Comparing Foer's essay "Let Them Eat Dog" with Swift's "A Modest Proposal,"discuss your reactions while you read in light of what you believe Foer's and Swift's purpose was in writing their essays. To do this successfully, you need to state what you think is the purpose of each essay (we've discussed Swift's purpose in class already). How well does each author's approach support (or not support) the argument he is advocating?
Your response should be 200-250 words and should use significant details from each essay to further your argument.
While reading "Let Them Eat Dog" I found the author's point interesting. I love my pet and couldn't imagine killing him yet alone eating him. I do think that Foer's information was convincing, but, like he said, this is a VERY taboo subject. A lot of people know that eating dogs is an option, but we ignore the fact because we have found affection for dogs and find them "cute." Foer was very informative when it came to his subject, because what he said was true, dogs do die by euthanization a lot every year.
ReplyDeleteSwift's essay was different in some way than Foer's. Swift's essay explained many reasons why abortion was bad. Swift's essay is easier to agree with. Because who wants to agree with a person who say we should eat dog? And also many people agree that abortion is bad. Killing infants before they are born is an awful thing and for agreeing with it you don't feel any sort of gilt, but agreeing with the guy that says we should eat dog is kind of bad.
Each author had a purpose in writing their essays, because eating dog would save some money. (The unwanted dogs that is) On the same hand not aborting babies would have more people on the work force helping to support families and helping the economy grow. i may not agree with both authors, Foer, but both authors made great points and could get some people to change their opinions upon reading it.
My reaction to both Foer’s essay “Let Them Eat Dog” and Swift’s essay “A Modest Proposal was repulsive. Though both authors were extremely convincing in their arguments, appealing to both the logic and reason of the reader, it wasn’t enough to overcome my natural instinct of finding eating both dogs and babies sickening. I think both would agree with me because they never directly say they agree with their own proposals but instead talk of other civilizations or people that have carried it out in the past.
ReplyDeleteIn “Let them Eat Dog,” Foer makes the idea seem so grand when he describes how three to four million dogs and cats are euthanized annually. It would be a cheap and easy source of meat for a society that demands meat. He also says that it would cut back on global warming and the poor treatment of animals today. Lastly he compares the dog to other animals and describes how it is no smarter or better than the animals we are already eating. In “A Modest Proposal,” Swift also does a good job of appealing to our logic and reason when he describes how eating the babies would be a great way to fight poverty in multiple ways and serve as a new elegant meal for the rich.
Both of their suggestions make more since than one might want to accept, but our instinct and habits as humans will not allow us to fully accept the ideas. I believe this was the purpose of the easy. Their sarcastic, but logical, approaches make evident that we must trust our instinct before reason. Both authors also make known that neither of them actually agrees with their own arguments. Swift describes how he himself is a father and he could not eat a baby. Foer also blatantly states how our instinct not to eat dogs is more important than the reason that could be argued.
Each author supports his argument very well, so well that it had me considering the preposterous ideas. I found them humorous and interesting to read despite the repulsive suggestions.
Foer and Swift both support their arguments very well, but the idea of eating dogs or babies is completely preposterous. Dogs are just like all other animals we slaughter every year, but it is our instinct to treat them are one of us. They truly are man’s best friend. Babies on the other hand are human beings, and to kill a baby is the same as killing any other person. We have no idea what that baby would accomplish in the world, for all we know they could be the person to find the cure to cancer. Some of Foer’s points really make you question why we treat dogs so highly, and why we don’t take advantage of their abundance for our own good. We euthanize three to four million dogs and cats every year instead of using their meat to meet our needs. This point really makes you question why dogs are so valued. I guess having your little buddy cuddling up with you every night is more pleasing than feeding our world. Losing a dog is different than losing any other animal. They become a part of your family, and we treat them as a higher being than other animals.
ReplyDeleteSwift also makes you question the idea of eating our babies by saying how it would be a good way to fight poverty. Families could make a living off of the offspring they produce. Again instinct and moral values force people to shut down this notion of eating our babies. It is disgusting to think about, and I would never consider eating my dog or my baby.
My reaction to "Let Them Eat Dogs" and "A Modest Proposal" was suprised and disturebed. Both aruthors used good arguminative points to help convice the reader but as a civilized human I know that eating infants and dogs is in proper and just plain out disgusting.
ReplyDeleteIn "Let Them Eat Dogs" Foer makes good points to why it is ok to eat dogs. He says it is a cheap source of meat, but if it cooked right it is the same as all other meats. We wouldn't have to maintain the animals on a farm dogs are "begging to be eaten". It would help feed millions of people in countrys were meat is lacking. If we let the dogs breed at there own rate we would have a sustainable amount of meat to feed everyone.
In "A Modest Proposal" Swift talks about how we should eat the infants. He makes just as good as arguments as Foer. He says that it would help solve starvation and also make a nice fancy meal for the rich class. He describes that there is a great amount of the babies who starve and eventually die could rather be used as a source of food for other people. Why let people spend money to try and save them when rather they can be used to feed others. Also it would take responisbility off the parents becasue after a year they wouldn't have to feed and take care of the kids. They just sell them and thats all.
Both men make very convincing arguments but if someone really thinks about it, this is a completely insane idea to have or follow through the idea. Here in the United States people know that eating other humans is wrong and is other wise know as cannabalizum and this is extremely frowned upon. I think the real pupose of these essays are to make someone think. It makes you think and realize that even if there are very convincing arguments it still is wrong and should not be done. I disagree that we should eat either dogs or humans. Dogs are mans best friend and you never eat your best friend. For humans why would you want to eat someone like you? You shouldn't want to and you definitly shouldn't attemp to.
I believe that both the author of “Let Them Eat Dog’ and the author “A Modest Proposal” had similar motives in writing. Both of them wanted to get their point across. Foer, the author of “Let Them Eat Dog”, wants to get his point across about the many advantages of using dogs a source of meat. Foer does a pretty good job of expressing his reasoning for writing the essay. He brings up logical points of how we are wasting a valuable resource by throwing away all of the euthanized dogs every year. Many of points like this supported the author’s thesis. Swift, the author of “A Modest Proposal”, had an argument to kill and eat babies. He was pretty convincing in his argument but I don’t believe any amount of arguing can convince anyone. Unlike Foer’s essay, Swift did not truly believe in the argument he was trying to portray. Even though it was backed up with strong arguments, Swift did not truly want people to eat babies. He wanted to show the English occupants of Ireland how cruel they were to the Irish by proposing such an absurd idea. Swift did a good job of getting this point across.
ReplyDeleteIn both essays, the authors use tremendous detail to back exactly how their proposals could be beneficial to society or even to an economy. In "Let Them Eat Dog", Foer uses examples of other countries and the animals that they eat. Although popular in foreign lands, the consumtion of dog meat is considered taboo. The process and preparation necessary for dog is identical to that of a cow, or pig but Foer provides a point of view in which humans think more highly, for lack of a better term, of a dog. As Foer says, "a dog is a man's best friend". The fact that canine is not usually part of the human diet, especially in the US, is due somewhat to the relationship that people have with their "best friends". In "A Modest Proposal", the author backs his statements made about the consumption of young humans with details that also could be influetial on our economy. Swift uses examples such as wealthy families feasting over a baby as an elegant meal. Although the consumption of these unorthodox meals can be quite common in some places, most people see it as odd. Both Swift and Foer persuade their reader to consider the possibilty of eating these unusual pieces of meat and might even influence some people's opinion on the subject.
ReplyDeleteFoer's story and Swift's stories are both crazy to think about. Swift's is more crazy to think about because of eating humans. To us Foer's story is just as crazy too because we would never think about eating our dog. Dogs to us are a very friendly animal that we take great pride in having as a pet. they mean so much to us but in some places they are ate. Even though both authors back up there reasoning with the babies and dogs can be ate when they die....this is still just freaking crazy to think about. Even though these authors were not trying to really get people to eat babies or dogs, it is stil absurd . any body that writes about something like that has some serious issues with what they think about day in and day out, wheather there point backs it up or not.
ReplyDeletein both essays of "let them eat dog" and swifts essay they have a sickening theme of eating dead carcusses such as in swifts essay the act of eating babies once they have died. Also in Let them eat dogs its a sickening tale of a author saying how eating dead dog and cats would be a lot cheaper for a society craving the want and need for meat. In Let them eat dogs essay he compares the dogs and cats to animals that we already eat today so why wouldent it be bad for us to eat dead cats and dogs. Its the same thing as us eating the cows and other animals rich in meats. In Swifts essay he thinks the babies would be a rich and elegant meal to the wealthy. I think both these men are trying to bring a point across to people showing that if there is people reading this and actually wouldent mind something isnt right. People couldent stand the thought of eating there beloved pet or cat and especially there baby. I think the authors brought up and great point across to there readers showing its idea but a very sick one at the same time
ReplyDeleteThe things swift says about babies and dogs is a little hard to believe, i dont think there is anyway that i could ever eat a baby, dog possibly, but it would be tough to do. although we do eat animals everyday these animals are different and you start to become attached to your dog or cat and then that is when it becomes hard to ever think about eating them. to think that someone could ever eat their own child is unreal, you have no idea of what he/she could have become and no one in the right mind could ever do it.Swift makes a good point and does get is point across but he has to be out of his mind to think that someone could just eat their dog that they have had for so long, or their own son or daughter.
ReplyDeleteWhilst reading tonights essay i was disturbed by our topic for this quarter because honestly it is just very messed up. Besides that irrevent point considering i greatly love my dog i could never think about eating her as proposed in this ludacris essay. Likewise in the previous essay i could never consider eating a human baby because the concept of this is utterly repulsive. the point the authours are trying to bring up is that of what if? What if this is really what we had to do or what if this was a new custom to control population. in both articles highly unreasonable points are brought up as far as eating babies and eating your pets they use a logical reasoning process to try nd show legitamacy for their point. i do believe however that the authours do a good job in making their points and showing the reader there ideas.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles “A Modest Proposal” and “Let them Eat Dog” are both written in a satirical manner. Neither author really meant for people to literally eat their dogs or children. The authors were just trying to make a point that even though poor children are a burden to society and dogs are often unwanted they are not of value.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the authors wanted the readers to be alarmed at their suggestion and to defend the helpless and unwanted by rebelling against the author’s suggestion. Jonathan Swift even said I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any other proposed by wise men.” The authors wanted the reader and or society to think and come up with other options.
Both authors tried to use logical thinking in justifying their proposal. Jonathon Safran Foer justified his proposal by showing how some cultures already see dog as a delicacy and that since many dogs were already being euthanized this would be a humane way to justify their senseless death. Interestingly enough Foer own religious background has prohibitions based on the old testament which forbids the consumption of pigs. You would think that a Jewish author would not be considering dog meat with other animals that he already forbidden of eating.
I think both authors did a good job in the logical presentation of their arguments. I believe that as a reader I totally dismissed the value of their argument, not because of their failure to convince by because of cultural taboos.
Both Swift and Foer's essays give good reason for there however the thought of eating man's best friend sickens me. Both writers use logical points to show why we should eat a dog or eat a baby. In Swift's "A Modest Proposal," he comes up with this repulsive idea that we should eat babies and that it would provide an exotic food for the rich and help the poor by giving them a job to raise babies and sell them as food. In Foer's essay he explain that eating dogs are in many cultures. He also argues saying millions of dogs are euthanized every year and that it would be a big waste to let those dogs die for nothing. Another thing Foer points out is that dogs are just like any other animal its just we as humans see them differently form other animals even though a pig, cow, or chicken are the same thing.
ReplyDeleteBoth authors do not even directly say they agree with there statements but they say its very logical and makes somewhat of sense. However personally i could never do such repulsive things to man's best friend a baby. Both authors do make logical points though, but do to people' s natural instincts these proposals are very sick ideas.
Eating a human fetus is pretty extreme to me and if I ever experienced someone in the act I would probably have a heart attack. I can't imagine someone doing this if they had any knowledge. No matter what "good" circumstances you can find in eating a baby or a dog, it is morally wrong. Both swifts and foers essays provide great information and research on the subject. There will always be another side to something that's wrong because you can find a way to make something not sound as bad. I know for a fact I have probably eaten dog or cat at some of the restraints I've been at because it just didn't taste right, but that's not saying I would go out and eat a dog. Anyone can make something not look as bad by finding factual information for the good of people. On the other hand, eating an animal is something we do every day. But eating a pet? That's something you care and love for each and every day who you have a connection to whether they speak to you or not. There is other ways to dogs communicating with humans and you can tell a dog has the basic functions to know when it is hurt, in danger, loving, and caring. These are things that out them out of the class of other animals. I find these arguments in both stories to be a little disturbing because no matter what facts are given to me, I would ever find myself eating a human or a dog, let alone kill it myself.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading "Let Them Eat Dog" I found the author's point was interesting. I love my pet and couldn't imagine killing him yet alone eating him. A when it came to his subject, because what he said was true, dogs do die by euthanization a lot every year. Swift also does a good job of appealing to our logic and reason when he describes how eating the babies would be a great way to fight poverty in multiple ways and serve as a new elegant meal for the rich. I think both authors did a good job in the logical presentation of their arguments.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe essay i read was very disturbing i dont like my dog but i could never think about eating it as he did in this in this passage. And anther thing,in the other essay were he talks about selling and tradeing babies as food eating a baby thats just messed up I would not do such a thing the. point the authours are trying to bring up is is still why even if its a what if. I mean if we had to do this to this right now i would just move or somthing. both articles are real messed up points when they brought up to eating babies and eating your pets. but the authours do a good job in making their points and showing the reader there messed what ifs.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Foer’s “Let them eat dog,” and Swift’s “A modest Proposal” one word comes to my mind when reading both these author’s ideas repulsive. Though both author’s never say they agree with there essay statements its still sick. In Foer’s essay he proposes that we should eat dogs. Using logic like in Swift’s essay he argue that dogs are no different from cows, pigs, and chicken and many cultures have eaten dogs. He then continues to talk about the millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized every year and that it would be a waste to let that meat go to waste.
ReplyDeleteIn Swifts essay he suggest that we should eat babies. He also uses logic to support his essay. He argues that eating babies would provide a new exotic food for the rich and it would assist the poor as well by giving them money for selling there babies as food. Just Foer, Swift never says that agrees with his idea of eating babies he just said it logically makes since.
They may have used great logic to support their essays but I still think this is the repulsive thing ever. In general it is against human instinct to even commit such acts. No matter how logical both these essays make sense I will never eat a dog or a baby.
JOHN MURPHY
Both authors of either story did a great job of conveying their message to the public. Likewise, both have significant and substantial points to back-up their arguements. Foer, the author of "Let Them Eat Dog" speaks to all of those who dispose of deceased dogs, and even though he does a good job of convincing I still could not eat a dog. They are man's best friend and have been for thousands of years. However I do agree with his suggestion of feeding them to the animals that we do consume, such as cattle, pig, and other products of poultry. Swift on the other hand, did not have quite such a convincing strategy. He proposed that we eat infants for a number of reasons. It was a valiant attempt but even so I could never do so. In no way did I agree with Swift or his arguement. But these two writers were indeed differing in their motives. Foer on one hand fully believes in his arguement and the theory he is conveying to the audience. Swift on the other hand does not actually believe in his arguement , but is only trying to repulse the English in Ireland for their absurd proposal all those years ago.
ReplyDeleteFoer's essay "Let Them Eat Dog" with Swift's "A Modest Proposal" both get their points across in the same format. They both use sarcasim to make their audience look at the bigger picture. In Foer's story he is talking about the benifits of eating dogs "man's best friend". He is saying that they could be processed easily and a cheap source of meat. He is useing sarcasim to show how some of the other animals we eat are jsut processed and the nasty way it happens. In Swift's story he is talking about the English eating the Irish's babies and all the good this would do. He is being sacrastic by showing every one how bad the English treat the Irish. In both stories they make the audeince feel uncofortable and this is how they make their points.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these author's had very well thought out proposals and logical explanations for their respective points. They show our humanity by exposing what we view as taboo for, really, no reason. I feel that the main purpose of these essays was to show people an illogical set of reasons for not doing something that would greatly benefit not only the individual but their nation or even the world. They both support their arguments with example's of other cultures and belief systems in the past. Both essays were funny in a dark, satirical fashion. Both authors said they would not actually practice what they were proposing. The fact that they were so far out of the normal range of writing and ideas of the time no doubt added to their public interest. Overall both authors successfully defended their points until the only argument you could muster against their logic was "we just don't do that kind of stuff".
ReplyDeleteIn Swift's story "A Modest Proposal" he states that we sell babies and eat them as a source of food. Only a certain portion of the population can reproduce freely the other portion will be eaten. In my opinion and pretty much everyone else's this is a very sick and cruel proposal. It is morally wrong we are not canabals and dont eat other human beings.
ReplyDeleteIn Foer's essay "Let Them Eat Dog" as the title states he proposal's that we eat dogs. I also think this is very wrong. Dogs in the United States are treated as pets and are called a man's best friend and rightfully so. The bond between human and dog is unseparateable. From the beginning of time we have used dogs to hunt, compainship, and other useful things. Just the thought of eating dogs sends shivers down my spine.
Both storys the author strongly state their opinions, but the choice is up to the reader to make the decision of either right or wrong. I think both are terrible ideas and I would never go to the point where I would have to eat a baby or a dog.
Foer and Swift both subordinate their arguments fairly well. However the thought of eating dogs and children is totally implausible. Dogs may be the same as any other animal we kill and eat, but we have this mindset that they are human beings. To kill a child is murder, plain and simple. Foer’s subordination really makes you wonder why we treat dogs like humans, and why we don’t take full advantage of their abundance for our benefit. They become family to us and it makes no sense to kill a member of your family and eat them.
ReplyDeleteSwift foolishly defends the idea of eating babies by saying it could help eliminate poverty. You are out of your damn mind. Morals are what separates people from animals. Thus causing us to shut down this dumbass idea of eating babies and man's best friend.
It's hard to say that I would ever eat a baby, but Swift's point is not all of seriousness. He only says this to show the English crown of how far they are willing to go to contain the Irish Catholics which gets to the extreme. And by doing this he brings out the bad side of the English and basically slaps in their face calling them cannibals, whhile Foer is bringing up the point of eating intelligent animals and even house hold animals is the way that people survive in some countries and is totally necessary. Both writters show that the extreme is needed sometimes, but both have different examples of the extreme.
ReplyDeleteBoth essays proposed a theory that I thought was very interesting. Swift's essay "A Modest Proposal" proposed theory that we should eat babies to help overpopulation. the babies could be used as a food source to the people and reduce poverty. The essay made me think really hard. I could never see anyone (in the right state of mind) being able to eat their baby. Foer talks bout eating dogs. He says that they are often eaten in foreign countries such as the Philippines. He gives us a Filipino recipe of stewed dog. i know this is common in other countries but I dont think this would be right in countries where a dog is almost considered a family member, the United States. I don't have a dog but I couldn't dog meat knowing that it could be a family pet for a family that needs love from the animal know as a man's best friend. Both essays talk about abstract theories that could one day be practiced.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to Foer’s essay is very different than it would be for Swift’s essay. I love my dog and I love eating meat, I couldn’t imagine eating my dog, or any kind of dog for that matter, but as long as I don’t know what I eat I wouldn’t care. Like we discussed in class, we might not eat dog and stuff but what we do eat might’ve been fed dog, cats, or any other kind of things and we wouldn’t know. For Swift’s essay, even though it was a sattire, it would’ve made a lot of sense back then if you would’ve taken all religious reason and knowledge of good and bad and thought of it from a logical viewpoint, back then people didn’t like having beggars around, specially the ones that were kids. So why not make a use for them? In both these essays they make good points, and for the eating dogs thing it’ll probably never be accepted in the U.S. Why? Because in our society dogs are as much a member of a household as a kid would be, and you wouldn’t want to eat your own son or daughter, so why would you want to eat your own dog? For us to eat our own dogs, or kid beggars for that matter, we would need to lose that sense that makes us human, and I believe if the situation demands it we will lose it, but not anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI think Foer has a point about eating animals. We eat them all the time because they are nutritious and they taste good. I've never had dog, but I'm sure if I lived in Asia, where they don't domesticate them like Americans do, i would eat dog. Its not because i don't like dogs, its just because its what everyone else is eating over there. I would feel bad about eating my own dog but i don't feel any sadness over eating a cow... I guess this is the way the feel about dogs over in Asia.
ReplyDeleteI would never eat a baby. Just saying that sounds weird and wrong. Why would you kill someone that doesn't know what life is yet? Swift is pretty disturbed in the head to thing of his plan to make the babies "useful". He wants to fix a society and he is going about it the wrong way. In fact, I think it would further ruin it.