- Mar 2022
-
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
-
vegetarians live approximately eight years longer than average
statistic
-
“Bringing Ethics to Your Plate” By Alexa Troob, age 13, Robert E. Bell Middle School, Chappaqua, N.Y.
Mostly anecdotes
-
Growing up in a family of meat-eaters, I always accepted the fact that animals were food. I was in denial of the inhumanity.This year, I volunteered at the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, helping mistreated dogs. I would tear up seeing the desperate eyes of previously abandoned dogs while there were chickens being ground alive, suffocated in bags, gassed to death and then eaten by me. One day, I began to wonder what differentiated those chickens from my two labradoodles and the other dogs at the shelter. Whenever pet abuse is seen, instant outrage is unleashed. Meanwhile, farm animals are tortured and killed daily, and we do far from express outrage: we eat them.
anecdote: explains the issue with a more personal side, good to connecting to the author.
-
-
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
-
“melting pot,”
Paraphrase
-
“Fashion’s Year in Cultural Don’ts”, the aforementioned skirt was too similar to an Indian lungi, the Dior campaign drew too much inspiration from the Mexican escaramuzas, and Keziah Daum’s qipao was too Asian for her.
Anecdote: story from recent fashion to explain how race my play into culture appriation.
-
George Chesterton writes for GQ, “If we can only exist in and guard the cultures we emerged from, from those we resemble, we will shrink into the superficiality of newly contrived tribes.”
Quote: that helps sum up the article, leaves the reading to think on their issue
-
- Jan 2022
-
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
-
One photograph showing an emaciated man is next to another of a starving cow.
Statement of Context: Peta's claim of animal treatment being the same as the holocaust is explained through the context where their claims are valid. In this case it's just like the holocaust because the same number of animals killed every four hours is the same amount of people killed during the holocaust. This is the proof and context for the grounds on which their protesting and why their argument is valid in the first place. Even if it is through extreme faulty analogies.
-
One photograph showing an emaciated man is next to another of a starving cow.
Quantitative Evidence:
This evidence has statistics that can be measured and counted, giving Peta's argument actually facts and numbered data. Whether or not the data is accurate or trustworthy is up for debate. Considering the number of fallacies and faulty authority there seems to be in their argument, it is likely this too may not be accurate.
-
crowds of people, with cattle being herded into transports; and people crammed into bunks, with chickens in a battery farm.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Noncentral Fallacies: links humans to Nazis in the eyes of animals to create emotion.
-
Other images compare children behind barbed wire with a picture of pigs looking out from behind bars;
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Confirmation bias? ignoring the fact that humans need food to survive so they compare it to babies being killed.
-
what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every day in factory farms."
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Red herring: Because animals are being treated like "what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust", people should be aware that the animals are having a holocaust of their own. This evidence is misleading because it is justifying Prescotts actions to move forward with the images.
-
"We're asking people to recognise that what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every day in factory farms."
Faulty authority: They are asking the audience to agree with them simply because they are doing the right thing. In their opinion, calling upon the character of themselves as means to justify comparing factory farms to the Holocaust. They also do not provide any evidence for why they are qualified to speak on the subject. Instead using the words of others (second-hand evidence) to get across their point.
-
"We're asking people to recognise that what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every day in factory farms."
Claim of Policy:
Peta is requesting a change in people's thinking. This proposal is stating that they want people to see the similarity of the animal industry to the Holocaust. To recognize their opinion as valid.
-
"We're asking people to recognise that what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every day in factory farms."
Statement of Benefits:
Although it's not directly stated in the article, I think its implied that by agreeing with their argument and doing something to aid their side you will feel a strong sense of good doing. What I mean is, by aiding in something comparative to the holocaust people will feel like they did the right thing. Whenever you feel like you've done something that makes a change you get the benefit of feeling that good feeling we all get when we've done right in the world.
-
"The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness,"
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Faulty analogy, animals don't have the ability to comprehend things the way humans do.
-
"The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness,"
Unfalsifiability:
There is no way to prove this to be true, because there are so many animals, not all of them have been tested. As well as it is different from what we consider "fear and loneliness" because humans or any animal are unique, maybe similar, but do not think exactly the same.
Noncentral Fallacy:
Since the Holocaust already gives such an emotional reaction, by mentioning it even though there is no unbiased evidence to compare it to the animal industry, Peta tries to make it evidence for their argument when it has nothing to do with how animals are treated.
-
had expected it to elicit criticism.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Rogerian thesis: with the knowledge that people will disagree with these ads, Prescott attempted to bring emotion with the help of Jewish history to attempt to stop the number of animals being killed every day.
-
The campaign, he added, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous.
Second-Hand evidence:
Peta did not experience this themselves, they had to do research and get the words of other people in order to make a point. Not only is this information not as trustworthy because it is second-hand but it is also anonymous which lowers its credits even more.
-
The campaign, he added, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
I think this is anonymous authority: says he was being funded by a Jewish philanthropist who wishes to stay anonymous. Either he wasn't actually being funded and he said he was to give him even more of a reason to continue with the project, or he was being respectful. probably shouldn't include this then.
-
Mr Prescott is Jewish and lost several relatives in Nazi concentration camps. The campaign, he added, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous. He said he had expected it to elicit criticism.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
This has got to be some kind of fallacy. I'll add a comment later when I find it. But, Prescott being Jewish himself still went through with the project, even being the campaign creator. With the knowledge that these images would receive a lot of backlash, he still went through with the project without a single reason why he thought it was acceptable, except a quote from earlier where he compared humans to nazis when it comes to killing animals. He was also being funded by a Jewish philanthropist so maybe it was for the money.
-
the effort by Peta to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent".
Claim of Value:
In Abraham Foxman's opinion what Peta did was "abhorrent." The argument is that what they did was not right and they're since the claim is that Peta's actions are bad its a claim of value.
-
But the appeal has done little to calm the fury of Jewish groups. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, said the attempt to win approval was "outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights". He said that while the abuse of animals should be opposed, "the effort by Peta to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent".
Summary of Opposing views:
Here we have an actual Holocaust survivor, Abraham Foxman. He is actually named unlike the anonymous authority used in the 7th paragraph. He also has actual backing to be a relevant source since he is the "director of the Anti-Defamation League." This evidence is far more trustworthy compared to Peta's sources, even if it is an opinion and not total facts. However, Peta uses statistics that are not cited from a source, so even without the opposing view having facts, its credibility and ethos is overall a stronger argument than Peta's.
-
we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior' - is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day."
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Red Herring (I think, cause this evidence is irrelevant): Matt Prescot explains that "we can do anything we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior'" which leads to his belief that because humans feel animals are inferior, humans kill them which is the "same mindset that made the holocaust possible".
-
"The very same mindset that made the Holocaust possible - that we can do anything we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior' - is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day."
Rogerian Statement of Position:
Peta believes this mindset of treating animals is similar to the Holocaust. It provides their side and what they believe goes through people's minds when aiding the issue. It gives us a clear line of which the stand on.
-
"In relation to them, all people are Nazis."
Introductions:
This sentence is an introduction and a believe statement for what Peta is arguing. It shows us as the audience what their claims are before they introduce their evidence. Its also a very loud sentence in the sense that it jumps out when the word "Nazis" is used. The connotation really plays a part in grabbing the reader's attention.
-
"In relation to them, all people are Nazis."
Claim of Value: This claims that the animal industry is bad there it is a claim of value. I know this because by using the analogy of Nazis, which has a negative connotation and comparing it to animals, they are claiming that it's like it because it's a horrible industry. The diction and connotations behind analogies like the Nazis not only spark an emotional reaction but a profoundly negative one. Their argument is heavily based on playing with and manipulating the feelings of people.
-
the Jewish Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
So a Jewish man even said that people are like nazis to humans? And then PETA took this and ran with It or something?
FAYTHE SEALS: Genetic Fallacy
Just because this person is of certain genetic descent he was considered good enough evidence to their cause. When in fact he has no actual information on the animals themselves. As well as just because he's Jewish he knows everything that went on during the Holocaust, he would be considered to have an argument if he, one research heavily and got stories from actual survivors or if he himself is a survivor. But since that is not clearly seen in the context this makes him an unreliable source.
-
slaughter of livestock to the Holocaust in the second world war.
Rogerian Structure: emotional, belief based opinion.
-
An
S: Peta/David Teather ((Quotes are from Peta who we're analysing the argument of, David Teather is the one reporting)).
P: ((To create awareness for the cruel treatment of animals))
A: ((The general public and anyone who uses animal products))
C: This showing created by Peta was a protest done in San Diego and the University of California in Los Angeles.
E: After appealing to a Jewish community for support, they wanted to create a public display.
C: Shocking compassions and bold assumptions.
A: Pathos
T: Informative with hints of manipulative/accusatory ideals.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
“To Animals, All People Are Nazis”
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Noncentral Fallacies: links humans to Nazis in the eyes of animals to create emotion.
-
"The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness,"
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Faulty analogy, animals don't have the ability to comprehend things the way humans do.
-
that we can do anything we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior' - is whatallows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day."
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Red Herring (I think, cause this evidence is irrelevant): Matt Prescot explains that "we can do anything we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior'" which leads to his belief that because humans feel animals are inferior, humans kill them which is the "same mindset that made the holocaust possible".
-
Mr Prescott is Jewish and lost several relatives in Nazi concentration camps. The campaign, headded, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous. He said hehad expected it to elicit criticism.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
This has got to be some kind of fallacy. I'll add a comment later when I find it. But, Prescott being Jewish himself still went through with the project, even being the campaign creator. With the knowledge that these images would receive a lot of backlash, he still went through with the project without a single reason why he thought it was acceptable, except a quote from earlier where he compared humans to nazis when it comes to killing animals. He was also being funded by a Jewish philanthropist so maybe it was for the money.
-
had expected it to elicit criticism.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Rogerian thesis: with the knowledge that people will disagree with these ads, Prescott attempted to bring emotion with the help of Jewish history to attempt to stop the number of animals being killed every day.
-
what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every dayin factory farms."
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Red herring: Because animals are being treated like "what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust", people should be aware that the animals are having a holocaust of their own. This evidence is misleading because it is justifying Prescotts actions to move forward with the images.
-
“Baby Butchers”
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
Confirmation bias? ignoring the fact that humans need food to survive so they compare it to babies being killed.
-
The campaign, headded, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous.
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
I think this is anonymous authority: says he was being funded by a Jewish philanthropist who wishes to stay anonymous. Either he wasn't actually being funded and he said he was to give him even more of a reason to continue with the project, or he was being respectful. probably shouldn't include this then.
-
"We're asking people to recognizethat what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every dayin factory farms."
Claim of Policy:
Peta is requesting a change in people's thinking. This proposal is stating that they want people to see the similarity of the animal industry to the Holocaust. To recognize their opinion as valid.
-
The very same mindset that made the Holocaustpossible - that we can do anything we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior' - is whatallows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day."
Rogerian Statement of Position:
Peta believes this mindset of treating animals is similar to the Holocaust. It provides their side and what they believe goes through people's minds when aiding the issue. It gives us a clear line of which the stand on.
-
"We're asking people to recognizethat what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every dayin factory farms.
Statement of Benefits:
Although it's not directly stated in the article, I think its implied that by agreeing with their argument and doing something to aid their side you will feel a strong sense of good doing. What I mean is, by aiding in something comparative to the holocaust people will feel like they did the right thing. Whenever you feel like you've done something that makes a change you get the benefit of feeling that good feeling we all get when we've done right in the world.
-
"In relation to them, all people are Nazis."
Introductions:
This sentence is an introduction and a believe statement for what Peta is arguing. It shows us as the audience what their claims are before they introduce their evidence. Its also a very loud sentence in the sense that it jumps out when the word "Nazis" is used. The connotation really plays a part in grabbing the reader's attention.
-
“Holcaust on Your Plate”
Statement of Context:
Peta's claim of animal treatment being the same as the holocaust is explained through the context where their claims are valid. In this case it's just like the holocaust because the same number of animals killed every four hours is the same amount of people killed during the holocaust. This is the proof and context for the grounds on which their protesting and why their argument is valid in the first place. Even if it is through extreme faulty analogies.
-
“Holcaust on Your Plate”
Quantitative Evidence:
This evidence has statistics that can be measured and counted, giving Peta's argument actually facts and numbered data. Whether or not the data is accurate or trustworthy is up for debate. Considering the number of fallacies and faulty authority there seems to be in their argument, it is likely this too may not be accurate.
-
We're asking people to recognizethat what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every dayin factory farms."
Faulty authority:
They are asking the audience to agree with them simply because they are doing the right thing. In their opinion, calling upon the character of themselves as means to justify comparing factory farms to the Holocaust. They also do not provide any evidence for why they are qualified to speak on the subject. Instead using the words of others (second-hand evidence) to get across their point.
-
"The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness,"
Unfalsifiability:
There is no way to prove this to be true, because there are so many animals, not all of them have been tested. As well as it is different from what we consider "fear and loneliness" because humans or any animal are unique, maybe similar, but do not think exactly the same.
Noncentral Fallacy:
Since the Holocaust already gives such an emotional reaction, by mentioning it even though there is no unbiased evidence to compare it to the animal industry, Peta tries to make it evidence for their argument when it has nothing to do with how animals are treated.
-
The campaign, headded, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous.
Second-Hand evidence:
Peta did not experience this themselves, they had to do research and get the words of other people in order to make a point. Not only is this information not as trustworthy because it is second-hand but it is also anonymous which lowers its credits even more.
-
, "the effort by Peta to compare thedeliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent".
Claim of Value:
In Abraham Foxman's opinion what Peta did was "abhorrent." The argument is that what they did was not right and they're since the claim is that Peta's actions are bad its a claim of value.
-
But the appeal has done little to calm the fury of Jewish groups. Abraham Foxman, the nationaldirector of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, said the attempt to winapproval was "outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights".He said that while the abuse of animals should be opposed, "the effort by Peta to compare thedeliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent".
Summary of Opposing views:
Here we have an actual Holocaust survivor, Abraham Foxman. He is actually named unlike the anonymous authority used in the 7th paragraph. He also has actual backing to be a relevant source since he is the "director of the Anti-Defamation League." This evidence is far more trustworthy compared to Peta's sources, even if it is an opinion and not total facts. However, Peta uses statistics that are not cited from a source, so even without the opposing view having facts, its credibility and ethos is overall a stronger argument than Peta's.
-
"In relation to them, all people are Nazis."
Claim of Value: This claims that the animal industry is bad there it is a claim of value. I know this because by using the analogy of Nazis, which has a negative connotation and comparing it to animals, they are claiming that it's like it because it's a horrible industry. The diction and connotations behind analogies like the Nazis not only spark an emotional reaction but a profoundly negative one. Their argument is heavily based on playing with and manipulating the feelings of people.
-
ewish Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
So a Jewish man even said that people are like nazis to humans? And then PETA took this and ran with It or something?
FAYTHE SEALS: Genetic Fallacy
Just because this person is of certain genetic descent he was considered good enough evidence to their cause. When in fact he has no actual information on the animals themselves. As well as just because he's Jewish he knows everything that went on during the Holocaust, he would be considered to have an argument if he, one research heavily and got stories from actual survivors or if he himself is a survivor. But since that is not clearly seen in the context this makes him an unreliable source.
-
slaughter of livestock to the Holocaust in the second world war.
Rogerian Structure: emotional, belief based opinion.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
, "the effort by Peta to compare thedeliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent".
Claim of Value:
In Abraham Foxman's opinion what Peta did was "abhorrent." The argument is that what they did was not right and they're since the claim is that Peta's actions are bad its a claim of value.
-
Jewish Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singe
ANJIELI FAIRBANKS:
So a Jewish man even said that people are like nazis to humans? And then PETA took this and ran with It or something?
FAYTHE SEALS: Genetic Fallacy
Just because this person is of certain genetic descent he was considered good enough evidence to their cause. When in fact he has no actual information on the animals themselves. As well as just because he's Jewish he knows everything that went on during the Holocaust, he would be considered to have an argument if he, one research heavily and got stories from actual survivors or if he himself is a survivor. But since that is not clearly seen in the context this makes him an unreliable source.
-
The campaign, headded, was funded by a Jewish philanthropist, who wished to remain anonymous.
Second-Hand evidence:
Peta did not experience this themselves, they had to do research and get the words of other people in order to make a point. Not only is this information not as trustworthy because it is second-hand but it is also anonymous which lowers its credits even more.
-
We're asking people to recognizethat what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every dayin factory farms."
Rogerian Statement of Position:
What Peta believes about the topic of the treatment of animals compared to the Holocaust. It provides their side and what they hope other people will do to aid their cause.
-
"In relation to them, all people are Nazis."
Claim of Value: This claims that the animal industry is bad there it is a claim of value. I know this because by using the analogy of Nazis, which has a negative connotation and comparing it to animals, they are claiming that it's like it because it's a horrible industry. The diction and connotations behind analogies like the Nazis not only spark an emotional reaction but a profoundly negative one. Their argument is heavily based on playing with and manipulating the feelings of people.
-
"We're asking people to recognizethat what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every dayin factory farms."
Faulty authority:
They are asking the audience to agree with them simply because they are doing the right thing. In their opinion, calling upon the character of themselves as means to justify comparing factory farms to the Holocaust. They also do not provide any evidence for why they are qualified to speak on the subject. Instead using the words of others (second-hand evidence) to get across their point.
-
The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness,"
Unfalsifiability:
There is no way to prove this to be true, because there are so many animals, not all of them have been tested. As well as it is different from what we consider "fear and loneliness" because humans or any animal are unique, maybe similar, but do not think exactly the same.
Noncentral Fallacy:
Since the Holocaust already gives such an emotional reaction, by mentioning it even though there is no unbiased evidence to compare it to the animal industry, Peta tries to make it evidence for their argument when it has nothing to do with how animals are treated.
-
But the appeal has done little to calm the fury of Jewish groups. Abraham Foxman, the nationaldirector of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, said the attempt to winapproval was "outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights".He said that while the abuse of animals should be opposed, "the effort by Peta to compare thedeliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent".
Summary of Opposing views:
Here we have an actual Holocaust survivor, Abraham Foxman. He is actually named unlike the anonymous authority used in the 7th paragraph. He also has actual backing to be a relevant source since he is the "director of the Anti-Defamation League." This evidence is far more trustworthy compared to Peta's sources, even if it is an opinion and not total facts. However, Peta uses statistics that are not cited from a source, so even without the opposing view having facts, its creditability and ethos is overall a stronger argument than Peta's.
-
slaughter of livestock to the Holocaust in the second world war.
Rogerian Structure: emotional, belief based opinion.
-
An
S: Peta/David Teather ((Quotes are from Peta who we're analysing the argument of, David Teather is the one reporting)).
P: ((To create awareness for the cruel treatment of animals))
A: ((The general public and anyone who uses animal products))
C: This showing created by Peta was a protest done in San Diego and the University of California in Los Angeles.
E: After appealing to a Jewish community for support, they wanted to create a public display.
C: Shocking compassions and bold assumptions.
A: Pathos
T: Informative with hints of manipulative/accusatory ideals.
-
-
docs.google.com docs.google.com
-
S: Peta/David Teather ((Quotes are from Peta who we're analysing the argument of, David Teather is the one reporting)).
P: ((To create awareness for the cruel treatment of animals))
A: ((The general public and anyone who uses animal<br> products))
C: This showing created by Peta was a protest done in San Diego and the University of California in Los Angeles.
E: After appealing to a Jewish community for support, they wanted to create a public display.
C: Shocking compassions and bold assumptions.
A: Pathos
T: Informative with hints of manipulative/accusatory ideals.
-