I am appauled at Mr. Clarkson’s attitude towards saving the tiger.
Tigers are sharing the earth with us and they aren’t as capable to look after themselves.
The shocking use of pun in the title, the use of an oxymoron “long-live extinction” really contradicts itself and is offensive to us animal fanatics.
Killing tigers for “illegal tiger parts” in china due to their belief that “tiger bones, claws and even penises will cure any number of ailments including arthritis and impotency. There is many issues I could state but the main reasons are that if people are ill there are many prescribe drugs to treat that specific illness, secondly of all its ILLEGAL to kill a tiger for its bones etc. and last of all on this subject, it has no scientific evidence that it helps or prevents arthritis and impotency so people could be murdering just because they “Believes” it helps.
Tigers are completely different species to dinosaurs and are from an entirely different time, they are like chalk and cheese. Dinosaurs died through natural not the effects of the human race’s actions. And accusing animal rescuers of cruelty to humans is just ridiculous as well as highly stupid but “animal rescuers “ the definition is in the name, their job is to save animals and there are people to look after ill or suffering animals and humans can look after one another, Mr. Clarkson was taking the jobs without compassion.
Mr. Clarkson questions conservationists, he refers to a vary of animals that he has never seen and then continues with a very harsh line of “so why should I care if my children never see a tiger?” which is very selfish and self centered, he then says “in fact come to think of it, if they’re on a gap year through the jungles of Burma I fervently hope they don’t” well If you wish your children not to see a tiger during a trek through Burma then don’t send them to the tigers territory of the jungle in which they are bound to stumble across a tiger.
Mr. Clarkson uses humor to mimic the reader and the sentimental value of the conservations, he directs the reader directly asking rhetorical questions in which we can’t reply to, and persuades us to admit that perhaps we did not “notice” and that it does not matter.
He insults eco-mentalists and uses a clever form of alliteration “ prattle on about the passing of the passenger pigeon” this emphasizes his disgusted, mocking tone.
Then the use of statistics to state the “24” animals found and to show that there “are literally millions more fish in the sea” and how life is not endangered but flourishing but we cant look after the small amounts of endangered species we have.
He then continues to argue that people ignore discovery of new species and paints the picture of how unappreciative our race is and refers to the world as “crying into its eco-handkerchief” but if someone doesn’t care for the planet then what will be left of it in years to come?
More exaggeration is added to emphasize animal lovers reaction to endangered species I quote “we are told that the polar bear is now at risk and as a result we’re all supposed to kill ourselves”.
The use of emotive language to portrait animals as uncivilized, unpleasant and dangerous refer to the beloved polar bear as a “big savage brute; the colour of nicotine, with a mean ugly pointy face and claws’ which is a over statement of the polar bear.
He applies that conservationists are ignorant and that he, Clarkson thinks that the only creatures in which matter are those in our social group and our children” in the content of this comment it is rude, ignorant and considering if the tiger was to die out it would effect our species just as the rest because of them being such a main and big part of our food chain.
I want to let you know that we eco-mentalists do not appreciate many things as Clarkson says,but we appreciate the quality and beauty in life not the fast cars and designer brands!