Pamela Anderson Peta Ad Rhetoric Analysis

Through the analysis of PETA’s visual rhetoric in their “I’d Rather Go Naked,” campaign, the group’s inability to catalyze behavioural change in their target audience can be largely attributed to conflicts involving sexual

The commercial by ASPCA has one message, and that is to protect and better the condition of life for national, farm, and wild animals. ASPCA is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to animals. They have a mission, that is to rescue, save and help animals all around North America because there are way too many cases of animal cruelty and neglect. Sarah McLachlan makes an argument about animals being abused and neglected, and how we can change that by a mere donation. This argument persuades the audience with the small videos and pictures in the background showing sad, hurt, and neglected animals that need a home with owners who will love and take care of them.

The truth about PETA, is that they do not want all animals to roam free. They want the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering. They would like people to adopt animals from pounds or animal shelters, rather than buying from pet shops or breeders. They do claim to be the number one animal activist groups out there. Are they who they claim to be? What they don't advertise, is that

Personally I think that this is a terrible way to advertise something. The only problem is that all companies advertise the same way. What I realized when looking at many advertisements is I noticed all of the different angles advertising companies use are all very similar. That way is to use sex to sell anything and

“For most humans, especially for those in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form or contact with non-human animals is at meal time: we eat them. This simple fact is the key to what each one of us can do about changing these attitudes. The use and abuse of animals raised for food far exceeds, in sheer numbers of animals affected, any other kind of mistreatment” (Coats). The most effective method to stop this cruelty is to learn about where the meat comes from, by supporting the organic and family farms which will ultimately lead to the reducing the amount of animals that have to suffer (PETA). More than 95 percent of animal abuse in America occurs in the meat packing industry (Harper & Low). Animals suffer an unimaginable amount, they are raised to be killed, then bought and then consumed. In order to help fight back against the abuse, there needs to be a cut back on the amount of meat or poultry that is consumed. Seriously consider the option of becoming a vegetarian; by not eating meat, you completely stop supporting animal

The ASPCA announcement uses the rhetorical devices, logos and ethos to convince its audience to donate. Logos is the appeal to logic, and ethos is the appeal to morals. The commercial states facts about how thousands of animals are abused every day. It states that a small donation of only eighteen dollars a month can make a big difference by providing many different forms of aid to the animals. The ASPCA advertisement translates this to sixty cents a day to show how small the donation really is. This is somewhat of a logical and ethical appeal. It appeals logically to the audience because for just a small monetary donation the viewer can help save abused and neglected animal from their abusers and provide medical care, food, shelter and love. This shows that the donation can be used in many essential ways to care for the animal, and that their donation is responsible for giving the animals a second chance. This too is an ethical appeal because donating will make the viewer feel like a good, virtuous person because they contributed to an important cause. One the other hand if they don’t decide to donate they may a have a burden on their conscience because not that much money is needed to help make a big difference. In other words the viewer may feel like an unethical and bad person. The advertisement goes on to state that if you donate then you will receive a welcome kit that contains a t-shirt, wristband, and a photo of an animal that has been given a second chance because of you. All of this is a further amplification of the logical reason to donate to the ASPCA. The advertisement also uses ethos by having the Grammy winning artist Sarah Mclachlan as the speaker. Sarah seems to speak very truly and caringly about the ASPCA as she pets a dog that’s in her lap. This makes the audience feel like Sarah truly cares about the treatment of animals. As a

But I wouldn’t try to impose my choices on other people. Consuming meat is one’s choice but where we buy it from and how they treat the animals, that’s one thing we can change. After watching the videos, no one would feel comfortable picking up meat from their local grocery store. Yes, as human we deiced to eat other animals (after all its survival of the fittest) but there are much more humane ways of going about it. Many religions use clean, swift cut through the carotid artery and other veins (like Halal meat for Muslims) rather than breaking the neck of a chicken and leaving in paralyzed or shoving rod in a turkey.

PETA, an animal rights organization, has been known over the past several decades to post racy ads. In June of 2013, PETA launched an ad with the purpose of getting its audience to go vegan. The ad is a photo of a toddler with a lit cigar in his mouth with the quote next to it, “You Wouldn’t Let Your Child Smoke. Like smoking, eating meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer”. The ad included “Go vegan!” in the bottom right corner with the organizations logo next to it. PETA is trying to send a message to its viewers to stop eating animals. The attention drawing ad evokes an emotional response, contains logical reasoning and is from a credible source.

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

Furthermore, I distinctively believe that this ad relies heavily on pathos to attract buyers. I believe this because sometimes people, women especially, believe that they are too overweight or too slim to look good in

​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.

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

In today’s society, our bodies have become the front image in all aspect of our lives.. Healthy living styles and tips have exploded all over media across the United States. Veganism is one of the upcoming lifestyles that thousands of families around the countries have adopted into their eating habits. Beyond the health benefits of cutting out any and all animal products, veganism has become the face to animal abuse, especially in the produce, handbag, and makeup industry. Companies like People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) create projects and advertisements to encourage people to go vegan. Recently, PETA has connected with Traci Bingham,a famous TV actor, to launch a digital and poster advertisement. The advertisement displays Bingham’s naked body painted like the parts of farm factory animals used for produce in supermarkets. The advertisement “All animals have the same parts” seeks to use ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos to argue that animals such as cattle have the same body parts as people, and therefore are of equal value to human. Traci Bingham’s credibility with the sponsorship of PETA use the image of a naked woman to draw the desire of veganism to both men and women in an era of health, fitness, and equality.

Animal cruelty continues to plague the meat and dairy industry and a policy to reverse this is enacting stricter regulations on meat and dairy labels that explicitly state the additives and preservatives used on the product. Moreover, my policy will persuade people to purchase meat and dairy that is ethically raised and is not made with preservatives or additives, this is my value of health. Moreover, my policy is for those who eat meat and dairy and are unaware of the health side affects of consuming it and the animal cruelty that goes into producing a piece of meat or glass of milk, which encompasses my value of compassion. We are a compassionate species who turns the channel during an ASPCA commercial. We root for Nemo, Babe and Bambi yet we watch the movie whilst eating fish, pork or venison. The hypocrisy is unbelievable yet not talked about. Most Americans do not recognize this link between our compassion and the animals we eat and the hypocrisy that surrounds it. In this essay I address the compassion humans posses and how it is being wiped out through eating meat and dairy. I also address how we have the potential to rid the meat and dairy industry of the abuse. I will also discuss how meat and dairy is detrimental to our health.

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