Sprawdzenie rozprawki

Temat przeniesiony do archwium
Witam, byłabym ogromnie wdzięczna za sprawdzenie rozprawki za i przeciw na temat:

Animals used for entertainment

It cannot be denied that animals are used in a variety of ways to provide human entertainment. Already in ancient Roman circuses spectators were amused with suffering and dying lions, tigers, elephants etc. Despite the activity of numerous organisations aimed at fighting against abusing animals, people visiting zoos or circuses are constantly convinced that animals are treated as though they were celebrities and the rumours about maltreatment and starvation are believed to be put about by touchy members of PETA, the non-profit animal rights organisation. At this point it has to be mentioned that there are both many supporters and opponents of this issue.

One very convincing argument in favour of using animals as entertainment is the fact that endangered species are rescued and therefore there is a possibility that although they are taken away from their natural habitat, they will not be extinct in a near future. In their territories, somewhere in Africa or Australia, they might die out due to other predators or ruthless poachers. It is even claimed that ‘a job’ in a circus or zoo is a kind of salvation for them as their only task is to attack enough attention of visitors and it is a real sacrifice in comparison with suffering they might have experienced staying in their homeland.

Secondly, there are some opinions, sometimes perceived as radical, that animals have been created in order to serve people and not to be treated equally. Humans are strongly believed to be higher in the hierarchy and for this reason it is widely maintained that there is nothing inappropriate in the fact that animals are abused in circuses or during races. On the contrary, it is even said to be natural.

On the other hand, some people refute the mentioned advantages, claiming that they are absurd. Undeniably animals in circuses are maltreated behind the scene, beaten in an effort to make them behave accordingly, and nobody really sees how they are forced to perform all tricks in order to please spectators. They spend most of their lives chained inside boxcars and are never really free, as they would in their natural habitat. Apart from this, zoos breed animals because they want to have babies to a showcase, and in case an animal is less popular, it is shipped or even killed and finally replaced with the other one.

A common criticism of using animals as entertainment is based on the belief, that they are accustomed to their homeland, particular climate, food, vegetation etc. and therefore the life in the other environment is a life of misery for them. It may be stated that not only are they harmed physically, but also mentally. Even some experts are convinced that animals, just like people, are likely to be sensitive to such changes of places. Even if they are not imported from abroad, cages or cramped and damp spaces are not suitable for them.

By and large, the issue of abusing animals in circuses, zoos, racings etc. divides many people and stirs up controversy. It is a typically ethical problem and it depends mostly on somebody’s upbringing, character and compassion how they act with animals. Personally, I perceive forcing animals to perform by maltreating them as savage. Although some zoos are claimed to help them to survive, I do not really believe in it. To my mind animals ought to stay in their natural habitat and people should not try to change the nature.
Already in ancient Roman 'circuses' (nie, tutaj 'circus') spectators were amused with suffering and dying lions, tigers, elephants 'etc' (no jakie zwierze, w Roman Times nazywalo sie 'etc' - nie znam takiego). Despite the activity of numerous organisations aimed at 'fighting' (za silne slowo) against (brak przedimka) abusing animals, people visiting zoos or circuses (tutaj mi brakuje do kogo to sie odnosi, nie jest jasne) are constantly convinced that animals are treated as though they were celebrities and the rumours about maltreatment and starvation are believed to be put about by 'touchy' (poszukaj inne slowo, bo nie jest jasne co to znaczy) members of PETA, the non-profit animal rights organisation. At this point it has to be mentioned that there are both many supporters and opponents of 'this' (ale ja nie wiem o jaka issue tutaj chodzi) issue.

One very convincing argument in favour of using animals as entertainment is the fact that endangered species are rescued and therefore there is a possibility that although they are taken away from their natural habitat, they will not be extinct in 'a' THE (bo future to jest tylko jedna) near future. In their 'territories' (dla mnie lepiej pasuje 'natural habitat), somewhere in Africa or Australia, they might die out due to other predators or ruthless poachers. It is even claimed that ‘a job’ in a circus or zoo is a kind of salvation for them as their only task is to 'attack' (zle slowo, nie o tym myslalas) enough attention of visitors and it is a 'real sacrifice' (tego nie rozumiem) in comparison with (brak przedimka) suffering they might have experienced staying in their homeland.

On the contrary, it is even said THAT THIS IS 'to be' (niepotr) natural.

Undeniably animals in circuses are maltreated behind the scene, beaten in an effort to make them behave accordingly, and nobody really sees how they are forced to perform all (brak przedimka) tricks in order to please (brak przedimka) spectators. They spend most of their lives chained inside boxcars and are never really free, as they would BE in their natural habitat. Apart from this, zoos breed animals because they want to have 'babies' (poszukaj inne slowo, moze 'offspring') 'to' (dla mnie to lepiej IN) a showcase, and in case an animal is less popular, it is shipped or even killed and finally replaced with 'the other' (nie, tutaj 'another') one.

A common criticism of using animals as entertainment is based on the belief, that they are accustomed to their homeland, particular climate, food, vegetation 'etc' (prosze tego nie uzywac, bo ja nie wiem co masz na mysli, jak to 'animals are accustomed to etc' - co to znaczy?). and therefore the life in the 'other' (mozesz napisac 'natural') environment is a life of misery for them.

By and large, the issue of abusing animals in circuses, zoos, 'racings' (races) 'etc' (nie rozumiem jak mozna 'abuse animals in etc' - co to jest?). divides many people and stirs up controversy. It is a typically ethical problem and it depends mostly on somebody’s upbringing, character and compassion AND how they act with animals.
To my mind animals ought to stay in their natural habitat and people should not try to change 'the' (nie rozumiem dlaczego dajesz 'the' przed nature.) nature.