Korjaukset

Text from Manonsrz - English

  • Animals

    • The law adopted on 28th January 2015 could be criticized because it appears clearly that it is linked with domestic animals (pets), but what about wild animals or farm, like cow farm, chicken farm, fish... ?
    • With this law, it seems that all animals are sensitives.
    • « Sensitive » means that they feel pain when you strike them.
    • So, what impact this law could have regarding to animals that we eat everyday ?
    • Logically, we should never kill any animal and not eating meat, everyone should be vegetarian.
    • But it is impossible because we need protein, and the food chain has placed human on top, it's life !
    • Moreover, french culture is made like this : we eat a lot of meat.
    • The UMP political party criticized this law because it could be dangerous for future of farming.
    • Indeed, people who defend animal rights hope a change of mentalities because of this law, but this change could be arrived to the detriment of humans, of farmers, who could'nt survive.
    • Of course, in a perfect and naive world, a life (here animal life) can appear most important than money : but in reality some animals are dependent on humans so, when humans haven't enough money to give foods to treat them when they are sick, humans decide to kill them because there isn't solution.
  • So, animals and money are really linked.
    • It is important to highlight the fact that you would not have the same reaction if now, I'm killing a naughty wild boar or a chicken, a fish.. or if I'm killing a cute and little baby cat.
    • However, they are animals alike, isn't it ?
    • So, we think that this new law is only based of affection for pets, is really biased because it will invoked only for a kind of animals.
    • The goal is to matching public opinion who is shocked when a pet is killed, and law, but without reflecting on the fact that it makes no sense on reality!
    • Moreover, if animals are sensitive, why hunting is allowed ?
    • A lot of hunters kill animals for pleasure, because they loved this activity.
    • So, if animals feel feelings, they feel fear when an hunter shoot to kill them.
    • This law would give birth to a lot of paradox.
    • Indeed, hunting is efficient to avoid overpopulation of some kind of animal, so it is necessary to not push it on extreme.
    • The sensitivity of animals is really difficult to understand : would the animals have a consciousness of themselves, of their facts?
    • If we say “yes”, that implied that we can remove responsability for things on the civil Code, animals have the responsability of themselves so they could assume their acts and a stag could be convicted to cause an accident... Stupid, right?

PLEASE, HELP TO CORRECT EACH SENTENCE! - English

  • Otsikko
  • Lause 1
    • The law adopted on 28th January 2015 could be criticized because it appears clearly that it is linked with domestic animals (pets), but what about wild animals or farm, like cow farm, chicken farm, fish... ?
      Äänestä nyt!
    • The law adopted on 28th January 2015 could be criticized because it appears clearly that it is linked with domestic animals (pets), but what about wild animals or farm animals, like cow farm, chicken farm, fish... ?
    • The law adopted on 28th January 2015 could be criticized because it appears clearly that it isas it is clearly linked withto domestic animals (pets), but what about wild animals or farm, like cow farmignores wild or farm animals, such as cows, chicken farm,, and fish... ?
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 1ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 1
  • Lause 2
  • Lause 3
  • Lause 4
  • Lause 5
  • Lause 6
  • Lause 7
  • Lause 8
  • Lause 9
    • Indeed, people who defend animal rights hope a change of mentalities because of this law, but this change could be arrived to the detriment of humans, of farmers, who could'nt survive.
      Äänestä nyt!
    • Indeed, people who defend animal rights hope for a change of mentalities because of this law, but this change could be arrived to the detriment of humans, of farmers, who could'ntwon't be able to survive.
    • Indeed, people who defend animal rights hope for a change of mentalities becauseas a result of this law, but this change could be arrived to the detriment of humans, ofsuch as farmers, who could'n't survive without farming meat.
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 9ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 9
  • Lause 10
    • Of course, in a perfect and naive world, a life (here animal life) can appear most important than money : but in reality some animals are dependent on humans so, when humans haven't enough money to give foods to treat them when they are sick, humans decide to kill them because there isn't solution.
      Äänestä nyt!
    • Of course, in a perfect and a naive world, a life (here animal life) can appear most important than money : but in reality some animals are dependent on humans, so, when humans haven't enough money to give foods to treat them when they are sick, humans decide to kill them because there isn't any solution.
    • Of course, in a perfect and, naive world, a life (here animal life) can appearthe life of an animal), would be mostre important than money : but. However in reality, some animals are dependent on humans, so, when humans haven't enough money to give foodsfeed them or to treat them when they are sick, humans decide to kill them because there isn't another solution.
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 10ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 10
  • Lause 11
  • Lause 12
    • It is important to highlight the fact that you would not have the same reaction if now, I'm killing a naughty wild boar or a chicken, a fish.. or if I'm killing a cute and little baby cat.
      Äänestä nyt!
    • It is important to highlight the fact that you would not have the same reaction if now, I'm killing a naughty wild boar or a, chicken, or a fish.. or, in comparison to if I'm killing a cute and little baby catkitten.
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 12ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 12
  • Lause 13
  • Lause 14
    • So, we think that this new law is only based of affection for pets, is really biased because it will invoked only for a kind of animals.
      Äänestä nyt!
    • So, we think that this new law is only based out of affection for pets, is really biased because it will be invoked only for a kind of animals.
    • So, we think that this new law is only based ofn affection for pets, and is really biased because it will only be invoked only for a certain kind of animals.
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 14ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 14
  • Lause 15
    • The goal is to matching public opinion who is shocked when a pet is killed, and law, but without reflecting on the fact that it makes no sense on reality!
      Äänestä nyt!
    • The goal is to matching public opinion who isare shocked when a pet is killed, and law, but without reflecting on the fact that it makes no sense on reality!
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 15ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 15
  • Lause 16
  • Lause 17
  • Lause 18
  • Lause 19
  • Lause 20
    • Indeed, hunting is efficient to avoid overpopulation of some kind of animal, so it is necessary to not push it on extreme.
      Äänestä nyt!
    • Indeed, hunting is efficient to avoid overpopulation of some kind of animals, so it is necessary to not push it ontowards the extreme.
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 20ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 20
  • Lause 21
    • The sensitivity of animals is really difficult to understand : would the animals have a consciousness of themselves, of their facts?
      Äänestä nyt!
    • The sensitivity of animals is really difficult to understand : would the animals have a consciousness ofabout themselves, of their facts?
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 21ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 21
  • Lause 22
    • If we say “yes”, that implied that we can remove responsability for things on the civil Code, animals have the responsability of themselves so they could assume their acts and a stag could be convicted to cause an accident... Stupid, right?
      Äänestä nyt!
    • If we say “yes”, that implieds that we can remove responsaibility forom the things on the civil Code, animals have the responsaibility of themselves so they could assume their acts and a stag could be convicted to cause an accident... Stupid, right? ¶
    • ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 22ADD a NEW CORRECTION! - Lause 22