"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" and "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

Being a vegetarian and animal rights activist who, for the most part, stands with PETA (depending on the circumstance) I agreed with their article about orangutans having human qualities. This resonates with my belief that wild animals should not be kept in captivity, unless for some sort of conservation effort. To me, it seems inhuman to keep animals in captivity solely for the purpose of human entertainment. Just like I have chosen to live without meat, I can also live without the entertainment of zoos and places like seaworld. As we compared Blackfish and Seaworld's argument yesterday, I compared both pieces about the Orangutan today. Like yesterday, I was surprised by the weakness of the argument that was written in response to the initial event. Just like Seaworld's response yesterday, I felt as if Wesley J. Smith had no substantial backing to his argument. If anything, it made me agree with PETA even more. He used phrases like "human exceptionalism has not been hit with a sledge hammer. But animal rights antihumanists will keep trying" and "their goal is to reduce us to just another animal in the forest". These are not statements that make me want to jump on his bandwagon, but rather do everything in my power to act against him. I think this is proof that he is not using effective rhetoric to argue his opinion. Instead the only people he will convince are the individuals who already believe in human exceptionalism to the extent that he does. I think PETA uses more effective and friendly language to draw a bigger crowd in. I believe that they have a higher potential to draw in a larger crowd than Wesley Smith does, and this is because they use effective rhetoric. Although my opinion may also be influenced by my preexisting agreement with PETA.