Paper 1

Intro to Ethics PAPER 1: How do you write a philosophy paper?

DUE MONDAY, SEPT 20, by your class time, handed in in class and posted on the Turnitin site.

4-5 pages, typed (i.e., word-processed), double spaced, 12 pt font Times New Roman, 1” margins.

No late papers will be accepted. Students have had many weeks to get the Turnitin account; you need to get the PIN card and do the paper before the due date. No excuses. If the bookstore doesn’t have the cards, you need to get them to order one for you.

First, there are two writings online on how to write a philosophy paper that you need to carefully read and study:

1. "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper," by Jim Pryor: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

2. "Writing A Philosophy Paper," by Peter Horban: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm

The assignment is this:

A friend knows that you are in a philosophy course. This friend asks you to come to her group to give a presentation on what philosophy essays are like and how to effectively write them. Your job is to carefully read the readings above on how to write philosophy and then effectively summarize them for this person. Write up the text that you could read -- or pass out -- to this audience so that they can learn from you. Write so you teach them how to write a philosophical essay: pass on what you learn from Pryor and Horban! This assignment requires you to summarize advice from a number of different sources and explain this advice to other people in your own words.

Papers must by typed and carefully written: put your name, email, the date, course # and time at the top of the first page; DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE. And give your paper a title.

Grading:

9-10= excellent

8 = good

7 = fair

6 = poor

5 or below = very poor

They will be graded on clarity, organization, thoroughness, grammar and spelling, and, most generally, whether your reader would get a good sense for what philosophical / argumentative essays are like and how to write them.

Although citations -- i.e., direct quotations -- are not necessarily needed for this paper, if you use them you should use an official citation method that you learned in introductory English.

Final exam times and final paper due date and time

FINAL EXAM & PAPER SCHEDULE, FOR SENIORS AND NON-SENIORS:

You can take the final exam in intro to ethics with Professor Nobis at any of these days and times:

- Monday, May 3, 8AM-10AM (this is the official time for the 1 PM class)

- Monday, May 3, 1-3 PM (this is the official time for the 11 AM class)

- Wednesday, May 5, 1-3 PM (this is the official time for the 11 AM class)

Since senior grades are must be submitted to the registrar by Thursday, May 6 at noon, everything is due for seniors (who hope to graduate) by Thursday, May 6 at 9 AM. Thus, paper 4 is due for seniors by Thursday, May 6 at 9 AM and must be submitted online via the Turnitin system and in hardcopy.

The final paper is due for everyone else, i.e., non-hoping-to-graduate seniors -- and must be submitted online via the Turnitin system and in hardcopy -- by Monday, May 10 at 9 AM.

PAPER 4 ASSIGNMENT:

Write an argumentative philosophical essay where you:

(1) present and explain Singer's, Norcross's and/or Simmon's arguments concerning animals: you must discuss at least two of these author's arguments.

(2) explain whether these arguments are sound by raising and responding to at least five of what you think are the strongest and/or most important and/or common objections to their soundness.

[Note: as discussed in class, in light of the article from Machan, there is absolutely no need to discuss these issues in terms of "rights." You are, therefore, encouraged to not make use of the term, since neither Singer, Norcross and Simmons use the concept of "rights" in making their arguments.

Your paper should have a title, an introduction, a thesis ("I will argue that _____.") and be clear, well-organized, well-argued, raise and respond to objections, and have a conclusion.

Due dates are above, and the paper must be submitted via Turnitin and in hardcopy.

Paper 3

Paper 3: Abortion

Suppose a woman has gotten pregnant due to voluntary intercourse (i.e., she was not raped). She is early in pregnancy, in the first month. She has no reason to believe that her fetus is unhealthy, or will become unhealthy, or that if she has the baby that he or she will have a troubled life. Would it be morally permissible for her to have an abortion? Present and evaluate at least five arguments on this issues, including at least two out of three arguments presented by Warren, Marquis and/or Thompson. The arguments should be presented and evaluated in valid premise-conclusion format. Like all philosophy papers, you must raise objections to your views and arguments and respond to them.

Your paper should have a short introduction ending in a thesis statement and be well-organized throughout. There should be no grammatical or spelling errors. You need to find at least one peer reviewer and put his or her comments and suggestions at the end of the paper.You must use a proper citation method.

Note: a challenge for this paper is to NOT merely give a list of conditions or situations where you think abortion might be permissible or impermissible, e.g., "Abortion is wrong in these circumstance but not in these," or "Abortion is permissible except in these circumstances." The challenge is to explain why -- with reasons -- your claims about the moral status of abortion are correct or incorrect, and to defend your views from objections. You need to think carefully about what someone who disagreed with you might say, what your critics' strongest objections would be, and respond to those.

4-5 pages.
Due Monday, November 23 through the Turnitin System

Paper 2

Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 2 – Homosexuality

Due Wednesday, March 18 in class and through the turnitin system. NO LATE PAPERS.
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.

In this paper I want you to consider the issue of homosexuality and argue for one of these conclusions: homosexuality is wrong (i.e., impermissible), or homosexuality is not wrong (i.e., morally permissible). Do not consider the question of whether homosexuality is “right,” because that sounds like you are asking if homosexuality is morally obligatory. And do not discuss homosexual marriage because that too is not the issue.

You should explain what you mean when you morally evaluate homosexuality: are you speaking of actions, or feelings, lifestyles, relationships, or all (or some of the above)? This needs to be carefully explained so we understand the arguments’ conclusions.

Your paper should have a short introductory paragraph, culminating in a thesis which should either be this (or something close to it):
"I will argue that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., morally impermissible."
or
"I will argue that homosexuality is not wrong, i.e., morally permissible."

You need to give reasons in favor of your conclusion, consider objections to your reasons and respond to these objections.

You might then structure your paper in either of these ways:
1. You could present at least five of what you think are of the most important or strongest arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.
2. You could present at least five of what you think are the most important or common or influential arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is not wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is not morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.

At least one of the arguments you discuss must be arguments from the Bible and/or God’s commands (see EMP Ch. 4 on the divine command theory).

If you’d like, you can do some independent research to find additional arguments for the wrongness of homosexuality beyond the 40+ from the handout. But, you must apply the logical skills we have developed to these arguments. And you must defend your view from the best objection(s) you can think of. To do this, you must think of the objections and respond to its. DO NOT IGNORE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOOK; IF THE BOOK DISCUSSES AN OBJECTION OR RESPONSE AND YOU IGNORE THIS, THEN THAT’S A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING THE CRITICAL DISCUSSION: YOU ARE IGNORING IT.

Your paper must have a short concluding paragraph also.

Your must get a peer review (from a peer in this class) and revise and improve your paper in light of that review. The peer review of your paper should be stapled to your paper. The review sheet is here:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/peerreview.rtf

All previous advice on writing and rules on doing your own thinking and writing apply. See previous paper assignment on writing.

Your intended audience has not read the readings or discussed these issues so you must explain things so that they understand. Put yourself in their shoes and make everything clear and well-organized for them.

Paper 1

Intro to Ethics PAPER 1:

How do you write a philosophy paper?

4-5 pages, typed (i.e., word-processed), double spaced, 12 pt font Times New Roman, 1” margins, stapled

Due Wednesday, February 18, 2009 in class and submitted via the Turnitin system: http://turnitin.thomson.com

You need to BUY a card with account from the bookstore: this will give you your PIN to make an account. The class ID # is 2571740 and the password is ethics. If you have trouble registering your account, Sarah Adams is the new Turnitin Lead in Cengage Higher Education Tech Support. Sarah will be available to assist students with any pincode issues and account questions. Her current office hours are Monday through Friday from 1:00pm to 9:00pm EST, and her email address is sarah.adams@cengage.com.

No late papers will be accepted since have had 4+ weeks to get the Turnitin account; you need to get the PIN card and do the paper before the due date. No excuses. If the bookstore doesn’t have the cards, you need to get them to order one for you.

There are two main writings on how to write a philosophy paper that you need to carefully read and study:

1. Read and study Vaughn Ch. 3. Rules of Style and Content for Philosophical Writing, Ch. 4. Defending a Thesis in an Argumentative Essay and Ch. 6. Using, Quoting, and Citing Sources

2. Read and study an online article by Jim Pryor called "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

The assignment is this:

A friend knows that you are in a philosophy course. This friend asks you to come to her group to give a little presentation on what philosophy essays are like and how to effectively write them. Your job is to carefully read the readings below on how to write philosophy and then effectively summarize them for this person. Write up the text that you could read -- or pass out -- to this audience so that they can learn from you. Write so you teach them how to write a philosophical essay: pass on what you learn from Vaugh and Pryor! This assignment requires you to summarize advice from a number of different sources and explain this advice to other people in your own words.

Papers must by typed and carefully written: put your name, email, the date, course # and time at the top of the first page; DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE. And give your paper a title.

Grading:

9-10= excellent

8 = good

7 = fair

6 = poor

5 or below = very poor

They will be graded on clarity, organization, thoroughness, grammar and spelling, and, most generally, whether your reader would get a good sense for what philosophical / argumentative essays are like and how to write them.

Although citations -- i.e., direct quotations -- are not necessarily needed for this paper, if you use them you should use an official citation method that you learned in introductory English. These are presented in Vaughn as well.

Paper 3: Abortion

Due Monday, November 24, in class and online via the Turnitin system.

NO EXTENSIONS AND NO LATE PAPERS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

This paper’s topic is abortion. You must argue for a view about when, if ever, abortion is morally permissible and when, if ever, it is morally wrong. The most important aspect of this paper is that you defend your views with reasons and respond to objections to your reasons. That is, you must explain why we should accept what you think about abortions and show us why you have good reasons for your views, better reasons than those who might disagree with you. You must be sure to not assume that your view about the morality of abortion is correct: you must argue for it!

Your paper must have an introductory paragraph. It must have a thesis. Each paragraph should focus on one, and only one, main idea or topic. It must be free of grammatical and spelling errors. You must have a proper bibliography or works cited page and references (see Vaughn).

You must discuss at least five arguments, and you must discuss arguments – the main arguments – from Rachels, Marquis or Thompson, and arguments from the concept of personhood that were developed in class.

You must have at least one peer review. It should be stapled to your paper, which should be stapled as well.

This complete worksheet:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf

And this PowerPoint might be interesting:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-talk.ppt

You should re-read your first paper on how to write a philosophy paper and make sure you follow all the advice there and in their sources you summarized.

Paper 1

Intro to Ethics PAPER 1:
How do you write a philosophy paper?
4-5 pages, typed (i.e., word-processed), double spaced, 12 pt font Times New Roman, 1” margins.

Due Wednesday, September 24 in class and submitted via the Turnitin system: http://turnitin.thomson.com/
You need to BUY a card with account from the bookstore: this will give you your PIN to make an account. These are the class ID #'s, and the password is ethics:
2369927 Ethics - 12 PM
2369929 Ethics - 1 PM
If you have trouble registering your accent, see the syllabus for guidance on what to do.

No late papers will be accepted since you have over 2 weeks to do the paper and have had 4 weeks to get the Turnitin account; you need to get the PIN card and do the paper before the due date. No excuses. If the bookstore doesn’t have the cards, you need to get them to order one for you.

The assignment is this:
A friend knows that you are in a philosophy course. This friend asks you to come to her group to give a little presentation on what philosophy essays are like and how to effectively write them. Your job is to carefully read the readings below on how to write philosophy and then effectively summarize them for this person. Write up the text that you could read -- or pass out -- to this audience so that they can learn from you. Write so you teach them how to write a philosophical essay: pass on what you learn from Vaugh and Pryor! This assignment requires you to summarize advice from a number of different sources and explain this advice to other people in your own words.

There are two main writings on how to write a philosophy paper that you need to carefully read and study:

1. Re-read and study Vaughn, Chapters 1, 2 and 5. These were already assigned.
2. Read and study Vaughn Ch. 3. Rules of Style and Content for Philosophical Writing, Ch. 4. Defending a Thesis in an Argumentative Essay and Ch. 6. Using, Quoting, and Citing Sources
3. Read and study an online article by Jim Pryor called "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Papers must by typed and carefully written: put your name, email, the date, course # and time at the top of the first page; DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE. And give your paper a title.

Grading:
9-10= excellent
8 = good
7 = fair
6 = poor
5 or below = very poor

They will be graded on clarity, organization, thoroughness, grammar and spelling, and, most generally, whether your reader would get a good sense for what philosophical / argumentative essays are like and how to write them.

Although citations -- i.e., direct quotations -- are not necessarily needed for this paper, if you use them you should use an official citation method that you learned in introductory English. These are presented in Vaughn as well.

Argumentative Paper 2 – Homosexuality

Due Wednesday March 19 (note correction!) in class and through the turnitin system.
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.

Your must get a peer review (from a peer in this class) and revise and improve your paper in light of that review. The peer review of your paper should be stapled to your paper. The review sheet is here:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/peerreview.rtf

In this paper I want you to consider the issue of homosexuality and argue for one of these conclusions: homosexuality is wrong (i.e., impermissible), or homosexuality is not wrong (i.e., morally permissible). Do not consider the question of whether homosexuality is “right,” because that sounds like you are asking if homosexuality is morally obligatory, which isn’t the issue. Also, do not discuss homosexual marriage as that too is not the issue.

You should explain what you mean when you morally evaluate homosexuality: are you speaking of actions, or feelings, lifestyles, relationships, or all (or some of the above)? This needs to be carefully explained so we understand the arguments’ conclusions.

Your paper should have a short introductory paragraph, culminating in a thesis which should either be this (or something close to it):
"I will argue that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., morally impermissible."
or
"I will argue that homosexuality is not wrong, i.e., morally permissible."

You need to give reasons in favor of your conclusion, consider objections to your reasons and respond to these objections.

You might then structure your paper in either of these ways:
1. You could present at least five of what you think are of the most important or strongest arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is morally permissible).
2. You could present at least five of what you think are the most important or common or influential arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is not wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is not morally permissible).

At least one of the arguments you discuss must be arguments from the Bible and/or God’s commands (see EMP Ch. 4 on the divine command theory).

If you’d like, you can do some independent research to find additional arguments for the wrongness of homosexuality beyond the 40+ from the handout. But, you must apply the logical skills we have developed to these arguments. And you must defend your view from the best objection(s) you can think of. To do this, you must think of the objections and respond to its. DO NOT IGNORE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOOK; IF THE BOOK DISCUSSES AN OBJECTION OR RESPONSE AND YOU IGNORE THIS, THEN THAT’S A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING THE CRITICAL DISCUSSION: YOU ARE IGNORING IT.

Your paper must have a short concluding paragraph also.

While you might want to refer to something discussed in the readings; you can do this, and you don't need to use some kind of fancy citation system. Just put the author and page number after the quote: e.g., (Rachels, p. 58), (Leiser, p. 34). All previous advice on writing and rules on doing your own thinking and writing apply. See previous assignments on writing and the syllabus for reminders.

Your intended audience has not read the readings or discussed these issues so you must explain things so that they understand. Put yourself in their shoes and make everything clear and well-organized for them.

PAPER 1

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

DUE Monday Feb 18 IN CLASS and submitted through http://turnitin.thomson.com/

4 – 5 pages, 12 pt font, double spaced, pages numbered and stapled. Put your name, email and class time at the top of the 1^st page, and give your paper a “real” title (not “paper 1”).

Your paper should be well organized, grammatically correct, and carefully written: you should follow all the advice you developed for yourself in your OPS writing assignment on how to write a philosophy paper. You should write to an audience who has *not* read the readings or is familiar with these issues, so you need to explain things so that they will understand. And you should try to explain everything in your own words.

First, re-read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper, as well as the relevant Vaughn chapters on writing.

For this assignment, you must argue for – that is, to give and defend reasons to believe –one of these conclusions:

(a) that female genital mutilation is morally wrong, i.e., morally impermissible, or

(b) that female genital mutilation not morally wrong, i.e., it is morally permissible.

To do this, you must explain the nature of this practice, i.e., briefly give the essential factual information about what’s involved in the practice. This should be no more than ½ a page. Your information should come from the Rachels’ text and/or the “What’s culture got to do with it?” article. Do not seek outside sources: this is not a research paper, it is an argumentative essay in moral philosophy.

You must present at least three reasons that are given in its favor, including an argument from moral relativism, i.e., what cultural relativists might say in defense of female genital mutilation. (You must carefully explain in your own words what the moral theory of “cultural relativism” is [note: it is not the list of 5 claims from Rachels, especially the claim that there are cultural differences: CR is not all those claims, it is only a few of them [which ones?]).

You must state and explain whether these reasons are good reasons in favor of female circumcision or female genital mutilation. So, to explain whether the argument defending FGM from cultural relativism is sound, so you must explain whether the moral theory of cultural relativism is true or not and why. You must give reasons and defend your reasons.

You must state and explain some of the best objections to circumcision / female genital mutilation, i.e., the reasons to think it’s wrong. You must explain whether these objections are good or not, i.e., whether they provide good reason to think that female genital mutilation is wrong or not.

In conclusion, you must explain whether you think the arguments for, or against, female genital mutilation are strongest and defend your views.

If you use quotations, you must use an official citation method. See Vaughn.

You should make an outline to make sure you address everything needed and in an organization that makes sense.

Finally, you must get a rigorous peer review from at least one of your classmates, submitted with your paper using this form here http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/peerreview.rtf and http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/11/peer-paren-t-rela-t-ive-review-shee-t.html

---

Some writing tips from Professor Nobis:

• The most common comments I write on papers are these: (1) What do you mean? and (2) Why think that? The first is in response to unclear claims: write clearly. The second is in response to claims that need defense: give reasons.
• Write in short sentences: if any longer sentence can be broken into two or more sentences, do it because it's easier to read then.
• Each paragraph should deal with one, and only one, topic. You should be able to say, "This paragraph is about this: _____."
• Omit all needless words and needless discussion. Your reader's time is valuable so don't waste it.
• Make sure everything is clear. Use simple words: no need for anything nebulous.
• Your papers should have a short introduction, culminating in a thesis, a main point, the point that your paper is supposed to defend. The most direct way of presenting this sort of thesis is this: "I will argue that _(short sentence here: 'all abortions are wrong', 'Dr. Doopy's argument against euthenasia is unsound,' etc.___."
• Your introductory paragraph, or a paragraph immediately after it, should give the reader an overview of what you will be doing in the paper. It should briefly explain the overall structure (e.g., "First I will ___ and then I will ____. Finally I will ______.")
• Omit anything totally obvious and uninformative (e.g., "This issue has been debated for hundreds of years."). Everyone already knows this, so don't waste time telling us what we already know.
• Don't write, "Well, _____." No "well's".
• Don't say, "'Mr. Bubbles feels that this is wrong." Say, he believes, or thinks, or (if he does) argues. His views are probably not his "feelings" or his emotional reactions.
• Also, no ' . . . ' unless you are shortening a quote. No "trailing off" in hopes that the reader will think what you are hoping they will think.
• Don't ask rhetorical questions. Make statements, don't ask questions. Your reader might answer your questions for you in ways you'd like. But if you do ask questions, make sure there is a question mark.
• It's OK to use "I". People use "I" to communicate clearly, so use it.
• "Arguments" are not people's conclusions. They are the conclusions and the reasons they give in favor of those conclusions.
• If I ask you to raise objections to a theory, argument, claim, or whatever, it's fine to raise objections that are discussed in our readings. What's not good, however, is to raise an objection that is discussed in the readings but the author responds to the objection and shows that it's not a good objection. If you raise this same objection, but do not discuss the author's response (and respond to that response), this suggests that you didn't do the reading very closely.
• If an author states a conclusion (or a main point) and gives reasons for it, then that author has given an argument. If an author has given an argument, do not say that the author has not given an argument: you might not have found the argument (yet), but the argument is still there! Keep looking!
• Keep focused and don't argue for more than you can give reasons for.
• You have succeeded in writing a paper if you can give that paper to a smart and critical someone who is not familiar with your topic and this person will understand the views and arguments you are discussing, as well as whatever criticisms you raise. You can do an empirical test to determine whether you are writing well, and it's basically just to see if others understand your writing! If not, you need to keep working at it.
• Finally, good writing, like many things, takes a lot of time. If you don't take the time to work at it, you probably won't do very well and you probably won't improve. I recommend writing something about double the length needed and then editing down and re-organizing and re-writing to remove the needless words, irrelevant distractions, and -- most importantly -- improve your statement of whatever argument you are trying to develop.
• Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is excellent, the section III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION is especially good:
  http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html
  

Paper 5

“There is perhaps no set of social issues on which otherwise sane people on either side of the question allow themselves to be so overwhelmingly irrational as in matters pertaining to the treatment of animals, and our moral obligations to them.” – Philosopher Bernard Rollin

PAPER 5: Topics: Racism, Sexism and Speciesism:

Is it Permissible to Harm Animals for Pleasure?

4-5 PAGES, DUE AT TIME OF THE FINAL, IN CLASS AND THROUGH TURNITIN

No late papers and no (late) papers accepted via email unless you have prior approval

Your paper should have a short introduction, a thesis (“I will argue that _____), and be well-organized, clear and readable to someone who is not familiar with these issues. Your paper’s claims should be carefully and thoughtfully defended: objections must be responded to with well-thought out reasons.

This paper focuses on you providing well-thought out, carefully-defended answers to these questions:

• Is the fur industry engaged in morally permissible behavior, or are they doing things that are morally wrong?
• Are the animal agribusiness industries engaged in morally permissible behavior, or are they doing things that are morally wrong?
• What, if any, are there any relations between these two questions? Does your view about the morality of the fur industry have logical implications for your view about the morality of the, e.g., meat industry, and vice versa?
• Should you personally support the fur industry? Should you personally support the meat (and related) industries?

To answer these questions, you must carefully present and explain the arguments by Peter Singer (the fundamental principle of equality, from “All Animals Are Equal,”) and John Simmons (from “Reasonable Humans and Animals” [online; handout]). Explain their arguments for the conclusion that – in our circumstances: i.e., modern America – it is wrong to raise and kill animals to wear them and to eat them. You must explain and defend your view on whether either of their main arguments are sound or not. Since thinking about moral problems involves applying moral principles to factual circumstances, you must briefly give some factual information about these industries and practices.

You must discuss at least five of what you think are the strongest and/or most common objections to arguments like Singer’s & Simmons. (Kant and Machan provide some of these arguments; others are from class and a handout). Fully explain how Singer and/or Simmons would respond to these objections. Explain whether these objections show that their arguments are unsound.

Note: if you discuss anything about nutrition science, you must provide the source of your information (i.e., the study’s citation) from PubMed from the National Library of Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ or our books. Random, anecdotal reports from various webpages are not a reliable source for scientific information: you need a reputable source

Some industry groups:
-- Fur Commission USA (http://www.furcommission.com/video/index.htm ).
-- National Animal Interest Alliance: http://naiaonline.org
-- Animal Agriculture Alliance: http://animalagalliance.org
Some pro-animal groups:
-- Compassion Over Killing: http://www.tryveg.com/
-- PETA TV: http://www.petatv.com/
-- Vegan Outreach http://www.veganoutreach.org/
-- www.Blackvegetarians.org

Suggested restaurant field trip, to ask for advice on how to answer these questions:
Soul Veg Restaurant: 879-A Ralph Abernathy Blvd. SW – Atlanta, (404) 752-5194
Soul Veg Restaurant: 652 North Highland - Atlanta, GA 30306 (404) 874-0145