Causal Argument—jcirrs

Causal Argument: SeaWorld is putting trainers in danger

-trainers are not marine biologists, they’re performers
-orcas are wild animals, expect the unexpected
-after many attacks, SeaWorld no longer allows trainers to be in the water with the animals

We trust professional, special animal doctors to treat and take care of our sick house pets. These special doctors are called veterinarians. We should not expect any less professional skills being brought to SeaWorld. In order to become an animal trainer at SeaWorld, not too much extensive training takes place. Anyone who is willing, not qualified, can be hired as a trainer. We would think SeaWorld would bring in marine biologists to train and swim with the wild animals, but they do not. Being taught how to train an animal does not teach a person how to properly care for a creature or teach them how their body works, inside and out. Marine biologists go through many years of schooling to learn about sea creatures. Their skills and knowledge are not brought to SeaWorld.

This entry was posted in A08: Causal Argument, jcirrs. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Causal Argument—jcirrs

  1. davidbdale says:

    This is a start, jcirrs.

    It seems to be a side-line argument to your primary thesis, which, if I’m not mistaken, is that SeaWorld and zoos are detrimental to animals, not the other way around. If your thesis is so broad that you’re just trying to find many reasons to shut down SeaWorld, I think you should narrow your approach a bit. There should be plenty of evidence that bringing animals out of their natural environment into captivity is harmful to them (and perhaps to the populations that are left behind).

    Judging from what I see here, you’re actually addressing two sides of the harm conversation.
    1) Your thesis at the top of the page says trainers are in danger.
    2) Your long paragraph emphasizes that the handlers are not vets nor biologists. Your suggestion that they lack the training needed to properly interact with the animals is good evidence that they’re doing the animals harm, not the other way around.

    I’d stick with that argument. (And don’t think that just because you’ve named it, you’re done supporting it.) Offer examples of the sort of mistakes that can occur from inexperience.

    Reply, please.
    –DSH

    Like

  2. jcirrs says:

    Thank you, I understand. I will turn my argument around saying the trainers are dangerous to the animals rather than the animals being dangerous to them.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s