting, I read an article. My interesting field is events and incidents. I’m not interested in economics and politics. And I like mystery books such as Sherlock Holmes (author: Arthur Conan Doyle), so I often read a mystery novel.

2)Would you prefer an essay or a novel?
I think novel is better because essay is someone's opinion or information but novel is imaginary story. So, novel is more interesting to me.

Nan on reading habits

I like traveling, so I often read travel guide books and travel magazines. They have beautiful pictures, but not many paragraphs. The writers make me feel like I’m there. Last month, I heard that The Princess Diary is a funny story. I believed them and I liked movies version. I went to book store and read for some pages. It’s not as fun as I expect but I still like novel. Harry Potter is one of the most nevel that i like. Sometimes, I read articles about financial planning because financial freedom is one of my goal.

I prefer a novel for our next class reading.

Art:I like to read a novel

Art: I like to read a novel more than essay because the novel tell the all story that make excited and follow it. The novel is easy to imagine about the actor and action of the actor. I like fantasy story such as “Harry Potter”. It is fun because the author writes the story that it’s not real and she bring the reader to magic world – not reality. She can relate the magic thing include with reality. “Harry Potter” make me open thinking and visionary thinking.

What I love to read >Aom<

I usually read a short story when I have free time, or in the BTS. I love read romantic story and fantasy story because I like to imagine while I read it. I don’t have much idea to create anything including an idea to write an essay, or paragraph that why I like to read fantasy story because I thought that may be the book influence my imaginary. Sometime I read an essay for find information to support my idea and give me more idea to write my paragraph, but if I have to choose between essay and novel, I prefer to read novel.

How about my first essay? -- MAA

Nov 16 evening: Since I got the five choices, I read each choice roughly. I have no ideas about them. I checked the references which came along with. I searched and read it all (I cannot recall what the internet told me). I went back to the choices and looked for the purpose of each choice. I got it, the questions. I still did not select any choices.

Nov 17: I thought about this on the way sometimes. I reviewed the questions again in the evening. I selected one! Why I chose this? I feel bored (sorry I don’t know other words softer than “bored”) about the others: abortion, eating meat vs moral, and democracy. The two others are interesting: marry and culture. I select the “culture” question, because there would have more vocabularies related to this aspect that I have not know before. I selected this, but I still did not how to answer that question. Does my country’s ministry of culture do more to help or to harm my country’s culture?

Nov 18: Peter picked up the key words of each question in class. I still thought about the question of my choice sometimes and also searched what the ministry does to help the culture in Thailand. I got a lot of positive information, but just few info about the harm, such as How about the roles of the ministry’s culture for a case of murder in the newspaper. It was not much clear and I did not understand the points of that article.

Nov 20 evening: Peter suggested looking at the definition of each key word. I used the Longman dictionary to list the definition of the “culture”. There are six definitions of the culture. I still could not answer that question and writer thesis statement.

Nov 21-22: I stopped thinking about this to do something which was more important.

Nov 23: I was trying to have a thesis statement to send for the assignment with deadline today. I have reviewed a Thai newspaper with the hope that they may say something about this ministry. However, they did not tell anything about the ministry. I went back to the details of this choice. Aha! That passage says the ministry of culture is a part of the government, but I still unknown how to answer the question. Because it hardly has the harm by the ministry. However, I ought to have a thesis statement now. Finally at late tonight. I wrote this statement just to answer the question but I still have no idea for the rest of that essay.

“Although the Ministry of Culture provided many supports and preserves good traditional cultures in Thailand, some people argue that actually they are behind the government who sometimes release the violation of those cultures.”

The second statement does not much change from the first statement.
“Although the Ministry of Culture provided many supports and preserves good traditional cultures in Thailand, some people argue that actually they are behind the government who sometimes release the violation of those cultures themselves”

Nov 24: We discuss each of our thesis statement together. I have chance to look back mine. Hmm! There is something wrong with my essay. My answer does not clear enough. I have changed to this statement (3rd).

“Although the Ministry of Culture provides many supports and preserves good traditional cultures in Thailand, I think they are an important part behind the government who sometimes release the violation of those cultures happen in the country simultaneously.”

Nov 25: The day that I have to send the first paragraph of the essay, the introduction part. I still cannot find any reasons to support this. I just received the Peter’s comment today. I went back to read the question again. I saw this “more”, so I thought I should change my answer. Also that is why I could not find any supports for the pervious answer. I can start the first part now. Woo!

Peter's Essay - Is Meat Murder?

The essay questions that we are working on this week and next week are all new. This is the first time I've given them to students, although I have used similar questions to some of them in the past. What is new for all of them is that they all require one or more definition paragraphs to answer the question. The definition of a term is essential to a strong answer to all of the questions. 

Because the questions are all new, I've decided that I will also write an answer to one of them. And since the popular choice is the one I thought was most difficult, number 5 on the list, I've started working on my answer to that one. 

Initially, I was just going to write notes in MS Word about what I did, my writing process, but then I thought it might be more useful to publish them here, so that's what this blog post is about. Please feel free to do the same thing if you like! You might find it useful, and I am sure your classmates will find it a valuable source for ideas. 

These are my notes so far, just copied and pasted:

21/11/2008
19:52 - 20:47 = 55 minutes – mainly research for “Meat is Murder” slogan, also think about approach to answer. Etymology = Pali / Sanskrit. Hmm? Maybe. (Kill is Old English, from 1205, and relatively easy, but the question is about a text originally in Pali, not English.)

20:48 - 21:23 = 35 minutes. Cum.Total = 90 minutes – decided to research the Pali etymology of Pāṇātipātā Google search best = Pāṇātipātā pali dictionary. Looks like useful info to use.  Looked at others first, not so useful. 35 minutes not bad to get this information. Reference citation is a bit messy, but I’ve noted the page URL. 

This is the time I've spent sitting in front of my computer actively working on an answer. I spent some time thinking about it before then, and scribbled a few ideas. I think I've got a clear idea about what my thesis statement will be and how I might be able to support it, although it will probably change as I do more research and get more ideas. But that's normal: essays do change as they are being written, so I'll probably have to revise my provisional thesis statement. I think I've spend perhaps 2.5 hours working on my answer so far. 

And I'm keeping careful note of sources that might be useful. At the moment, there are 13 tabs open in my browser from the searches I've made this evening. I think three of them are useful. 

I'll add updates as comments as I continue to work on my answer. 

My favorite dictionary : Am

"Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (7th edition) is my favorite dictionary because first there is a package which offers CD-Rom for installing in a computer. I can both find the words from the dictionary and from my computer, which is very convenient. In addition, there are many kind of interesting words to learn about, for example, new words which are up to date such as "bird flu", and cultural words such as "car boot sale". Moreover, example sentences are very useful for me to learn how the words work in context. That's important to choose the right word in each case.

About the character of the dictionary, I like the vocabulary items in blue. That's comfortable to look at and easy to find. Besides, there are the pictures to describe some words such as "goat" and "sheep", to show me how they are different. This makes me understand more about them.

These are the reasons why I like this dictionary.

My favorite dictionary - Aom-

My favorite dictionary is Cambridge Dictionary. I usually use Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary online because it is easy and convenient for me to find the words. Espeacially dictionary online have a lot of vocabularies and there are always update a new words. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary show phonetic, parts of speech, and an example sentence. The example sentence can help me to understand the words and how to use it. If you interesting in this dictionary, here are the link : http://dictionary.cambridge.org/default.asp?dict=CALD . I think it is a good to use more than one dictionary if you don't know the word and how to use it because you will see many example sentences. I think it will help you to choose the right word to use in your writing.

Longman Dictionary

My favorite diction is Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. I installed its program in my Laptop and don’t have its paper book. I also have another dictionary, which is Thai-English version that I used since I was young. I still use it sometimes, if I need just rough meaning or when reading or if PC is not available. I usually use the Longman Dictionary, when I am writing some works or do my home work. I like it because there are varieties or words and meaning. It also has many examples of each meaning within sentences. I can get their meaning and how to use them from their definition and the examples

My favorite dictionary - Hana

My favorite dictionary is Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary because I heard it has many example sentences so it is good for the beginner. I didn’t know another dictionary because I never have been compared. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is a familiar dictionary to me. When I look for words, I read a definition of words and I read example sentences. And that makes me understand more clear and easier. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary has a lot of words. I like this edition. Word is blue color and meaning is black color. And it use symbols in the dictionary. For example, “~” means “replaces the headword of an entry “. It can see easily.

My Favorite Dicitonary : Mark

My favorite dictionary is Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English because of many reasons.
First, The definitions are easy to understand. Moreover,to use only easy vocabularies to explain the word.
Second, Every word have some examples sentences and reading sounds. I can plactices listening and speaking skill.
Third, There are word origin, word set and word family. I will know the root and prefix of word, set of the word from; for example, "mycology" is in plant set.
Forth, There are two kind of pronunciation sound, American and British. I can read and listens the sound of word.
Fifth, it tell me about often using words.
Sixth, it has collocations.
Seventh, There is Activate Your English. this is a function that tell you about this word use for what situation.
Finally, there are a lot of pictures, newspaper examples and idioms.

This dictionary was bought by my younger brother. That time, I blame my brother why you decided to buy expensive dictionary! At last, this dictionary became to be my love.

Nan's Favorite Dicitonary

My favorite dictionary is Oxford Student’s Dictionary of English because it has the example sentences to use the word. It makes me clear and understand that word. I think it’s important to know how to use it in each situation. When I'm looking for the meaning from my dictionary, I try to remember that word. In contrast, I don’t try to remember the meaning from the website because it’s easy to find out again. This dictionary doesn’t have colors or CD-rom like the latest edition but I still use it. I have no any good reasons to buy the new one because it’s never make me confuse.

Arto:Your Favourite Dictionary

My favourite dictionary is Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary because it has many thing in the word such as part of speed, example, common learner error, picture, study section, etc. there make me easy understand and it's easy to use. it make me clear and use right work. Also, it has a sign or lable that tell using for the word; for example, it tell that the word is general or spacific word. Morever, it tell that how the word pronounciation.

Arto:Your Favourite Dictionary

My favourite dictionary is Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary because it explain clear meaning and it has example of using the word. it is easy understanded and make me use right the word. it show the signs or labels that tell me about the word is general or spacific work. Also, it has some information that tell the word is about. Morever, it has study section and the picture that give me extra help with particular areas of English.

Peter's Favourite Dictionary

My favourite dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary [OED]. I regularly use other English dictionaries, such as the Compact Oxford and the Concise Oxford, which is both installed on my computer and sitting on my book shelf. However, the OED is easily my favourite. I've been using it ever since I was first at university. Then, it was a major effort: it took up about two metres on the shelf, and the volumes were very large and heavy: using it was a good way to work out your biceps. Around 1998, it became available on a CD, and that was a big improvement. Having it on CD was not only much lighter, it greatly increased the search options. And as you already know, these days, I use the online version, which is even better. It's available everywhere, the search facility is even better, and it's constantly updated. Another big improvement in the online version over the CD version, and an enormous improvement over the multi-volume book version, is that it's a lot easier on the eyes. A very large book full of very tiny print is not easy to read, at least not when your eyes are as bad as mine are getting. 

But I still haven't really explained why I think the OED is so wonderful. Perhaps it will help to explain why I sometimes use the Concise OED or the even smaller Compact OED. Both of these smaller dictionaries are enough to quickly check the common definitions in use today of the most common words in English, and sometimes that's all I really want. In fact, if I was, for example, looking for a normal dictionary definition to quote for the word abnormal, it would be more useful to use the Concise OED, since the purpose of that dictionary is to give the most common definitions of words in fairly common use. The Concise OED only has one definition for abnormal, which is "deviating from what is normal" (2000), and that is pretty much the same as Hartmann's first definition in her reading "What is Abnormal?" in Quest (2007). The entry for abnormal in the Compact OED is the same as in the Concise (abnormal, 2006). 

So, why do I prefer the OED to the Compact and the Concise and the numerous other excellent English dictionaries that are available? Basically, because it gives so much more information, and also the way that information is arranged. In most dictionaries, such as the Concise OED and teh Compact OED, the definitions are arranged from most to least common, but the OED is quite different, and in fact, the first definitions listed are often never used in ordinary English today, or are very rare. That's because the definitions in the OED are arranged from earliest to latest. Thus, when we look up country in the OED, the first definition is "A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district," (country, 1989) which is not the most common modern meaning of the word. However, this use of the word country is first recorded in 1275, whereas the usual modern meaning, "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory", which is the first definition listed in the Concise OED, is recorded later, and so is not listed until number 3 in the OED. 

Apart from the way it gives a very detailed history of how the words have been used and changed in English over the past 1,500 years, which is very interesting, the OED also gives supporting quotations for every word and for every definition. These are always real quotations from writers, and there is usually more than one, so we can see exactly how writers have used the word in English over the past fifteen centuries or so. Just giving a list of possible definitions out of context is not nearly as useful as actually showing the words in use, with, for example, a quotation from Shakespeare, or Beowulf or J.K. Rowling, who is cited as the first writer to use the word muggle. Rowling used the word in 1997, and it was added to the OED in 2003.  I just did a search of cited authors: Rowling only occurs once, compared to Shakespeare's 7,264 citations. Shakespeare made up or promoted a lot of new words in his writing. 

You can see what a typical OED Online entry looks like by following the OED Word of the Day link in the Daily Updates on the right. 

And what is your favourite dictionary? 

___________

References

abnormal,  a. (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from  http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50000512

abnormal,  adjective. (2006) The Compact Oxford English Dictionary. AskOxford.com. Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=abnormal&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score,name 

Compact Oxford English Dictionary (2006). [Electronic version]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2000). (Tenth Ed.)[CDrom version]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

country,  n. (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50052210 

Hartmann, P. (2007). Quest 2 Reading and Writing (second ed.). McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT

OED Online. (2008). Oxford University Press. 

Quest Question: to quote or to paraphrase?

As we noted last week, in academic writing, we sometimes want to quote another person's exact words and we sometimes want to paraphrase what the person has written. For example, in "Carving the Roast Beast", Stephen Law both paraphrases and quotes the philosophers Peter Singer (p. 130) and Roger Scruton (p. 134); on page 132, he also paraphrases, but does not quote, the philosopher Mary Midgley. 

Why do we frequently use other people's words or ideas in our writing? Why did Law use Singer, Midgley and Scruton? 

Which do you think is usually preferable, to quote or to paraphrase? Why? 

Next week, we will be looking more closely at the the section on Paraphrasing and Citing Your sources on page 188 of Quest (Hartmann, 2007), but you might like to share your ideas on the more general questions here before we start looking more closely at how to do it. 

________ 

References

Hartmann, P. (2007). Quest 2 Reading and Writing (second ed.). McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT 

Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast, in The Xmas Files (pp.124 - 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Phobia and normal fear - MAA

Phobia differs from a normal fear because of these.
1) Phobia is a severe anxiety, but the normal fear is not the severe anxiety. The normal fear is mild or moderate anxieties, not the mental disorder.
2) Phobia is not seen in the majority of people, while the normal fear can be seen in the majority.
3) Phobia is a fear in the real dangers, but the normal fear could be in any, such as fears against lizards or objects like needles, fears in burn or cold, fears to stay alone, fears to pain.
4) most phobia patients avoid or could not tolerate that fear, but people with normal fears avoid but could tolerate their fear such fears to high places or dark rooms.
5) Phobia patients “seem unable to free themselves” of that fear, so they may not live with diary life, while people with normal fears could take care themselves and be in their society.

The story of my friend (Aom)

It is my friend’s story. He afraid of darkness and cannot stay alone at night. “Why are you afraid of darkness?” I asked. “I had ever seen something strange at night when I was child,” he answered. My friend told me about the story that made him didn’t want to be alone at night. “When I was child, I had my own room and I always slept alone,” My friend said. “One night I lay down in my bed and nearly fell asleep then I felt like someone stared at me.” “I opened my eyes and then saw a very old man sat below my legs near the bed.” “He is looking at me!” “What did you do?” I asked. “I didn’t know what to do just close my eyes and tried to scream out but I can’t,” he answered. “Suddenly, the old man pulled out my blanket and became closed to me.” “I screamed again with all my voice and then I was conscious when my parents came in the room,” “I told my parents everything and they said it was a dream,” my friend said. “Do you think it was a dream?” I asked him. “No, I don’t think so,” he answers with strong voiced. “I still see something strange when I stay alone at night.”
Above is the story that my friend told me. I don’t know it is a true or not, but every time someone stay with him, or he went to stay with other friends.

What are you afraid of? : Mark

Q : 2. What are you afraid of? Can you think of when you first had this fear, and why? How do you deal with this fear?

A: I afraid of High places. When I stand on the high places and look down, I feel a thrill of fear. For example, I walk on footbridge or look down through the high building window. I can not remember in which I start fear high places. When I feel fear, I usually breathe deeply, try to make concentration and hurry walk away.

in Quest, p 176, exercise C. - Hana

1. In your opinion, how is a phobia different from a normal fear? What might be some “healthy fears”?
- A phobia is keep going fear or always fear or repeat fear about something, someplace, but a normal fear is temporary fear. For example, I have a claustrophobia(enclosed space). When I go to the small room without window, I always feel fear. On the other hand, when I see a horror movie, I feel fear. It is just temporary fear. I think healthy fear is not effect ordinary life. Almost people have a phobia, but they can ordinary life.

3. Do you know anyone who is phobic? How does this phobia affect her or his life?
- My friend is acrophobia. When we go to the mountain together, she doesn’t look down.

4. Do you know of any famous people who suffered from a psychological disorder? If so, who were they? Do you know what disorder they had?- The famous actress in Korea has major depression. She killed herself. Maybe, she feel her outside is gorgeous, but inside is empty

Nan on how is a phobia different from a normal fear?

We can seperate phobia from normal fear by how do they deal with fear. The normal fear is found in everyone. If they are facing with something they hate, they'll run away. It's easy to solve this problem. After that, they forget it all and live without worry. However, the phobia cannot control themself if they are facing with something. They'll cry, scream and run away. They are not forget it but think about it all the time. As a result, they cannot do anything. They need someone to tell that it's OK or you're safe.

Arto:My friend fears the rambutan

I have one of friends who fears the rambutan. I have a question in my brian that Have a people fear the rambutan? the rambutan, sure? that is a fruit? I laugh him and other friends laugh too when we know about that. After that we asked him that why you fear it and how it happened with you. He tells us that he don't know that how it happen. He remembers that it happen when he was young. He fears because it looks like the ugly animal. he doesn't like it and can't near it. Although he fears the rambutan, we like to tease him. He is a popular in our group. He is a nice friend. He isn't serious about it when he is teased.

Caught in the Rain: Hydrophobic Lotus Leaves

This doesn't really have anything to do with fears, phobias of other psychological issues, but the word hydrophobia has a completely different meaning that the article reminded me of. 

I was at the bank one eafternoon recently when a brief but heavy storm struck. Whilst taking shelter in their convenient ATM booth in the Bangkok Bank's forecourt and watching the scenes outside, the behaviour of the lotus leaves in front of the booth caught my eye.

Because they are associated with water, you wouldn't expect it, but they are amazingly hydrophobic; and no, I don't mean they are scared of water. The drops of rain hit the large, funnel shaped leaf in the centre of my photograph, and ran into the centre of it, where they collected into a tablespoon's worth or so of liquid. Despite the rain, which had been pelting down for at least twenty minutes by this time, the leaf was perfectly dry. As the wind blew it, the leaf swayed around, sending the pool of water twirling around the leaf before settling back into the centre. Every now and then, a stronger gust of wind tipped it enough to spill the water, and a new accumulation began. This kept me amused for several minutes while I was waiting to move on; when I finally left after about half an hour, the leaf was still perfectly dry.

Peter's Batrachophobia

I've just read Am's post about her fear of house lizards, which reminded me of my own batrachophobia. I was terrified of frogs from as early as I could remember, although unlike Am, I don't remember any particular incident that started it. It was a very inconvenient phobia to have because there were a lot of frogs in the area where my family lived. It was also very embarrassing. I knew that there was nothing dangerous about the green frogs I saw around the place, but of course phobias are not rational. I didn't want anyone to know that I was scared of frogs, but my reactions were similar to the symptoms Am described so well: I would freeze and be unable to move, my heart beat faster, and I would look for a way to escape. As with Am and house lizards, my usual policy was avoidance. Thankfully, this phobia has faded over the years, and although I still don't like frogs, they no longer terrify quite so much. I don't meet that many on Silom Road, but occasionally I see one in Lumpini Park, although I think the large lizards which live there eat most of the frogs, as they do the turtles. 

Oddly, my fear of frogs is very specific to frogs. I'm not especially afraid of any other animal: if I know they are not poisonous, I can pick up snakes and lizards, and other reptiles, it's just the amphibians, and specifically the frogs, of which I am scared for no good reason. 

So, am I abnormal? 

What is abnormal? : Am

I am very afraid of a house lizard. Absolutely, this fear started when I was 10 years old. My friend caught and put it in my shirt. The lizard crawled quickly on my body. First, I felt very disgusted. That was a long miserable time for me. Then my feeling changed to extreme fear. I couldn’t scream or run away. I stood frozen there. My hands and my legs felt weak. Finally, I decided to throw it away from my body. Suddenly, its tail tattered. How disgusting it was! After that, my fear for this animal became deep. At present when I see a house lizard in any room, I would not go in to that room and asked for help to take it away. Avoiding from them is my way to deal with this fear.

"Carving the Roast Beast" - hana

4) Do you agree with the writer?
-I disagree it because it depend on individual believes.
5)What area of academic study do you think it is from?
-It is come from social psychology because topic is story of the nature and causes of human social behavior.
6)What do you think the writer will do in the next 25 pages?
-In the next 25 page, writer will write the reason why teenagers are becoming vegetarians, why it is moral, and will write Gemma's views.
7)Do you agree with Law that eating meat is morally wrong?
-I disagree with law that eating meat is morally wrong. It depends on individual believes and religion. For example, people who believes Islam don't eat pork, and people who believe Hindu don't eat beef. In addition, monk doesn't eat meat. It is also not morally wrong. It is just up to people's taste. These days, a vegetarian is more popular. They don't eat meat. It doesn't means vegetarian is moral behavior. It is also up to people's taste. People eat meat or not, it is not important. In everything health should be the first consideration. If you don't injure health, it make a choice that you eat meat or not. In summary, law eating meat is not morally wrong.

Carving the roast beast : MARK

It's hard to say that moral wrong or not, because it depend on believes and religion. However, Human can live except eating any meat, because human want amino acid only kinds of eight, Essential amino acid, and all essential amino acid are in soy, sesame and brown rice. Moreover, the structure of human intestine is long length like vegetarian animals such as cow or buffalo. Although Meat has much protein, Meat also has high fat and cholesterol, so it's not so good if you eat meat too much every day, but Protein from grain is different. In sum, It's good idea to eat vegetable and grain instead of meat.

Nan on Carving the roast beast.

Do you agree with Law that eating meat is morally wrong?
I disagree with the law that eating meat is morally wrong because meat is source of human nutrient. Women need 46 grams and men need 56 grams of protein per day. Protein are found in meats, fishes, nuts, eggs and milk. Meats are made from cows, porks or sheeps. These animals can’t live in the wild because they need feeding from farmer. They can’t live without human, so they are our food at the end. However, human shouldn’t eat wild animal because they are not human nutrient. Eating meat isn’t morally wrong because some animals born to be human food.

Carving the Roast Best – MAA

There are three points in the dialogue that the writer induces me to imagine and follow to.
1) Is the slaughter is immoral? An example is killing a lot of turkeys during Christmas. Similarly, a number of chickens are killed during Chinese New Year in my country. The slaughter is immoral in senses of human. However in this case, they are allowed to do this for living. Some people can kill them to eat and some can deny if they do not want to.
2) A vegetarian style is more popular in new generation. It may be due to increase education to them to realize benefits of vitamin and mineral in vegetables, or at present they may have more alternative foods to choice instead of meats.
3) A psychosocial behavior issue, a difference of thoughts, beliefs, and styles among some groups in a society. That dialogue is an example of this issue between parents and their offspring in a family.

The writer did not conclude the Gemma’s idea and her behavior of being vegetarian in that special time was wrong, although her thought differs from her parent. It is possible the writer will present the 3rd issue for the next 25 pages.

Gemma is a vegetarian because she wants to keep her morality. It does not mean people who are not vegetarian are immoral. However it is not certain that if she knows correctly how to keep balance nutrition for herself. This may be the reason that her parent would be worried and do not encourage her to be a vegetarian. If I were her parent I will clarify what I thought and the reason that I would like to her to keep balance the nutrition. I think if she do not want to do something morally wrong, she would take care herself first without to destroy her heaths.

Carving the Roast Beast : Am

The word “moral” is elusive, so it’s hard to say exactly something moral or immoral. For example, in Greek era, anatomical dissection was morally wrong. The person who wants to study the inside of human body had to dissect dogs instead. Obviously now, to cut up a dead person for medical study is moral and very important to anatomical study. I think moral and immoral could depend on the definition each person and society gives.

Is eating meat morally wrong? This question arose on the account that a huge number of animals are killed for meal such as fishes, pigs, cows or turkeys as mentioned by Law in “Carving the Roast Beast”.

Before I answer that question, I would like to define the meaning of immoral when it comes to slaughter. My idea is killing animals just for fun is absolutely morally wrong. As a result, my answer is slaughter for human’s meal can be moral because it’s necessary in order for us to live, so I disagree with Law. Even though, some people may argue that we have many kinds of food such as soybean which can replace meat, we can’t deny that the quality of protein from meat is better because protein form meat completely gives out a lot of necessary amino acid, while other sources such as soy bean are deficient in protein. In addition, there is more availability for meat, in critical situation, especially, if you are lost in a jungle and run out of food which you have prepared, how can you survive? You can find fish or birds easier than soy bean, can’t you?

To make his idea right, I think Law will argue by giving reasons how morally wrong eating meat is in the next 25 pages of “Carving the Roast Beast”. He may talk about perspectives of religious or health science circle to support his point. For example, slaughter breaks religion’s principles such as in the first of the five precepts of Buddhism, which is to abstain from killing animals or human. For health science, he may support by giving information about vegetarians who might be more healthy and try to persuade readers to be vegetarians as well.

Why do we write them?

Another one that could have been added to my list of questions about Law's dialogue is: Why did he write it? And that question could also be usefully asked of everything we write. Why do we write paragraphs? Why do we write paragraphs and essays? Why do people such as philosophers, scientists, historians, lawyers and so on, write academic paragraphs, essays, dialogues and so on? 

Since you are in an academic reading and writing class, you will have some ideas about this question. As you are reading something, why do you think the writer wrote it? And when you write things, such as the paragraph last week, why do you write them? 

After, or before, you share your ideas about Law's ideas, you might like to leave a comment here as well. And since this is a response writing, please feel free to respond as widely as you wish. For example, as I was writing the above, I also wondered how our reasons for academic writing might differ from why we write other things. Obviously, my reason for writing an email to my mother is not the same as my reason for writing a paragraph about the choice of the painter Vincent van Gogh's Ward in the Hospital in Arles (1889) as the opener image for a chapter about abnormal psychology, and those different reasons probably also influence the style of the writing.

  

Ward in the Hospital in Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, 1889.

Carving the Roast Beast -Arto

Eating meat is natural for survival of human. I think that slaughter for eating to maintain life isn’t morally wrong because it is law of nature that is ecosystem; for example, the tiger hunts animals that are weaker than it for survival. Meats are beneficial for health. They have nutrients that are essential for human and give more energy than vegetable but vegetables have some nutrient that meats don’t have, so both meat and vegetable are important for human. I think that consumer can decide independently eat between meat and vegetable. It depends on individual belief and opinion. Although slaughter for survival isn’t morally wrong, we should hunt animal morally. We shouldn’t kill animal that is wild animal, or conservative animal. We should consume animal that breed for food. I think that eating meat isn’t morally wrong because it is one of food for subsistence of human.

Carving the Roast Beast (Aom R/W 4)

Question : What do you think the writer will do in the next 25 pages?
In the next 25 pages the writer might write the reasons to support that kill turkeys on Chrismas is morally wrong and why teenages becoming vegetarains.

Question : Do you agress with the Law that eating meat is morally wrong?
I disagree with law that eating meat is morally wrong. Human eat meat to get protein if we use this law that means more people will give up meat and peple might be malnutrition disease. Although we can protein from eating beans and soy products, but it is harder to get enough protein. People should concern about other important nutrients in meat such as B vitamins, Iron ,and Calcium. In short, It is difficult to think about a manu to cook without meat in everyday life. If people are not eat food properly, they will be malnutrition disease. Above is the reason why I disagree with the law that make people give up meat.

Google Notebook

Hi everybody, I’m Mark.

Today I have some tip to tell you. We study in Academic course, so we use the internet for finding a lot of information every day. It a good idea if we can note that information that we found easily and quickly. That tool is “Google notebook” Firefox extension, of course, you have to use it with Mozilla Firefox. This is a service by Google, so you have to also have Gmail account.

You can get the service in this link. www.google.com/notebook
If you want to know more specific detail and watch vdo preview, you can click here.
If you don't have Firefox on your computer, you can click here for downloading.

If you do not understand, you can ask me. I am always in SLC every afternoon.

Moral or Immoral? The popularity of illegal products.

Illegal DVDs are certainly popular, not just in Thailand, where, according to Tienchai Pinvises, executive director of the Motion Picture Association, Thailand, illegal sales account for more than half of all sales of DVDs and this stealing is harmful to the artists, producers and honest buyers(Pratruangkrai, 2008).

I live on Silom Road, and every afternoon and evening, the streets are full of people selling illegal CDs and DVDs of music, sex and movies. And there are a lot more people buying them. In fact, millions of people buy these illegal products. Computer software is another popular area for these sorts of crimes: millions of people around the world happily buy and use illegal versions of Microsoft and other companies software.

Are these millions of shoppers and computer users doing something immoral? Every time they commit a crime by buying an illegal DVD or other pirated product, they are taking money from the artists, performers and producers who created the song, music, movie, software or other original product, and that does sound like stealing.
Do they think their behaviour is immoral?

Both the sellers and buyers are stealing and profiting from other people's work, so it would seem to be immoral as well as criminal, that is, illegal.

Does this mean that millions of people believe that it is OK to behave immorally?

Or do you think that those people convince themselves that it is not really immoral for some reason?

Do people do things that they know to be immoral, or do they believe their acts are not really immoral for some reason?

What do you think? Can we happily do what we know is wrong, or do we try to make up an excuse before we do it? Does having an excuse make it right? Is it OK to break the law and steal if we think we have a good reason? What if others, such as the owners, don't think our reasons are very good?

__________

References

• Pratruangkrai, P. (2006, May 6). DVD, VCD piracy is worsening, in the Nation [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 18, 2008 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/05/06/business/business_30003348.php
  

Peter on Grammar

Why is grammar important? What, in fact, is grammar? How important is grammar?

What is grammar? I think grammar is the way that people use the words in their language to share ideas. I don't think it is a book, although some patterns are common enough that they can be written down in a book. Those books are useful for checking how people actually use their language, but they do not make it right or wrong. And of course, grammar changes. The way people speak and write English today is very different to how it was used by Shakespeare. In fact, even in my life time, things are changing. Twenty years ago, no one in academic writing would start a sentence with the words and or but, but both are now common. I even see the word so at the start of a sentence sometimes, although I think that is wrong and would not do it myself. On the other hand, I do start sentences with so in my less formal writing, and in class discussions, we often begin sentences, especially questions, with so. According to the grammar books, including Quest, words like and, but, and so are all coordinating conjunctions and must not be used to start a sentence, so are we all wrong? I don't think so, but please don't start your sentences with so in the academic writing assignments! (I will mark that wrong, although and and but might be OK, depending on the context.)

hana on grammar

Why is grammar important?
What, in fact, is grammar?
How important is grammar?

Grammar is rule of language.
When grammar is correct, people are understanding easily .
Grammar is promise each people.
When grammar is correct, it is more academic sentence.
Grammar is basic of language.
When Grammar is not correct, sometimes meaning is change.
Grammar is basic of reading, listening, speaking, writing.

ART

Why is grammar important?
What, in fact, is grammar?
How important is grammar?

grammar is way to writting or communition of human. it isn't nesssery to use in life such as conversation or writing diary but if you can use good grammar, you make sentence better and can easy to understand. also, if you grammar to writing, your writing can read faster more than without grammar

Aom on Grammar

English grammar is important because it is a part of English Language. We use grammar when we are reading, writing, listening, and speaking. If we use wrong grammar when we are writing a story, it might make people do not understand your story.Also when you talk to people if you tense is not correct people may misunderstand what you are saying.

Mark on grammar

Grammar is very important. The grammar is a tool for transfer your idea or something that you want to tell everyone by sentences. If your grammar is not good enough, Other people will don't understand the information that you want to tell. However, Grammar is not too important, so it isn't important to worry about it too much. In addition, it isn't important to use fancy and c0mplex grammar. If people that you want to tell understand your idea correctly, that is enough.

Am on Grammar

Grammar is important because it can communicate meaning correctly in sentences. If we don't have grammartical rule, we don't know specificly how we can use English to communicate like we think. So, grammar is the rules of English which tell us how we can use them to work on language.

Nan on Grammar

Why is grammar important?
What, in fact, is grammar?
How important is grammar?
grammar is important because it's the way to translate our idea to be a correct sentense. if we writing with incorrect grammar, our reader will not understand or they will understand in differrent. Grammar is the sentense structure. There are the format to use. Grammar is how to use verb with subject. For example, the subject is he, she or singular noun, we plus 's' in verb. times is important in Grammar too because there are 3 types. There are present tense, past tense and Future tense. if we want to know that does this situation happen. we know from it's form

MAPORN


Hello! My name is Umaporn. I am an AUA student in the Academic English Program level 4. I would like to further my study in the state. I attend this course to improve my English to talk with foreign people and plan for my study in academic areas in the future. I am great that this course helps me practice English everyday. This class also helps me organize my ideas and find ways to express my thought in different situations with different people. Sometimes I don’t know if you can hear me when I say, because my voice is so low. I will try to speak louder than I did usual. Hope we enjoy studying together and nice to see you in this class .

Nan's profile

Hi, my name is Kanok-on Wongsattaya or you can call me Nan. I just finished Master degree in Business field from NIDA. I’m interested in money management and investing. It isn’t an easy way to make money. Analysis information is important but most information don’t tell the truth. I don’t have much money in my saving account because I spend it on traveling. My goal is travel in many countries around the world.
I decided to take AEP course because I want to improve my English skills. This course has a lot of homework. That’s the good way to spend time on English. This course has a lot of homework and I have to study everyday. That means I meet friends 5 days a week. Wow, I like it!

Hana ^0^

Hello~ Class mates. My name is Hana Lee. I come from Korea. I have came to Bangkok before 2years ago. Then I just visited my sister’s home in order to trip.
Now, I come to Bangkok again, because I want to study English in AUA. I’m going to study TESOL program in AUA because my dream is English teacher. I study AEP program before I study TESOL program. I think my English ability is lack to study TESOL program. So I make an effort to learn English. I major in English in college in Korea. But my English ability is not good. When someone ask me “what is your major?”, I’m very shy.
These days, I miss my parents and friend, but I can overcome homesickness. In my free times, I usually take exercise such as swimming, weight training, and walking. Exercise makes me happy. Nice to meet you, everyone. I hope you will kindly look after me. ^^

One of Billionare's Profile

Hello everyone, My name is Pongsakorn or Art is my nickname. You should remember it because you will hear it again and again in the future. I'm graduated with civil engineering from Chulalongkorn University. I had ever work in consulting engineering company for 1 year and 6 months. Now i already quit from work because i don't want to be salaryman. I don't want to start work at 8.00 a.m. and end at 5.00 p.m. Also, i don't want to spend almost time for work. I would like to spend time for something that i want to do such as listening music, playing music, party with my friends, gambling in casino, investor in stock market, travel around the world and etc.
Before i will be billionare in the future, i must improve myself first. so, the Acadamic English Program is the best way to improve my skill because this program has develop every skill and i must study and use english langugage everyday. However, i kwow english very difficult for me but i believe in my potential. Although my dream is very far, it doesn't mean impossible in the future, right?

Woranarin

As you know, my name is Woranarin Imthap and my nickname is Am. I graduated bachelor's degree in Economics field and I've been working for Cooperative Promotion Department in Personnel Division as an HR officer. Before I work for the government, I ever worked for a company as a secretary. In fact, I got high salaries from the company but it's no meaning in my life until I had a chance to study master's degree in Cooperative Economics.
The concept of this field is very good for poor people in rural area. They're related to managing non-profit organizations. This challanges the theory of economics which try to maximize profits by scarcity resources. If the cooperative concept works, it can help people to have better lives. So, I quited my job in the company then worked for the government which offers lower salaries but higher proud of me. I would like to help people with my all knowledge as possible as I can. I'll keep moving to make my desire come true.

Aom

Hello! everybody My name is Chariya Gumpee. Everybody called me "Aom". I was born in Chachoengsao province. Last year I graduated at major of Education Teachnology in Rajamangala University. I used to work for 4 months at Prices of wood company in Human Resource department. Now I'm not working just study English at AUA, because I had planed to study in Master degree next year. I have been studying English at AUA nearly one year. I am interested in English. For this reason, I began to study English after I quited my job. At first time I can't understand anything in English.I don't understand when teacher talked to me and I also can't listen too.I started at level 3 in Regular Course. Nowadays, I can speak and listen English but not very well. I have a problem with reading and writing English because my basic English Grammar isn't good. I know I should work harder in this points, but I still don't know how to deverlop my English grammar. Above are reasons why I'm interested to study in Academic English ngProgram, because I want to learn more about English and this course use four hours per day for study English that means I use more time to study and practice English.

Mark WR4

Hello everyone. I’m Mark. My full name is Chatchai Wangwiwattana. I graduated from University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, major Computer Science, this year.

I’m interest in games, programming and Open Source applications. I not only interest in computer field but also Japanese animations and comic books. In my free times, I usually serfs the internet to read technologies news, especially Linux distributions, download new game for my PSP (Play Station Portable) and NDS (Nintendo Dual Screen) and Japanese animations. In addition, I’m interest in Buddhism as well.

I decide to learn AEP at AUA, because I planned to study at USA. However, I don’t have TOEFL scroll. Especially, I have no money. The scholarship is the way that I try to get to study,so I must have TOEFL scroll before. I still believe that if I try to do, I can do it. Do not forget to intonate Chinnabunchorn before go to bed every day. http://www.dhammathai.org/sounds/chinabanchon.php

Nice to meet you.

Mark.

One of the best grammar reference book.

I'm really impressed by this very comprehensive and detailed manual for english usage. However, this is not a grammar book for self-learning because its contents are arranged alphabetically like a dictionary unlike other general grammar books which are arranged by importances but it best suits for advanced learners. I think Peter is also using this book as a reference book.

This link below contain the PDF file of Practical English Usage written third edition by Michael Swan. Please be informed that using this file may violate copyright law using for your preview purpose only. I actually had bought this book but I bought it again at the current book exhibition ending tomorrow at very discounted price (300 baht). However, with this electronic file, it is more convenient to use because you can search function without flip around from page to page in the printed out book.

http://www.junjaowka.com/webboard/showthread.php?p=214744

Activities during AEP Class at AUA

I just uploaded all photos from Soo Jin's camera if someone didn't see it yet.

Free time during AEP Class at AUA Bangkok Thailand

The Robots are Coming. Yesterday.

A couple of days ago I watched a new video, which I've embedded below, that has been posted by TEDtalksDirector to YouTube. It's a recording of a presentation given by Rodney Brooks at a conference in 2003. In his well organised presentation, Brooks begins with some general comments about the certainty that robots will become common place in our lives, and suggests that an explosion in the use of robots is beginning now. He then gives some examples to illustrate the recent past of the arrival of robots, with increasing attention to the role and abilities of robots in 2003. He explains some of the work his own research teams are working on, with discussions of such things as robotic awareness of and responsiveness to human visual activity and robotic "emotional spaces". His visual aids, both static and video, make his points very clearly in an entertaining way. Finally, he raises some deeper philosophical questions about the possible developments of robotic intelligence in the not so distant future, including the question of human-like rights for robots, which he relates to the role of scientific and technological progress over the last 500 years in removing our idea that human beings are something special and somehow different to, and superior to, the rest of nature and the universe. 

I enjoyed Brook's 20 minute presentation. He speaks well, with clarity and humour, his ideas are well organised, with interesting visual aids, and his topic and main ideas are relevant to what is likely to happen in our lifetimes. Some of the issues that Brooks addresses are also relevant to the ideas that some of you discussed in your essays on the meaning of person, so although it isn't a reading or writing activity, you might find Brook's presentation worth watching. And it is good practice for speaking and listening. 

TEDtalksDirector is one of the channels I subscribe to on YouTube. They present a range of presentations by leading academics, scientists, authors and others on a range of topical questions. Most are about twenty to thirty minutes in length. Some of my favourites include physicist Stephen Hawking, philosopher Daniel Dennett, psychologist Steven Pinker and evolutionary biologist raichard Dawkins, but there are a lot of other well known thinkers to choose from, some very controversial, such as the Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson. If you are looking for some challenging material to practise listening, you might like to have a look at TEDtalksDirector on YouTube. 

References

Brooks, R. (presenter). (2008, October 10). How robots will invade our lives. TEDtalksDirector on YouTube. Videoclip retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdyRmdv-KiY&sdig=1