preview

Animal Agriculture Persuasive Speech

Decent Essays

How Would You Like It? Your sitting down to dinner; it’s a home cooked meal. There are sides of mashed potatoes, green beans, yams, and macaroni and cheese. Your drink of choice being soda, and for dessert ice cream. I almost forgot the star of the show, a T-bone steak.As you enjoy this luscious meal with your family and friends, you laugh, smile, and are thankful for the individuals around you. In addition you are thankful for the food you are cosumering, but did you stop and think for one second that you are consuming someone's mother, father, child, or cousin? I’m pretty sure you didn’t. Human beings predominantly see animals as food; except in the case of your family cat, dog, or snake to just name a few. Animals such as pigs, cows, and …show more content…

Due to the mass amount of intake, humans have cause climate change, excess water use, waste of land, and have harm oceans. Roughly 51 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to animal agriculture. It takes over 3,500 gallons of water to amass one gallon of milk. In the United States alone, 56 million acres of land are reserve for the use of growing feed for the animals that we consume. Lastly, because of commercial fishing coral reefs are becoming extinct (PETA). As a result, PETA demands that we take responsibility for our action and follow a planted based or vegan diet. To try to reverse the effects of the Western diet. According to a study done that, if the United States went vegan researchers found that, “ 23 percent increase in the amount of food available—mainly in grains—and a 28 percent decrease in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. However, they only found a 2.6 percent decrease in overall greenhouse gas emissions” (Mandelbaum). The study displays that in actuality we would be producing more food than we waste by going vegan. One would think, if the whole United States went vegan we would be killing more plants, because we are consuming more of them…but it is just the opposite. With production mainly being from grains; which in turn are so much better for your health, than a piece of steak. In addition, the percentage of greenhouse gases would decrease a hefty amount; almost ¼ …show more content…

The authors acknowledges that, “ PETA seeks any media attention regardless of whether is positive or negative, and utilizes the potential shock value of media to popularize it's cause, name or point” (Matusitz, Jonathan and Forrester). Any attention is good attention, even negative for PETA. Negative attention is actually more beneficial to them, because controversial will always capture the notice of others more than positive. As a result, more followers; and more followers equates more lives of animals saved. At the end of the day, PETA is controversial, because they want to get their point across & the only way to accomplish this is through controversy. What gets attention nowadays one might ask is….scandal! News outlines won’t just cover anything; it has to be juicy. Individuals won’t tweet nor post about something per say that is boring; it has to be mind-boggling. Somehow, PETA has managed to create shock value since day one; and once one sees a PETA advert one cannot ever forget. Their adverts, protests, and PSA’s for the most part are grotesque. They include carcass of dead animals, shaming those who are overweight or obese, exploit the female body, and hence on to name a few. Take the case of the controversial advert of a baby smoking. This advert was created in October 2015 in Iowa. It’s message being that “you wouldn’t let your child smoke. Like smoking, eating meat causes heart disease and cancer”

Get Access