Animal Bloodlust Analysis
In recent years, the number of Pit bull attacks have incited massive debate over the treatment of the breed in Victoria. Animal bloodlust by Nick Papps advocates for the complete ban on the dogs by implementing a belligerent and malicious tone, criticizing the government’s lack of action, and calling for immediate change. Graeme Smith’s Ban the breeding undertakes a more logical tone to acknowledge the misuse of pit bulls and providing alternatives to simply banning their presence in Victoria all together. These are contrasted by Killing pit bulls is illogical by Colin Muir. He, with a direct and aggrieved tone, denounces the reactionary legislation placed by the government. Muir instead blames the owners for the mal treatment of the dogs.
…show more content…
Papps initiates his case with an anecdote to describe the “brutal scene” in which pit bulls are “trying to tear each other to pieces.” This intended start was to hook the reader into the piece, coupled with the use of enlarged text and pictures depicting pit bulls labeled as “dangerous” behind bars, alludes to the point that they have no place in public, only belonging to euthanasia clinics that would end their “bloodlust”. From this, the reader is invoked with a sense of fear and perspective to the grandeur of the issue at hand, made to be shocked and weary of the breed as Papps attempts to distort their views on pit bulls. Smith also utilizes the prison motif for his pictures in his piece, to further stress the idea of “pit bulls are being used as weapons” but differing in his objective. He aims to objectify the dog in this case, where they serve no more than mere “weapons and aids for criminal activities” so that the audience feels less squeamish of the newly imposed laws regarding their stay in Victoria. This is contrasted by Papps’ representation of the dogs, calling them “super killer dogs” that were “trained to kill”. He demonizes each breed, which leads to a similar action Smith intended for the audience—in that, to distance the audience from these dogs, moving them away from sympathizing with the dogs which further bolsters the arguments of both authors.
Papps initiates his case with an anecdote to describe the “brutal scene” in which pit bulls are “trying to tear each other to pieces.” This intended start was to hook the reader into the piece, coupled with the use of enlarged text and pictures depicting pit bulls labeled as “dangerous” behind bars, alludes to the point that they have no place in public, only belonging to euthanasia clinics that would end their “bloodlust”. From this, the reader is invoked with a sense of fear and perspective to the grandeur of the issue at hand, made to be shocked and weary of the breed as Papps attempts to distort their views on pit bulls. Smith also utilizes the prison motif for his pictures in his piece, to further stress the idea of “pit bulls are being used as weapons” but differing in his objective. He aims to objectify the dog in this case, where they serve no more than mere “weapons and aids for criminal activities” so that the audience feels less squeamish of the newly imposed laws regarding their stay in Victoria. This is contrasted by Papps’ representation of the dogs, calling them “super killer dogs” that were “trained to kill”. He demonizes each breed, which leads to a similar action Smith intended for the audience—in that, to distance the audience from these dogs, moving them away from sympathizing with the dogs which further bolsters the arguments of both authors.