Rocky Lewycky And Animal Cruelty

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (1 September 2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how “... researchers are finding [is] that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we imagined.” (Rifkin 61). Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as “They [animals] feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love -- and these findings are changing how we view animals. ”(Rifkin 61). This suggests a pathos and logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s understanding and knowledge in changing our perspective of the inhumane and inequality treatment that non domestic animals receive. Rifkin’s use of pathos and logos appeals is to

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.

Our nation’s industrial farming has become more than just feeding people; it has become a way for the food industry to make more money as human population continues to grow. Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals, illustrates the effects factory farming has had on animals meant for human consumption. Furthermore, Foer asks many questions to the reader on what will it take for us to change our ways before we say enough is enough. The questions individuals need to be asking themselves are: how do we deal with the problem of factory farming, and what can people do to help solve these issues? Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, also illustrates the animal abuse that goes unseen within the food industry as well as Bernard Rollin and Robert Desch in their article “Farm Factories”, both demonstrate what is wrong today with factory farming. Foer gives such examples of employees who work in slaughterhouses giving accounts of what goes on in the kill floors, and stories of employees who have witnessed thousands and thousands of cows going through the slaughter process alive (Animals 231). Namit Arora in the article “On Eating Animals”, as well as Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, both address some of the issues that animals face once they hit the kill floor. The food industry has transformed not only how people eat, but also the negative effects our climate endures as a result of factory farming as illustrated by Anna Lappe in “The Climate Crisis at the End

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.

“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

More than ever before, our planet is one filled with meat eaters. In fact, the average American consumes 270.7 pounds of meat per year. And, as one might have guessed, the question of where this food set before them on the table came from is often unregarded or ignored altogether. As more media forms commercialize extremely unhealthy versions of double cheeseburgers and meat lover’s supremes, the consumer’s demand for meat spikes up and companies in the food industry are faced with the ethical dilemma of benefiting themselves, their companies, increasing profits...and doing right by the animals- who without, they would not even be where they are today. Needless to say that animal rights and the humane treatment of their precious lives have been disregarded. Why do we, as a

How does Hallie characterize cruelty? Why does he think that institutionalized cruelty is the worst kind of cruelty?

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

Animal cruelty is a worldwide problem rapidly growing in today’s society. Cruelty means inflicting pain and causing suffering. In the essay, “Consider the Lobster,” by David Foster Wallace the main point that comes out is the animal cruelty. Wallace aims to persuade the reader into considering whether consuming and food preparation causes pain to the animals that people consume. Wallace gives a brief description about the origin of lobsters, and eventually the cruel ways in which the lobsters are prepared and consumed provides overall logical details from many different sources. Wallace presents his argument by using three rhetorical strategies ethos, pathos, and logos. The effective uses of rhetorical devices make it easier to persuade his

Today, the food industry has not just altered the American diet, but it has also had a negative effect within the labor sector as well as the animals meant for consumption and the lack of government oversight. Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, and Jonathan Foer in Eating Animals, illustrate the mistreatment of labor workers as well as the animal abuse that goes unseen within the food industry. Foer gives such examples of employees who work in slaughterhouses giving accounts of what goes on in the kill floors, and stories of employees who have witnessed thousands and thousands of cows going through the slaughter process alive (231). Eating meat does not have to be so inhumane for example, Foer quotes Frank Reese, who does not permit inhumane practices on his ranch that are cruel, and Reese believes that there are other ways of having a sustainable humane animal agriculture instead of the methods of the large corporate meat industry (238). Namit Arora in the article “On Eating Animals”, as well as Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, address some of the issues that animals face once they hit the kill floor. The food industry has transformed not only what people eat, but how the government has neglected the issues of the wellbeing of labor workers and the animals that are processed for consumption.

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

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.

​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.

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