The article “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater,” written by Sunaura Taylor and Alexander Taylor, looked like a very convincing argument. “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious meat eater” discusses that processed meat is bad for the world, and how it affects us and our surrounding environments in a negative outcome. The one thing I enjoyed reading from this article was the supportive use of evidence through facts to support the author’s thesis statement. However I would argue that the authors, when writing this, didn’t do a thorough job on keeping the subject professional, detailed, unbiased, and citing the sources for their information. In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters. I believe …show more content…
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
To conclude, the authors argument in this book is that the meat industry is extremely flawed and it needs to be reformed to allow more ranchers, to fix the meat handling to become safer, and to fix the working
In the attention grabbing novel My Year of Meats, by Ruth L. Ozeki, there are three primary ladies who from the outside appear to be completely unique in relation to each other, yet they have numerous likenesses. Jane, Akiko and Sei Shonagon have diverse ethics, qualities and customs, yet there are some unmistakable associations between these ladies in the perusing. Jane and Akiko don't have any acquaintance with one another, yet they both look to Shonagon's composition for motivation for their own particular written work and their own lives. Jane is a lady who has constantly battled with fitting in whether it was Japan or America. Notwithstanding, America had the capacity permit Jane to be more OK with herself.
The author of the Locavore’s Dilemma is Christophe Pelletier, who focuses on the difficulties and possibilities of the life of Locavore. His propose is to ask the locavores to think critically about the model of food and farming and heighten people’s cognition of locavores. The second to fourth paragraphs talked about the feasibility of just eating 100-mile food. The author said that people could not leave coffee, beers, and other food and denied the possibility of getting these food for some reasons.
I am also concerned not to come off as shrill or preachy when what I really am is confused. Given the (possible) moral status and (very possible) physical suffering of the animals involved, what ethical convictions do gourmets evolve that allow them not just to eat but to savor and enjoy flesh-based viands (since of course refined enjoyment, rather than just ingestion, is the whole point of gastronomy)?” (8). David Wallace is admitting to the reader his style of the article and how he is not attempting to change people’s minds about eat lobster.
Also, overweight people have more health problems. So, the readers may try and eat less meat in order to live healthier and prevent climate change. The article contrasts the others because it provides statistics regarding human health and meat’s and dairy’s effects. It does not discuss the farmers’ effects on animals. This is important because it connects the audience more to the article and creates a stronger case in the reader’s eye.
Bad Reputation of Red Meat The article “Meat As a Cause of Cancer” written by the editorial board of The New York Times is about the recent study by the World Health Organization. The study provides persuasive evidences that consuming red meat and processed meat can cause cancer. The editorial board is trying to convince reader that red meat isn’t that dangerous. The article is somewhat ineffective because it is missing ethos.
Starting with “Hungry Planet: What The World Eats”, the author is a well-known and has a reputation for publishing many accurate and widely distributed articles. The author only uses anecdotal evidence. While pictured families may represent their nation well, and the article is an interesting one, they did not use a sample size that would have any real external validity. The article does not appear to be peer reviewed, and I did not find any citations of established facts. This article appears to have been made to entertain people, because it does not teach anything new, but it does show a new perspective through which we can view the world and our dinner tables.
1. What is the basic conclusion of this review? The basic conclusion of this review is the discussion of the meat paradox and of the characteristics of those involved in eating meat. The meat paradox is one of the biggest dilemmas involved in meat eating. It stumps psychologists and eaters around the world. The characteristics of those involved in eating meat are also discussed.
Each time we choose red meat over another meat alternative, we are shortening our lives. Although there is more research to be done, the risks of eating red meat do not outweigh the benefits. If anyone chooses to reduce or omit red-meat from their diet, they must be prepared to hear many arguments against this choice. The following arguments are often presented:
What a person chooses to eat is not the sole cause of environment and animal problems. Which is why everyone should learn the truth about both diets and decide which is better for them. Vegetarians are the groups who seem to be more opinionated about the two vastly different types of diets. Joseph Pace’s article “Let’s Go Veggie” is a great example of an author using bias information to persuade the reader to become a vegetarian. Pace’s overall argument is that not eating meat will improve a person’s health, animal treatment, and the environment Pace demonstrates all his claims in a cause and effect form backed by many studies.
In his Narrative "why I'm a weekday vegetarian," Hill discusses why it's hard for people to become vegetarians when you know how eating meat is so harmful to society, yet some can’t give up consuming meet. Hill then gave a simple solution to the problem. The plan of being a semi-vegetarian. He then explains why and how he became a semi-vegetarian, by only consuming meat during the weekend and during the week exclude eating meat.
At first, many people were hesitant to wrap their heads around the fact that the food that was being transported to them from far away could be producing something harmful to the environment. Flash forward a couple of years and environmental impact is now one of the biggest arguments in the debate regarding the ethics of eating meat. Such discoveries are backed up by writers like Brian Henning, who writes about how meat production has negatively impacted the environment locally. In his journal, "Standing in Livestock's Long Shadow: The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet," Henning mentions how the production of meat has led to a concerning amount of water waste. The alarming rate in which this is occurring has led the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to believe that by the year 2050, the individuals living in water-stressed populations will rise from 1.5 billion to 3-5 billion (NAO).
Like most of the world population, I ate meat for the majority of my life. There seemed to be nothing wrong or harmful about eating meat because everyone around me consumed it on a daily basis as well. However, at the age of fifteen I stumbled across environmental issues that were a result of animal agriculture. I became aware of the damage that I was doing to the environment by choosing to eat meat.
The traditional view of vegetarianism is challenged by questions such as what animal is morally wrong to eat, what is an animal product and whether it is morally right to eat it. The moral position is not shared among all humans. More interesting, vegans who seem to value animal life seem to have no opinion towards carnivorous animals that frustrate the same right to life of fellow creatures. As such, even though animals by themselves are not moral agents, their feasting on meat may be considered prima facie wrong. The most logical answer to the moral dilemma of animal eating meat is that carnivores, unlike human beings, cannot survive without eating meat.