VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 15

(1/2) > >>

clarke54321:

--- Quote ---In response to Victoria's lack of regulation over duck shooting, The Age published an editorial, outlining the cruelty associated with the 'sport.' Echoing the sentiments of The Age is a comment written by Marita Hutchinson.
--- End quote ---

It's time to stop the duck slaughter

According to the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the above-average rainfall over the past year has ''substantially improved environmental conditions'', with increased habitat for waterfowl, including game birds. This in turn has led to extensive breeding and wide dispersal of birdlife across eastern Australia's wetlands. As a result, the 2011 season will return to a full 12 weeks, and the normal regulated bag limit - 10 ducks a day, which can include two blue-winged shovelers, for each hunter - ''will provide adequate protection for game duck populations'', the department says.

All this is bad news, of course, for ducks. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with Victoria's 22,000 registered shooters allowed to shoot 10 birds a day for the next three months, the 2011 season could mark the biggest massacre of native ducks on record. RSPCA president Hugh Wirth doubts that the department's 15 wildlife officers will be enough to enforce the bag limits, and has reiterated the society's call for a ban on what he calls ''this cruel and barbaric sport''.

The Age is on the side of the RSPCA - and the ducks. The most perplexing thing about duck shooting is why it hasn't already been banned here. The West Australian government stopped it in that state in 1990, New South Wales followed in 1995 and Queensland in 2005. Yet Victoria, a proud leader in progressive public policies on matters such as road safety and smoking, remains a bastion of the duck hunter.
This is still more perplexing given all the evidence indicates that ending duck shooting would be politically popular. A Morgan poll of 637 Victorians in late 2007, for example, found 75 per cent in favour of a ban.

That the ''sport'' of duck shooting is cruel is not open to question. Hunting flocks of wildfowl with a shotgun means rare and protected species are killed, and it means some birds, which are wounded but not immediately brought down, suffer lingering and painful deaths.
The Age first advocated a ban on duck shooting in 1992. A decade later, after a recommendation by Victoria's animal welfare advisory committee to end the practice, this newspaper wrote: ''We did not expect to have to restate the case for a ban in the 21st century.'' In 2011, surely, the time has come to stop the slaughter.


How can it be called sport?

How can we stand in judgment of Japan's cruelty in whale slaughtering, when our record of animal exploitation involves live exports, recently involving the death of 4000 sheep, racing horses in 40-degree heat, the killing of hundreds of kangaroos and the shooting of hundreds of ducks and endangered birds. Because we do not have any dangerous and wild animals in this country, we do not have hunters, only killers. To shoot a flying creature no bigger than the killer's foot can hardly be regarded as a sport.

Marita Hutchison, Mount Martha


Remember that you should be aiming for quality, not quantity with this task. So please do not feel obliged to write a full fledged AA. A paragraph will more than suffice  :)

MissSmiley:
The Age's editorial team incredulously condemns the ongoing duck slaughtering in Victoria claiming that the state is not performing up to the 21st century standards of animal welfare, as it is for other “public policies…such as road safety and smoking.” However, RSPCA president Hugh Wirth’s and the editorial’s referencing of duck shooting as a “sport,” seems to be highly contentious for Hutchison. She purports the notion that calling animal killing a ‘sport,’ which carries connotations of a fun game where there is a winner, is merely a smokescreen to obscure the horrific truth behind animal exploitation and the gruesome listing of immoral killing – “death of 4000 sheep…killing of hundreds of kangaroos.” The editorial’s quoting of Department of Sustainability and Environment that the “regulated bag limit…will provide protection for duck populations” carries undertones of ridicule and disappointment that duck shooting is not taken seriously. Instead, negligible improvements being made such as “now allowing to shoot 10 birds a day” are aggrandised for publicity at the expense of truly trying to stop animal “lingering and painful deaths” – the adjectives used in an attempt to garner sympathy from environmentalists and animal activists and appeal to their humanitarian and wellbeing values. In turn, these activists are likely to advocate for animal protection and make sure animal welfare advisory committees prove The Age wrong, after the newspaper reprobated the need to “restate the case for a ban [to duck shooting] in the 21st century,” and in this way deemed activist organisations as outdated and not performing up to moral standards of animal protection.

In dismay of the reference to duck shooting as a “sport” Hutchison aims to instil a sense of nationalistic fear with her claim that “we do not have any dangerous and wild animals in this country…only killers,” and hence aims to bring humans in equity to animals, reinforcing the savagery of the human race to stupidly “shoot a flying creature no bigger than the killer’s foot.” The mockery to be found in likening the size of a creature to a killer’s foot strives to make hunters and killers of birds perceive themselves as victims of their own foolishness and unintelligence in killing negligible-sized creatures. This perceived threat to their profession is likely to influence hunters and killers to stop their treacherous deaths, and in this way, Hutchison sides with The Age’s attempts to advocate for Victoria’s support in banning duck shooting, so that the state can regain its reputation of a “proud…progressive [leader].” 

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: MissSmiley on May 14, 2018, 09:45:06 pm ---The Age's editorial team incredulously I feel like incredulous is too strong a word to use here condemns the ongoing duck slaughtering in Victoria claiming that the state is not performing up to the 21st century standards could also add how there's a comparison with other states and countries of animal welfare, as it is for other “public policies…such as road safety and smoking.” here's an opportunity to analyse connotations of road safety and smoking vs those of animal wellfareHowever, RSPCA president Hugh Wirth’s and the editorial’s referencing of duck shooting as a “sport,” seems to be highly contentious for Hutchison. She purports the notion that calling animal killing a ‘sport,’ this sentence could have been joined with the last, to provide more cohesiveness as you used the quote "sport" twice within a short periodwhich carries connotations of a fun game where there is a winnernot sure if the winner part here was necessary as it detracts from the argument that they're making light of the situation, since a winner implies that there's also a loser, is merely a smokescreen vocab goalsto obscure is that really their intention? not that I know for sure either, but I think that they're simply portraying it in a different light, as a sport and tare therefore trying to change people's perceptions, not actively withholding info. but if you wanted to go deeper, you could say that the label of it being a "sport" is a front to hide more nefarious aimsthe horrific truth behind animal exploitation and the gruesome listing of immoral killing – “death of 4000 sheep…killing of hundreds of kangaroos.” nothing wrong here but you could weave quote together with sentence to make it more cohesive, instead of using a dash. where's the effect on the readers (the how's and why's)The editorial’s quoting of Department of Sustainability and Environment I'm being picky here but no need to name department - it makes the sentence drabthat the “regulated bag limit…will provide protection for duck populations” carries undertones of ridicule and disappointment that duck shooting is not taken seriouslyagain, effect on readers MIA. Instead, negligible improvements being made such as “now allowing to shoot 10 birds a day” are aggrandised adding this word into my arsenalfor publicity at the expense of truly trying to stop animal “lingering and painful deaths” – the dash :'(the adjectives used in an attempt to garner sympathy from environmentalists and animal activists link them to readers of the Ageand appeal to their humanitarian and wellbeing valuesdoesn't guilt also play a part in this?. In turn, these activists are likely word choice is too strong, making it sound as if there's a definite effect. just add "more" in front will sufficeto advocate for animal protection bit general here. keep to duck shootingand make sure again strong choice of wordinganimal welfare advisory committees prove The Age wrongI don't get your reasoning here. Why is proving the Age wrong of import, especially towards readers?, after the newspaper reprobated I love your word bankthe need to “restate the case for a ban [to duck shooting] in the 21st century,” and in this way deemed activist organisations reconsider target audience. Is this piece aimed at people already having a knowledge of duck shooting or just the average joe?as outdated and not performing up to moral standards of animal protection.

In dismay of the reference to duck shooting as a “sport” Hutchison aims to instil a sense of nationalistic fear great phrase, although is fear the most accurate emotionwith her claim that “we do not have any dangerous and wild animals in this country…only killers,” and hence aims to bring humans in equity to animalswhile this isn't wrong, do flesh out the quote a bit more as there's more potential within it, such as who does she likens the killers to, and what effect does this have on readers, reinforcing the savagery of the human race generalisationto stupidly “shoot a flying creature no bigger than the killer’s foot.” The mockery to be found in likening the size of a creature to a killer’s foot strives to make hunters and killers of birdsunnecessary and too broad perceive themselves as victims how did the killer suddenly become the victim?of their own foolishness and unintelligence[color=red]inaccurate generalisation. shooters can still be aware of issue and hunt ducks for fun (or for any other reason)[/color] in killing negligible-sized creatures. This perceived expand on this. how is this only perceived and not a real life threatthreat to their profession is likely to influence hunters and killers to stop their treacherous why is this a betrayal, and if so, to whom?deaths, and in this way, Hutchison sides with The Age’s attempts to advocate for Victoria’s support in banning duck shooting, so that the state can regain its reputation of a “proud…progressive [leader].”  this isn't the main objective of Hutchison


--- End quote ---

Do not be alarmed. I repeat: do not be alarmed. This is the first time that I've critiqued someone else's work, and I realised that I have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of a piece (or what I interpret to be negative). I tend to nitpick at the little things rather than make a holistic judgement. I also don't have the confidence to change the structure of your sentences, even though there's nothing wrong with them. I'm also a fellow year 12 student, so please bear in mind that I'm floundering here. Hopefully I didn't project my own (wrong) opinions onto to you, so don't take this to heart.

What I can say though is that is is a strong piece overall. I can see that you have an extensive vocabulary and sound control over your language analysis techniques (just realised that I sound like a rubric). However, try to focus a bit more on how readers are prompted to respond to such stimuli. There's potential in you.

If there are any experts out there who find my critiquing skills lacking, please consider critiquing MissSmiley's piece again, as mine is in no way a substitute for yours.

MissSmiley:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 17, 2018, 11:20:57 pm ---Do not be alarmed. I repeat: do not be alarmed. This is the first time that I've critiqued someone else's work, and I realised that I have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of a piece (or what I interpret to be negative). I tend to nitpick at the little things rather than make a holistic judgement. I also don't have the confidence to change the structure of your sentences, even though there's nothing wrong with them. I'm also a fellow year 12 student, so please bear in mind that I'm floundering here. Hopefully I didn't project my own (wrong) opinions onto to you, so don't take this to heart.

What I can say though is that is is a strong piece overall. I can see that you have an extensive vocabulary and sound control over your language analysis techniques (just realised that I sound like a rubric). However, try to focus a bit more on how readers are prompted to respond to such stimuli. There's potential in you.

If there are any experts out there who find my critiquing skills lacking, please consider critiquing MissSmiley's piece again, as mine is in no way a substitute for yours.

--- End quote ---
OMG OMG!!
Gotta work on things then!! - This was quite a bitter blow!!

Thank you so much for giving your time to correct this!! I know it sure takes long!

I really like picky teachers and other people who give me feedback :)

Just means that I've got a lot to improve :)

Wow!! I'm actually so stressed now!!

Looks like I got the whole contention and idea wrong, according to you.

Thanks so much!! I really appreciate your time and efforts to type up all this!!

Thanks again!  :)

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: MissSmiley on May 18, 2018, 07:46:55 am ---Looks like I got the whole contention and idea wrong, according to you.

--- End quote ---

So sorry I came across that way. Interpretation in English is very fluid, so you may in fact be right, and I may just be pushing the wrong ideas onto you - in the midst of critiquing, I did get the occasional thought that a few of my comments should go into my LA piece. Obviously this is indicative of me not being able to accept other's ideas if they differ from my own (which may not be correct). The failing is on my part, not yours. I just wanted to repay your kindness when you critiqued my pieces in previous weeks, but seems like my plans backfired.

This is why I requested someone more qualified to re-critique your piece

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page