Carter argues to support or enhance the key issues that eating meat is right based on superiority, self-consciousness, reasoning, moral capability, rights, duties, and sentience. Carter shows that the statement that animals have an interest in their own lives and that we should not treat them like things is a cornerstone in many vegetarian theories. But then he questions this argument in that even the smallest insect has an interest in its own life, but you do not see people actively opposing the killing of all living creatures. He also questions the statement that animals can even make this assertion and are not just living out of basic instinct. And, although a creature may try to stay alive, is it doing so out of the fact it doesn't want to die, or the basic instinct that it has to stay alive.
It detects and destroys diseased meat before it gets to the buyer. The act reassures the people of sanitary handling and preventing contamination. It terminates any chemical or drug residue left on the meat before packaging. The meat inspection also avoids any type of false labeling on any products. When the Act was passed, the meat packaging industry had to succumb to continuous inspections and investigations by the Agricultural Department which would be paid for by the meat packaging industry.
The pedigree ad was about dog food but I also got how important dogs are out of the message in the ad. I think the news clip reflects what many Americans
In Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals, explores the pros and cons of eating meat, and one example of this is whether or not we should serve turkey on Thanksgiving. Foer feels that we take advantage of thanksgiving, and that we use that as an excuse to kill another turkey. He feels as though we could do thanksgiving without turkey, and it wouldn’t be any different. I on the other hand argue that there are many reasons we should eat turkey on Thanksgiving. One of the reasons we should serve turkey is because a lot of turkey is made every thanksgiving and letting it go to waste would be a sin itself.
It seems, at first, to disconnect the audience from the touchy subject of animal cruelty when in fact it draws them into the subject. Humor has a way of grabbing the attention of an audience like nothing else. When speaking about eating a steak while reading a book on animal rights, Pollan states, “If this sounds like a good recipe for cognitive dissonance (if not indigestion), that was sort of the idea.” This little quirk of a sentence helps to ensure the article grasps the audience’s attention. Its use of sophisticated vocabulary as well as an informal phrase also serves to pique the interest of the
The high fat of the meat is important as the authors argue that the selling of mutton flaps to the peoples of the Pacific Islands “involves political, ethical, and health issues of important to us all (Errington and Gewertz, 1). Whenever the “other” (non White) is involved in the less than admirable aspects of food production or trade, it is usually in the role of underprivileged farm workers or illegal immigrants (Errington and Gewertz, 2). This is one of the areas where mutton flap production and consumption differs from that of other higher quality cuts of meat. Mutton flaps are produced on regulated farms by (White) Australians and New Zealanders, where the working conditions are sensible (Errington and Gewertz, 4). After the mutton flaps are processed, however, they are sent away to be consumed by the (Brown) people of the Pacific Islands (Errington and Gewertz).
Sources and emotional appeals are effective techniques to use but the reasoning behind it all is the most important. Knowing this, the creators of Food, Inc. used numerous statistics that not only support their argument but have the power to successfully persuade. There is a mixture of inductive and deductive reasoning in these facts which gives the audience free-will to interpret them in a way that is still advantageous towards the documentary’s argument. An example of deductive reasoning in the film would be the quote about Kevin’s Law: “Kevin’s Law would give back the USDA the power to shut down plants that contained contaminated meats.” Which in conclusion, suggests that there should be something done to push this law to be passed. There were many examples of inductive reasoning, such as the one above.
Animals are meant to be eaten not mistreated, just eaten. People have overblown this whole animal injustice thing. We are supposed to eat meant to be healthy. That is just how it was meant to be. We humans eat animals for fuel.
In the early 1990s, the Beef Industry Council launched a new advertising campaign. A series of commercials showed sizzling steaks while a voiceover proclaimed “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner” (Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion & Research Board, 2012), and a walk through any grocery store’s meat department shows that slogan is still effectively shaping the American dinner table. But before these neatly-wrapped packages of meat go from the store to the table, they are part of a living animal. In his 2006 book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan endeavors to illustrate the process of how a cow becomes a steak.
Those who still eat beef are, in my view, foolishly exposing themselves to the risk of contracting the horrifying human version of Mad Cow Disease. Add to those hazards the fact that if you eat meat you may be consuming hormones, drugs and other chemicals that have been fed to the animals before they were killed and you can see the extent of the danger. No one knows precisely what effect eating the hormones in meat is likely to have on your health. But the risk is there and I think it's a big one. Some farmers use tranquillisers to keep animals calm.