Clarkson argument
The Guardian
Long Live the Tiger!
Upon reading Jeremy Clarkson’s article, ‘Stuff the Tiger’, I discovered that I strongly disagree with his point of view and the way he writes them, a good example of this is when Clarkson uses inappropriate sarcasm to belittle the sensitive issue. I begin to realize that he thinks any publicity is good publicity as has a passion for pontificating on subjects that he knows absolutely nothing about.
He begins to patronize the tigers by trying to be humorous. He first uses this with the title, where he uses an innuendo.
Clarkson claims that 600 million people in China use animal bones and penises in medicine, however, this is a false survey. I personally find it quite difficult that you have questioned more than half of
China’s population. Furthermore, there are other alternatives to use for medicine. Surely there are more civil, modern day in age ingredients than the use of tiger parts, for example alkali bases and plants.
Irrelevant to this, the extinction of a tiger is as irrelevant as a faraway star but be fore you express your own opinion, please look at the facts. If we just distinguish the iconic tiger, it could make a gigantic impact on the food chain and we are looking at an overpopulation of buffalo, deer and even more!
You state ‘Well, not complete extinction. Obviously tigers will continue to exist in Las Vegas for many years to come.’ I personally think that tigers should live in their natural habitat, the environment they are adapted to. The only reason tigers aggressive are because poachers cease to kill them and they need to protect themselves and their cubs. What would you do if a mass murderer attempted to kill you and your children?
Tigers use to roam across Asia, but now they’re restricted to just 7% of their range, in isolated forests across 13 countries. So why keep them in captivity, when they could be living while they’re still not extinct? It is a disgrace that they are in a cage getting glared at. How would
Long Live the Tiger!
Upon reading Jeremy Clarkson’s article, ‘Stuff the Tiger’, I discovered that I strongly disagree with his point of view and the way he writes them, a good example of this is when Clarkson uses inappropriate sarcasm to belittle the sensitive issue. I begin to realize that he thinks any publicity is good publicity as has a passion for pontificating on subjects that he knows absolutely nothing about.
He begins to patronize the tigers by trying to be humorous. He first uses this with the title, where he uses an innuendo.
Clarkson claims that 600 million people in China use animal bones and penises in medicine, however, this is a false survey. I personally find it quite difficult that you have questioned more than half of
China’s population. Furthermore, there are other alternatives to use for medicine. Surely there are more civil, modern day in age ingredients than the use of tiger parts, for example alkali bases and plants.
Irrelevant to this, the extinction of a tiger is as irrelevant as a faraway star but be fore you express your own opinion, please look at the facts. If we just distinguish the iconic tiger, it could make a gigantic impact on the food chain and we are looking at an overpopulation of buffalo, deer and even more!
You state ‘Well, not complete extinction. Obviously tigers will continue to exist in Las Vegas for many years to come.’ I personally think that tigers should live in their natural habitat, the environment they are adapted to. The only reason tigers aggressive are because poachers cease to kill them and they need to protect themselves and their cubs. What would you do if a mass murderer attempted to kill you and your children?
Tigers use to roam across Asia, but now they’re restricted to just 7% of their range, in isolated forests across 13 countries. So why keep them in captivity, when they could be living while they’re still not extinct? It is a disgrace that they are in a cage getting glared at. How would