A Rhetorical Analysis Of Animal Rights Activists By Richard Wright

As far as influential prospective is considered, commercials can, rather should aim to, be extremely effective when depicted and portrayed in the right manner. Irrespective of what demographic audience a commercial targets to, that being an extremely significant factor though, if the commercial uses the right amount of ethos, logos and pathos, it may have a greater affect, reaching out to a greater audience. This is what makes the BCSPCA’s commercial “End Animal Cruelty” stand out among the rest of the fleet in many viewers’ opinions. The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BCSPCA) is a non-profit organization which aims to protect abused animals and improve the quality of these poor beings.

Within Holder’s speech there were instances of multiple fallacies. One specific fallacy is the generalizations Holder makes in his speech, much like the ones that were used for deductive reasoning. These generalizations were often subjective and not backed up with evidence, which leads to hasty generalizations. Holder states that those who are against animal testing are mainly youth, which infers that all youth are against animal testing. However, it is not just youth who are against animal testing and not all youth are not against animal testing.

The author says “...animal liberation is the logical next step in the forward march of moral progression…” (Pollan 362). This

Old major requests other animals in the farm to meet in the barn after Mr.Jones get drunk and falls asleep. Major gives a speech about how evil the humans are and how they need to rebel against Man. Major also gives some warning to the animals about how the men harm their farm and order them to do a lot of work. After Major gives his elaborates in his speech, he goes on talking about his dream in which he sees no humans on the earth. Major then teaches the animals a song called “Beasts of England”, the animals sang it again and again until they awaken Mr. Jones.

Peter Singer, in his “Equality for Animals” and Tom Regan in his “The Case for Animal Rights,” both form strong arguments on the rights towards animals and the complete elimination on using animals as a means of resources. (Regan, 893) Although both conclude with the fact that animals deserve respect and should not be looked at merely as property, they approach this view differently. The main difference found in their arguments is Regan’s description of inherit value, and Singer’s referral to Utilitarianism. Singer focuses more on the expansion of Utilitarianism claiming that this maximum happiness should include the lives of animals as well.

I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.

In Animal Farm, George Orwell warns how power will often lead to corruption. Napoleon was placed in a position of power after Major died, and he slowly starts to lavish in his power and become addicted to the lush life of a dictator. When Napoleon first becomes a leader, he expresses how everyone will work equally, but as his reign goes on, he shortens the work hours. At the very end of the novel, the observing animals even start to see that pig and man had become the same. The irony present in the above example, illuminates how regardless of how much a ruler promises to maintain equality and fairness, the position of power that they hold, will corrupt them.

PETA is an acronym for the non profit organization of people for the ethical treatment of animals. The are dedicated to the protecting the rights of animals. The narrative is told by a small girl saying a blessing at a Thanksgiving table. The story is laden with propaganda and oppositional text . The message the girl is conveying in her blessing is the turkey suffers while being raised to be slaughtered.

Imagine you got captured and taken away from family and, the you get put in a cage confused on what's going on or where your family is. Then all the sudden there's people watch you or even tarizing you and you feel like you can't do anything about it. Well that's how animals feel when they are put into a zoo for our entertainment. They are taken away from their families and homes and don't know what to do about. People should care more about how the animals feel.

Issues in Society: The Dichotomy of Animal Rights Using animals for our gain is no new prospect; although we’ve elaborated it and made it far more complex throughout our millennia in this, “our” world. Yet, we’ve become delusional, the relationships have only been beneficial for us, and we’ve led ourselves to believe that we are the ‘crème de la crème’ of our little rock floating in space. We forget that animals have been ruling this Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and we are the intruders, albeit the only ones who can make a difference on this planet, for better or worse. It does seem, however, that we’ve opted for the latter, and we’ve enslaved those who share the world with us. It becomes necessary today that we stand for them.

In this passage, the writer’s diction reveals his/her tone by showing frustration and concern. The writer is frustrated because he/she believes that it is wrong to just leave your pets unleashed and unattended. The writer uses the word careless to voice their frustration toward the lazy and irresponsible dog owners. By saying this, the writer is saying the owners are not concerned with the consequences of letting their pet run wild. Danger is used to reflect the author’s opinion on animal and children safety.

Many animals are abused everyday. Chickens and other farm animals are constantly being killed for food. In this article, “PETA Making a Social Noise: A Perspective on Shock Advertising,” Jonathan Matusitz and Maya Forrester focus on the fact that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) often goes too far with their advertisements. Animal rights groups such as PETA use shock advertising as a means of getting the message that abusing animals, eating animals, or using animals in entertainment is wrong (Matusitz and Forrester). Matusitz and Forrester look to expose PETA’s indecent advertisements, but the argument relies too heavily on pathos than any other rhetorical appeal.

The situation for animal rights remained relatively stagnant until 1970 when two oxford postgraduate philosophy students Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch formed the movement. The Godlovitch's met David Wood and John Harris, also philosophy postgraduates, the two were soon in agreement that animal rights were an important issue and akin to the Godlovitches became vegetarians. The newly formed group took action The prophets are called God’s servants or messengers (Haggai 1:13; Isaiah 44:26; Malachi 3:1). If we ignore, slight or reject the messages God gives through His prophets, we are rejecting God—not the humans God uses to deliver His instructions!

Animal Rights Some people assume that just because animals cannot speak that they cannot feel pain. It is not okay to torture living beings that have their own thoughts and breathe the exact same air us humans breathe. It is unjust and selfish to stand by and take no action while everyday hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals die without reason. No matter how much fur or how many limbs the creature has; it should be treated as equal as a person. A heart beat is a heartbeat regardless of the body it’s in.

“In 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated that Americans ate an average of 54.3 pounds of beef, 92.1 pounds of chicken, and 50.4 pounds of pork, per person, per year” (Vegetarianism). Food production counts for only one of the many injustices animals face daily. Although they have been proven emotionally intelligent, mankind views these entities as subservient and continue to harm them. People around the world have created organizations that work to ameliorate the treatment of animals. As the animal rights movement nobly fights to improve the conditions of these living creatures, daily human activities and the moral values of some prolong the acceptance of animal equality.