A Brief Note On Companion Or Food?

In the article, “Let Them Eat Dog,” Jonathan Foer sheds light on a controversial topic, the consumption and breeding of dogs for food. Throughout Foer’s article he uses many different argumentative tactics in order to capture the reader’s attention on whether or not eating dogs should be considered morally. He uses three emotional tactics to establish his credibility and prove he knows the topic. The three tactics are ethos, pathos and logos Foer uses these three argumentative tools to convey his message across not only to prove eating dogs is wrong, but to take a stance on a bigger issue, the slaughtering of animals.

The final argument style I saw in this essay is directed towards the ethical standard behind the question. It’s interesting that with this topic, it really depends who your audience is. If this question was posed to different cultures across the world the ethical stance would be very different. There are plenty of cultures where eating what we consider domesticated animals is the norm and done with no emotional connection. Foer brings into question the ethical treatment of cows in slaughter houses. He brings into light the reports we have seen about how cruel some of the treatment is towards these animals and reminds us that as a whole we defend the practice of slaughter but we don’t defend the cruelty. So if there was a human way to extract and prepare the meat from dogs, could we then accept it, again, only approving the practice not the cruelty. He also drives from what we consider taboo. There is no law

Do animals have the right to a certain quality of life? How would your views change if our cooks got treated the same way cattle and poultry do? How would you feel about them being beaten and brought to their knees just to be detained to know how to cook todays specials? You might think that the food industry has no issues and no faults behind their tasty food, but when you open up the meat curtain, there is a different kind of world out there that is cruel and inhumane. In Robert Kenner’s 2008 film, Food, Inc., He shows the conditions that cows, chickens, and pigs have to live in. The dark and closeted homes in which the animals are closely compacted together and eating, sleeping, and walking in their own manure. As a person who would consider themselves an animal rights activist, most people would agree that the food industry treats their animals like products instead of living things.

Food dominates the lives of people. It is used as comfort and fuel. But the controversy is, what should people consume? Burkhard Bilger 's piece, Nature 's Spoils, explores the abnormal way of eating, which is the fermentation of food. It is usually a safe practice, and also produces vitamins in the making. The Omnivore 's Dilemma by Michael Pollan expresses the problem of how humans select food. In How Do We Choose What to Eat? by Susan Bowerman she points out the influences on people’s life that affects their eating habits. By using Bowerman’s article as the keystone, Nature’s Spoils and The Omnivore’s Dilemma can be compared and contrasted. Since the food that people consume daily can affect them in the future, it must be chosen carefully.

A man should never go through an animal for its nutrients, when that animal receive all of its nutrients from plants. One man such, author Wendell Berry, wrote " The Pleasures of Eating," published in 2017, and he argues that every individual should be educated in what happens to their food before it becomes food. Many people are oblivious to what harmful things animals are put through in order to one day become our meal. Berry's intended audience is every single human being who eats meat, and even those who do not. I know this because Berry mentions the importance of individuals understanding where their meat comes from and why they should not let animals be treated this way. Berry assumes that individuals would not like to be treated that way, so why should animals be treated this way. Berry's purpose in this piece is to inform all humans of what inhumane things are done to animals in order to provide as one of our temporary fills. Berry's writing is somewhat credible and valuable because he is currently a farmer and currently a writer, he gives personal viewpoints and few examples, and he provides emotional statements about animal cruelty.

Often, animals’ feelings and well being have been overlooked because society has instilled the idea that animals have no emotions. The Jungle describes animals as being a worker’s project that needs to be completed within a given time limit. After hogs entered Durham’s meat facility, they were chained by the ankles and abruptly tossed around the room; the only audible sound was the “high squeals and low squeals, grunts, and wails of agony”(Sinclair). The hogs anticipated in fear of what was to happen next, bred to be slaughtered for the greater good of humankind. Sinclair describes the workers carelessly

“Eating Animals” is written by Jonathan Safran Foer. This book was published on November 2, 2009. Jonathan Safran Foer is an American writer who is known for his novel, “Everything Is Illuminated”. In this book, Jonathan believes that those who eat meat are involved in the most horrifying crimes committed against animals. Foer Cleary admires his grandmother, who believes that you can never have too much food. Throughout the book, Foer also describes his grandmother’s favorite dish, chicken with carrots, even though he is a vegetarian. Foer cannot eat something that seems to cause him some distress. Throughout the book, Foer presents the conflict between cultural traditions involving meat traditions he wishes to share and his views as a vegetarian himself. Anyone who is a meat eater or even an animal lover, this is a must read book. This book is written with clarity, force and passion that will lead anyone to think carefully about eating animals and where it comes from.

According to Scruton, “Eating animals has become a test case for moral theory in Western societies,” and he believes that a moral life is set on three pillars: virtue, duty, value piety. Foer uses fishes and dogs, for example, in Eating Animals: people slam gaffs into fish, but no one in their right mind would do such a thing to a dog. Foer also mentions that fish are out there in the water doing what fish do, and dogs are with us. Dogs are our companions, and with that, we care about the things that are near and dear to us. In, “Consider the Lobster,” Wallace asks, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” Is it a personal choice to do so? PETA, of course, says no. Dick from the Maine Lobster Festival (MLF) argues that lobsters do not have the part of the brain that receives pain, which is a false statement anyhow. Goodrich (1969) says that a human’s life is worth so much more than an animal’s life. No matter how many animals there are, one human life is worth more.

Florida Atlantic University, Dept. of Psychology, Davie, FL 33314 USA [E-mail: wmckibbi@fau.edu, tshackel@fau.edu] The Omnivore’s Dilemma is the latest book by Michael Pollan, best known for his previous best‐ selling work, The Botany of Desire. Here, Pollan has crafted a well‐written and enjoyable  exploration of humans’ relationship with food. The book is written for a lay audience, but is  appreciable by all.    Pollan begins by focusing on a seemingly simple question,

Jonathan Foer, the author, uses “Eating Animals is Making us Sick” to illustrate his goal of how dangerous food is to the audiences health. Foer explains how there is a large quantity of zoonotic diseases in the food Americans consume and shows how much it can actually affect the consumer. Jonathan Foer argues animal consumption is hazardous to the health of Americans successfully because he uses the rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, and logos to show how much zoonotic diseases are in the meat. Jonathan Foer’s intended audience includes: parents, Americans, and people who have/ are sick due to a “food borne illness.” Everyone is not aware enough of how bad meat is treated before it hits the table.

As omnivorous beings, it seems that is both a blessing and a curse to have such a vast amount of meal choices to choose from. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan explores the majority of these options and offers a sort of guide on how to make a choice. The UC Berkeley Graduate School journalism professor takes us on an eye-opening ride with this book where we find out horrifying truths on the ingredients of the foods we eat every day and whether our choices benefit our bank accounts more than they do our health and the earth.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a comprehensive look into the present day food culture of the United States. Throughout the book the author tries to find out the true composition of the diet that is consumed by Americans on a daily basis. There is an excessive dependence by the American population on the government to know which food is good for them. This paper will critically analyze the book as well as the stance that the author has taken. Since there is a deluge of information about diets and health available today, the relevance of this well researched book in the present day world cannot be emphasized enough. Its relevance is not limited to the United States alone but to the entire human society which is moving towards homogenous food habits.

on the part of those who do not have any knowledge of the supposedly vicious breeds. A

In this book I have discovered many interesting facts that are in the book and how they are demonstrated in the classroom, and the lab. The book as though at times can be very dry to read, but is also in many ways have very interesting topics that can be used in daily life. The lab portion of the class showed us many ways to cook with many local foods, and keep the ingredients fresh and nutritious.

In “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner argues against the eating, or using, of animals and animal products. Steiner is the author of multiple books on topics similar to this, and a dedicated vegan of fifteen years at the time of this article. The author begins with an allusion to the recent outcries for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. However, he points out, no one seems to be concerned about the animals being slaughtered, merely that they were not abused beforehand. Steiner then goes on to explain the two main