You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.
I did not understand the solution to the problem of being a “conscientious meat eater.” The authors never really stated or concluded an answer to the problem in the article. In the text it says “For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat humanely raised meat seems like an option.” This argues that only an option to the solution is informed to the reader, and that there is no real solution to the problem at hand. The whole point of the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, is to inform the reader about the issue about meat, but because there is no solution to his argument; it makes his argument less effect as a whole when persuading
Ever since the beginning of time, meat has been a staple of the human diet. People have many reasons why they chose not to consume meat. One of the most common reasons some people chose not to eat meat is because they believe that it is unethical. There are many processes required in order to produce meat for conception, and these processes have become widely known to the public and cause a great deal of controversy. Animals are often tortured, genetically modified, and live in squalid conditions before they become the meat we put on our dinner tables.
Eating animals: is it only question of morality? In the book “Eating Animals” of Jonathan Safran Foer a very significant problem of the contemporary food culture, factory farming and food industry is raised. While Foer focuses mainly on animal’s suffering and rights: “If contributing to the suffering of billions of animals that live miserable lives and (quite often) die in horrific ways isn't motivating, what would be?”(Foer 123), all these problems are intertwined and may be viewed from different angles. I would say that the thinking of Michkiko Kakutani is partly sound. The Jonathan Foer criticizes the contemporary conventional factory farming, food industry and culture and believes it to violate animal rights and the fact of putting animals into unbearable position at the moment of their slaughtering and their lifestyle, in general is beyond his understanding.
There were the eaters and the eaten.” This shift in his thought process is what allows him to kill so mercilessly--if he wanted to live, he need to eat. Meat is his lifeblood. Without it, as he realized after the several famines he suffered as a pup, he would die. Animals are more than just his prey, they sustain his life. As such, he has no qualms with taking food wherever he can get it, and even aspires to grow strong enough to catch large prey like hawks and moose.
Foer’s article provides a sense of humor as well as personal stories to attempt to persuade his audience for the ethical treatment of animals along with his personal solution for his own health and the health of his family. On a differing take on the solution, “Escape from the Western Diet” by Michael Pollan provides the complete change of our diet and way of life based around cooking and eating meals. however creates a more powerful and logical argument against the “Western Diet” in his article, He uses a combination of his credibility from his publications on health and foods, evidence against the practices of the medical community, along with his solution to the issue of obesity to create an article that draws in audience’s emotions and rationale. Pollan’s strongest points in his article was the use of credibility and his ability to bring logic and reason to most of his points against medical society and the publics solution to obesity. Pollan comes in with a stronger
In the essay “Let Them Eat Dog”, Foer did just that to strengthen his point of view that dogs are really just another ordinary, to use his words “remarkably unremarkable…”(Foer) animals out in the wild. He quoted “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” from the famous allegorical novella – “Animal Farm” by George Orwell (Foer), which gives the reader a glance of inequality on how different animals are treated differently. Foer utilizing the quote to encourage the audience to think about what is it that makes it acceptable for the public to consume beef, pork, even horse meat but it is a taboo to eat dog. He makes it clear that if we truly treat all animals equally regardless of their kind, eating dogs should not be a taboo; it should be more acceptable and equalized just like the
Animals that go to slaughter houses see misery long before arriving. Animals lay in their own manure while on the farm and are vulnerable to many diseases due to the lack of health care they receive. Many of these animals are not properly cleaned before being slaughtered. One former slaughterhouse employee states, “One of the real problems is that animals have spent their lives lying in their manure, are smeared and caked with the stuff, and they’re entering the food plant” (Pollan). One other slaughterhouse worker also said, “During the evisceration of the animal, the manure can get on the meat.
Good nutrition is a significant part of a healthy lifestyle and is a principle being taught every day around the world. The dilemma of hunger is faced by many countries; according to the World Food Programme, “795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active lifestyle” (“Hunger”). In Johnathan Safran Foer’s article, “Let Them Eat Dog,” published in the Wall Street Journal, he argues the ridiculous nature of the American cultural taboo of restricting society from the consumption of dogs for food. Foer begins the article first by talking about the reluctances of the consumption of dogs regardless of it being legal in the majority of states within the United States (Foer 689). He then discusses the positive effects of the removal of the taboo of the consumption of dogs such as the solution for hunger in the world and the depletion of natural resources.
The PETA advertisement is not an effective use of Rhetoric appeals. The ad's headline introduces the words "Kids," and "child abuse," written in bold, which will capture the audience's interest even more than PETA's(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) phrase that is also included in the headline, "Fght the Fat: Go Vegan." Using the word "abuse," will result in the audience to focus their attention towards how the children are being treated. In this case, the child is being abused by being fed meat. Too much meat may cause health issues, such as obesity.
There are solutions to ending world hunger that people will find it extremely outrageous and inhumane that are mentioned “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and “Let Them Eat Dog” by Jonathan Foer. They both have ideas on how to end this problem so people in the world will not die or suffer from starvation. Although both articles “A Modest
Most people would say it bothers them more to hear of a puppy being torched than to hear of a pig being torched; but why is this? I had never really thought much about animal rights before. But after reading “Puppies, Pigs, and People” by Norcross, I now look at the way we get factory processed meat differently. People need to be more informed of where the meat they are buying and consuming is coming from.