Pathos And Cons Of Meat

A happy sunny farm versus a dark and bloody slaughter room. This is where most naive young children think where their meat comes from versus the reality. The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a book with a purpose to educate people about their food system so they can make informed choices. The three writing techniques Michael Pollan uses to persuade his readers are ethos, pathos and logos. He uses the method ethos by making his readers think he is a reliable and credible source. He uses pathos by evoking an emotional response from the readers. Michael Pollan uses logos to appeal to logic and reason. The persuasive techniques ethos, pathos and logos used by Michael Pollan helped him to convince his readers to feel plus think a certain

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.

Vegan or Go Home!”, Sarah Breslaw asserts veganism as the answer to curbing environmental concerns. Breslaw makes a clear argument in her thesis and explains both negative and positive aspects of veganism but ultimately succumbs to logical fallacies, faulty sourcing and evident subjectivity which weaken her claim.

Alastair Norcross’s essay “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” explores the issue of animal rights. The essay explores a scenario which prompts a compelling argument against factory-raised animals and how the meat we consume on a daily bases comes at a sharp price. In addition, several counterarguments are presented throughout the essay.

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.

Following a vegetarian diet means eating no meat, and sometimes, no animal products at all. Many Americans scoff at the idea of cutting out meat from their diet, but Kathy Freston writes an effective argument on why people should be vegetarians in her selection, “Vegetarian Is the New Prius”. Her argument focuses around the negative effects eating meat has on the globe (like global warming), and offers another logical option: going vegetarian. First, Freston establishes her ethos by appearing as someone that is concerned about the future of the earth, and someone that has completed extensive research due to the statistics she uses. Next, she acknowledges the fact that there are other ways to slow down global warming-like buying a Prius-but

In “Eating Well vs. Being Good’ the author, David Katz, addresses the ethics of eating animals. The writer believes that being a vegetarian/ vegan is found to be healthier than being a carnivore. The writer also argues that animals are just like humans and have the same rights as us. He ends the passage with statements that infer that everyone should be on a plant based diet.

To improve their articles support, the writers for Vegan Outreach should rely mainly on logos to back up their claim that animal consumption is morally wrong and that they should switch to a less cruel alternatives to source food. Although the authors do originally provide evidence throughout the text, their argument is poorly constructed. For example, in one case Vegan Outreach used a statistic without indicating from where they attained the statistic “...[b]y avoiding the meat of chickens, turkeys, and pigs, you can prevent the suffering of more than two thousand of these animals during your lifetime!” (11). The initial issue with Vegan Outreach’s document is that it fails to reference their work, the second issue is that it does little to reference the sample statistics of other animals, which makes their application of logos unreliable. In addition, this example statistic is not their

For centuries, man has relied on animals for clothing, food, and transportation. However, the recent increase in technological advancements has been accompanied by a rise of animal consumption. Currently, the average person consumes an exceptional amount of meat each year. In order to compensate for this, an overwhelming amount of changes has enveloped the meat industry. Animals aren’t raised, they are manufactured. Eric Schlosser, the author of “Fast Food Nation” uses imagery, understatements, and short sentences when describing his visit to a meat packing plant to develop his argument against the inhumaneness of the meat industry.

To eat or not to eat, is that really the question? One devoted rancher/essayist, Linda Hasselstrom, confronts this very idea in her essay from the book, 80 Readings for Composition. The piece was written in 1991, titled “The Cow versus the Animal Rights Activist,” during a time when ranchers and the meat industry were under fire by both animal activists for the inhumane treatment of cattle and by environmentalists for the immense amounts of energy waste and pollution. Hasselstrom uses pertinent substance, though sometimes bias, to shed light on the misconceptions about ranchers and their place in the cattle industry. She aims to unite the concerns of the activists on the side of the ranchers so they can work together

The consumption of meat over recent decades has become more than just a means of nutrition for the body, but also a game of hunting animals for recreation and sport. Along with the popularization of hunting animals for sport came the early endangerment and extinction of certain species. With this hobby the question arose, is it ethical to hunt and or eat meat? After reading “Consider the Lobster” written by David Foster Wallace, a person may consider the history any meat goes through before it is ready for consumption. However, the consumption of meat is seen as a normal thing to do on a daily basis, especially in America because our meals are typically centered around the meat being the main item of the meal. After reading “Ethics and the

After reading both articles, I have to say I am compelled to believe Joel Salatin’s response to “Myth of Sustainable Meats” written by James E. McWilliams. I think Joel Salatin uses many more pieces of evidence in his argument, and also does a very good job using facts to prove McWilliam’s statements are false. It seems that every statement he makes is backed up by a fact. It also seems that Salatin is extremely offended by McWilliam’s claims and even writes “apparently if you lie often and big enough, some people will believe it” (Salatin). I think Salatin is offended because McWilliams makes it seem that every company does everything wrong, when some companies are actually doing things the right way. McWilliams generalizes too often

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

“Every time we sit at a table to enjoy the fruits and grain and vegetables from our good earth, remember that they come from the work of men and women and children who have been exploited for generations.” These words of Cesar Chavez, co-founder of the United Farm Workers, perfectly describe the injustice farm workers face in producing our food and including humans when talking about cruelty free. Conversations surrounding notions of vegetarianism as inherently cruelty free seldom incorporate the advocacy of more rights for farm workers. As a conflicted meat eater, I can concede that the fight for vegetarianism is honorable and consuming fewer animal products would be beneficial for our society, however, promoting meat-free meals and products as “cruelty free” mistakenly limits the cruelty of the food production system to animals. Comparatively, our food production system also exploits factory farm workers, a point also overlooked in conversations regarding ethical eating. Ultimately, the fundamental problem with vegetarianism is the cruelty free platform, that too often ignores the inhumane working conditions of farm workers. That being so, not eating meat does not place you above everyone else on the moral scale or mean you practice cruelty free when exploited laborers in our food production system, most of whom are undocumented, do not have their liberation.

It’s impossible to deny that mankind’s way of living is destructive and unsustainable. However, people have been attempting to find new, more sustainable ways to live. One of those ways are changing the eating habits of mankind. In the last few years, many have purposed an organic, vegan diet as the solution for a better way to feed the world, while limiting the impact on the environment. Though the organic/vegan diet may be best for the environment, problems of ethics and practicality arise when it’s applied in the real world. So, while it may be plausible option it should not be the only one considered.