Bereenz Against Meat

The article was well-written and it’s a narrative and argumentative article although the author argument appears to be more ethical rather rational. The article begin in an unexpected way which is telling stories about his life he mentioned his grandmother which adds to the argument an high emotional tone but his calls to the reasons are weak. The main idea of the article was understood and it supported with personal experience overall, the article was well structured and the language used in the article was simple and informal although he clearly supported one side of the argument which is we shouldn’t harm animals also Foer ignores the fact animals protein is essential for humans so it seems little bit unfair and biased. Foer appeals repeatedly to emotionally tone, to raise compassion to creatures Foer attempts to inspire compelling feelings in the audience. The article contained huge amount of pathos due to the fact he shares his own personal story about his childhood memories how he admires his grandmother and her special dish chicken with carrot, his teenagers years as a confused teen searching for his identity leading to meeting his wife and having first baby. He sometimes appealed to logos by stating some facts “According to an analysis of U.S.D.A data by the advocacy group farm forward, factory farms now produce more than 99 percent of the animals eaten in this

The typical American diet is Omnivorism. This word defines the diet of someone who eats animal products such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, and any item with animal byproducts in it. For many years

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

The meat industry today is not what it was nearly a century ago. While improvements are thought to have been made, an ever changing society has brought upon new problems that have been piled on to the previously existing ones. While these problems are not like those found in The Jungle, they do parallel how by exposing what is going on in the meat industry; new regulations would be the answer to the noted problems. The increased demand for meat has made it a rushed mutated production instead of a means to raise livestock for consumers. Taking into consideration the demand for cheap meat that will be used for in quick and high demanded products such as frozen and fast food, this demand of meat has greatly skyrocketed. Animals whose sole

“Meats, Dairies, and Eggs, Oh Why” (2014) is an argumentative essay written by Rebecca Dent that explains the benefits of eating a plant-based diet and advocates for the better treatment of the animals affected by the meat industry. Dent supports her assertions by discussing the negative health effects of an omnivorous diet, addressing reasons some might be hesitant to convert to a plant-based diet, describing the advantages of substituting meat for vegetables for both the consumers and the animals, and finally, by including expert opinions and statistical facts. Dent’s purpose for this essay is to highlight the benefits of vegetarianism in order to convince readers to convert to a plant-based diet. The intended audience for this argument is those who currently eat an omnivorous diet so that they would assess and change their eating habits.

This presentation is structured as followed; We will begin by examining the environmental effects of the meat industry in land degradation, atmosphere, climate, water and biodiversity, We then will conclude with impacts we can make to change.

In his essay, “Against Meat”, found in the They say/I say readings, author Jonathon Safron Foer analyzes how he became a vegetarian and how it affected his future lifestyle. Foer delves into his childhood and explains what caused him to become vegetarian, as well as the people that influenced his decision. He also discusses the importance of what pursuing this type of lifestyle can do for those that decide to follow his footsteps. Although meat may contain types of protein and other favorable aspects, Foer and others argue that, in the long run, abstaining from meat provides to be more beneficial for your health.

The author of this work also is very knowledgeable on this topic because it is his area of expertise through much research and studying. While Yount is using questions from undergraduate students, they are easily understood questions. This article adds value to my research paper because it brings the humanity of eating meat into the equation. So as my research essay moves from the human biological need, or lack thereof, to consume meat, this article will help me bridge the gap because of the wide variety of opinions and facts that are presented within it.

*Vegans or vegetarians, appearing as the better group of eaters in the world, have their own diet that may be seen as a higher act of respecting food but it is just as equal as eating animals. It is hard to escape the “wrongness” of eating such as the killing process or how the food is assembled for human consumption. *Vegans, focus on eating foods that do not include any animal meat such as soybean based tofu, however they miss the fact that foods like that still come from the same field where animals were extinguished. (Source B). Whether it would be plants or animals, both of them still lose their living aspect to be eaten. Foods that do not involve animal meat, such as the soy bean based

It’s no secret that American families cherish their pets. Fish, dogs, and cats are part of the average American household. With so many families adopting pets nowadays, why do they turn around and eat other animals? Although many people enjoy eating meat, people should eliminate it from their diet. There are many reasons for this claim, such as the treatment of the animals, the benefits vegetarianism has on health, and the effect that factory farms has on the environment.

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.

Consumption of meat by humans creates several problems. First and foremost, raising animals for food compromises the environment. For example, it takes a large amount of natural resources to sustain the meat industry. The use of water, land, and food to raise animals for human consumption is not an efficient use of our limited resources. In contrast, it is more efficient to feed humans directly than to use land, food, and water to feed animals to be used as food. There are shortages of fertile land, clean water, and food in several third world countries. Many of these countries’ resources are allocated to produce feed for animals in developed countries around the world. As a result, the citizens of these countries are stricken with water and food shortages, while their crops are feeding cattle from across the globe. However, this problem can be solved by adopting a vegan diet. The vegan diet will allow a more efficient use of resources that in turn can be used to feed starving men, women, and children throughout the world. Consequently, more people in the world could be fed if the land used to grow feed for animals was used to grow food for humans.

Whether it be because of religion, culture, or personal choice, millions of people worldwide do not eat meat, and the majority of the population, the omnivores, often ridicule these people, the vegetarians, for their choices. This has sadly created a divide between thousands of people, however the cause of this separation is simple. One side, whether it be the omnivores or the vegetarians, feels the need to impose its choices onto the other side. Both sides are at fault here, as the omnivores tell the vegetarians that they cannot get proper nutrients from a plant-based diet, and the vegetarians try to tell the omnivores that they are torturing animals by killing them for food. The omnivores are wrong because, while it does require careful planning, vegetarians can easily get the nutrients they need, and the vegetarians are hypocritical because, as the article will show, farming kills thousands of creatures.