The following is Katie's post which was posted before I started the thread. "In Meatless Mondays are Good for You... and the Earth", I believe that Julie Upton intended for the audience to be people who obviously eat meat, and are unaware of the harmful effects that meat has on your body and the earth. Also to people who didn't know that being a vegitarian was so good for you. I found this article to be most interesting of all three, because Julie Upton was short and sweet and had many facts, and statistics. She appeals to the audience because the article is concerning thier health. She uses statistics to try to convince her audience to go meatless, and also ties emotions in with weight control seeing as this is America and many people have weight issues. She also ties in the environment very well by discussing how and why all the meat we produce pollutes the air. This is a topic I have never thought about because I never realized how bad meat was for your health, or for the earth. I also never knew that being a vegitarian was so good for you.
All three articles were great for letting the audiences know that there are healthier ways, both for yourself and the environment, to eat meat. I personally enjoyed "Well Done" because it seemed to be making fun of the radicals a little bit, but it still got the point across. I don't think that what the interviewee in "The Urban Farmer" said about cities being filled with farm animals is actually going to happen. Americans enjoy their space too much. The articles do make me want to consider buying meat that comes from animals that are raised in better conditions though.
I think that it is clear that all three articles have the same type of familiar message, that there are healthier ways to eat. I really enjoyed reading the Urban Farmer. It was a topic that I had little knowledge in and it was interesting to be an outsider and read the interviewers questions followed with her responses about animal slaughtering. I have also heard of these things before where if an animal grows up in peaceful conditions and is treated better the meat is better, if not, the meat can be very bad for a person to eat. As a side note I feel that I am really learning a lot about my foods and could even take some of these articles and adopt them into my everyday life.
Michael Engle Jan 15, 2009 I enjoyed reading all the assigned readings; I gained a different perspective on eating meat. In terms of the article entitled, “The Urban Farmer Do farm animals survive by dying?” by Amy Standen, the article’s context is that it was written in March 2008 before spring. By writing this article before spring, it creates an opportunity for the reader to digest the information about Novella Carpenter’s eating habits, and potentially act on them when more suitable spring weather permits it. The audience this article was intended for is people who are open to the ideas of farming and raising their own food. The purpose of Standen’s article is to shed light on the eating habits of Novella Carpenter, and present them in a more interpersonal format via interview. A strategy Standen creates is one in which she demonstrates that are more smarter methods to eating and preparing food as opposed to relying on establishments to provide food. In terms of the article by Jonah Goldberg entitled, “Well done,” the context of the article is that it was written in April 2001, during the onset of the Mad Cow epidemic. This provides great insight into the author’s thinking and approach to writing the article. The audience this article was written for was the general public, who were unsure as to where they stood on the eating meat stance. The purpose of, “Well Done” is to help people form an opinion and determine where they stand on eating meat. The strategy that Goldberg uses is one in which he discusses how a chef is switching a menu from featuring meat to a menu that is meatless. By discussing the chef’s decision, he cleverly describes different groups of people and their stances on meat, which allows his audience to make a decision to the meat issue themselves In terms of the article entitled, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” by Christine Lennon, this article’s audience was someone who was unclear about the differences of factory and farm raised beef. The context of the article is that Christine Lennon, is married to someone who was a vegetarian for seven years, and eventually decided to start eating farm raised meat. This provides a backdrop as to how Lennon negotiated and reasoned with her husband, as well as set the tone of the article. Lennon’s purpose is to persuade her audience to eat farm raised meat as opposed to factory raised meat. A strategy Lennon used in persuading her audience to eat farm raised meat was by providing the benefits that farm raised meat has on one’s health.
I thought all three of the articles chosen for this Thursday’s reading assignment were particularly interesting even though they follow the same theme of vegetarianism and how it relates to our environmental and health concerns. Each article used very unique strategies and genres to convey their message in a way that easily engages the reader. “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” uses personal experience and anecdotes to tell a story and get across her message. She does a good job of educating people about this new trend in vegetarianism without being overbearing. In the article “The Urban farmer”, the interview form makes the article easier to read, I think, and way more personal. You don’t have to wonder what is true or not and what the author is trying to say because the answers are all right there. It is a refreshing style and I think the personal touch fits well with the topic. I, personally, don’t think I could follow that particular lifestyle, but it was interesting to read about none the less. My personal favorite, ironically enough, was the “Well Done” article. Though I did have some qualms over some of the word choices Mr. Goldberg uses, I found the sarcasm and general sense of disdain for the “vegetarian” movement amusing. It was interesting to see the other side of the argument, the one against vegetarianism. I do think it warrants further thought though, because whereas the arguments for vegetarianism have studies and statistics to support their arguments, this one’s most substantial counter-argument is that “It tastes good.” and “We were meant to eat [meat].”
This selection of articles was very interesting, because it came from the side of people who still want to eat meat. Some of the opinions were extreme in their way of trying to convince you, and some of them were subtle. “Well Done” pretty much said that we shouldn’t worry about ethics and that we should just eat meat, because we are suppose to. Jonah Goldberg uses the strategy of being forceful and shooting down lots of campaigns pushing for vegetarians. He finds many possible reasons to tear apart vegetarians and their lifestyle even saying it is cult like. Livestock is in his mind man-made creatures that are put here for us to eat.. There are “vegan-vampires” and we should “Grub first; then ethics”. In my mind he seems a little to annoyed with people who simply care about animal rights. He is frustrated with their extremism and in return he is being just as extreme in his response to them I found “A carnivore’s delight poses an ethically meaty dilemma” a more effective article by Mark Morford. This article had a flow that kept you reading it smoothly all the way through. He provided a more realistic strategy to eating meat where people can eat well-treated meat, a middle ground, where one can care, but still enjoy it. He uses vivid descriptions to describe the nasty side of the industry, that make wanting to eat humanely treated meat that much more appealing. The audience of a few of these articles seemed to be people in California. I found this interesting, because I see California as an area were there are a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I think a fair number of these writers must be sick of no meat in their diet and trying to convince those around them it is not so bad if it is treated well. “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” by Christine Lennon used a strategy of convincing vegetarians to eat meat from local farms through a process of ‘everyone else is doing it’ so you should to. “Grass fed” and “pastor raised” is convincing vegetarians that they really have no reason not to be eating meat. I did not like how she used her husband as an example though, because it just made her seem a little controlling… if he or anyone else does not want to eat meat is that going to harm anyone? “The Urban Farmer” an interview by Amy Standen was enjoyable, because it showed a woman who has just decided to handle the matter on her own and not trust in anyone else to do it for her. I had never thought about ‘urban farming’… a garden yes.. but a turkey was a very new idea to me. This strategy involved education and the introduction to a new way of thinking that I found very innovative.
All three of these articles shared a common thread: bringing attention to the quality of meat you choose to eat and if you choose an alternative lifestyle such as vegitarianism there are ways to incorporate meat into your daily routine. Some people such as the "Urban Farmer" thinks it is "gross" to eat factory-farmed animals. Though she took this idea to an extreme, I think the purpose of these articles was to educate carnivors (such as my self) about healthier, more ethical ways to incorporate essential proteins into our meals. My favorite strategy used in these articles was used by Mark Morford. While reading I felt as if he were actually talking to me. He was able to make his point without being condecending toward vegitarians or omnivores. I especially enjoyed the ending, concluding that it is acceptable to indulge in a tasty filet mignon.
The article "Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat" by Christine Lennon was very intriguing to me. The only person that I know that is a vegetarian is my sister. Her reasoning for being a vegan is because she believes that eating meat is unhealthy for you. Her views have no affiliation with how animals are treated or raised. So I thought it was interesting that many vegetarians are vegans because of the way livestock is raised. In the article "Well Done" by Mr. Goldberg, he states that a British couple was about to go on trial for the death of their baby due to malnutrition from the diet of a spider monkey. I think that sometimes people take things way too far, and this is one of those cases. Since this was written in 2001, I was amazed that vegetarianism spread that quickly during that year. Recently we were talking about how America eats too much meat, so obviously Europe's ways didn't rub off on us too much. "The Urban Farmer" was also interesting. It was different to actually see the views of the local farmer and how they raise their own food.
The article, "The Urban Farmer Do farm animals survive by dying?", was very interesting. I don't really see how people can raise animals and then kill them. I get attached to stuffed animals (I wouldn't eat let my dog have one I got was a 10). I also never knew that people had their own little urban farms and I think it's very weird that some people actually name the animals they kill. This article was kind of depressing seeing as I am a meat eater. The turkeys in the picture were so cute and it is kind of weird that that's what I ate just 2 monthes ago on Thanksgiving. I enjoyed reading "A carnivore's delight poses an ethically meaty dilemma". I think the author appeals to both vegeitarians and meat eaters by stating that he feels people should meet in the middle and find a balance in eating meat. In "Well Done" the author uses many strategies. He scares the audience by talking about the upcoming parents who are on trial for the dead child who died of malnutrition because of the crazy diet they had the child on. Also the author is funny with the whole thing about Bill Clinton, and sharing your food, or other things. I think that Goldberg makes many intelligent claims against vegetarians. I had no idea how big of an issue meat was in this country and it's very interesting to read about.
In "Why Vegetarians are eating meat", I don't really see all that much benefit in grass fed beef buto each his own. As long as it tastes good to me I am happy. I dont really care what the beef eats, how much livestock is raised together, or how it is cleaned as long as it is safe and healthy to eat, and tastes good. I will say that supporting the ranchers is good though. In "A Carnivore's delight..." Morford uses a lot of imagery. He says " Humanely raised and kindly slaughtered and kissed by the sun and blessed by the sly and cooing angels of gustatory bliss" to describe the beef he prefers to eat. I think that is stretching it very far and outrageous but it is very descriptive. He also relates to all kinds of different people by throwing in certain jabs at all different types and groups of people. Again I dont really care too much about what the Beef eats. And killing it kindly??? Hmmm...? I think the smaller the ranches are the less cattle and the more relationships with the ranchers and cattle rather than a ranch that ownes thousands of cattle and they dont care about nor can tell any of them apart so killing them comes pretty easy as apose to the small ranches where they know each cow etc...
"The Urban Farmer" was an interesting article. I really enjoyed reading it and being able to understand another viewpoint, but I'm not sure I agree with all of it. I think the idea of giving the animals a good life instead of packing them in a small area where they all eat dirt is a great thing. However, in one part of the interview a point is brought up that some people "have argued that a life lived for the purpose of dying is not a real life" but Novella explains that "you could say that, but you're ignoring human culture." Then later she contradicts this by saying that killing and eating animals "isn't a normal part of your life." I enjoyed reading this interview because I learned a lot of new things, but I disagree with a lot of what she said in terms of what is right and wrong, I'm not sure she even knows what she believes.
In the article, “Why vegetarians are eating meat” I found it interesting that the authors husband went seven years without eating meat then began eating it once it was raised more ethically. There really is no straight line with this type of choice but it seems feelings dominate most decisions. Though it does seem from reading the other articles that environmental concern is enough of a reason that humans should limit their meat intake. In “Meatpaper Interview”, I saw this lady on TV as she was whacking away and skinning that rabbits. It was actually kind of disturbing to see and kind of implants the idea that if I’m going to eat meat, I want it to be necessary since I know this is how animals are treated on large industrial farms. I like the mention that people should eat free range, naturally fed livestock as I agree it taste better and poses less ethical and environmental harm.
All of the articles are meant to be sort of a scare tactic towards carnivores and avid meat eaters. In "Well Done" the target audience is meat eaters and the author brings in the mad-cow disease and other diseases and mentioned that it "ruins" appetites. A chef had even dropped all meat from his menu. I think that is a bit extreme because it will do nothing but piss off his meat eating customers and he will lose business. I completely agree that since meat provides proteins that vegetarians have to get through supplements, vegetarians will have a hard time converting America. America is probably the most meat eating country any ways so converting us will already be tough. In "A Carnivore's Delight" the author's approach is to make the audience feel guilty about consuming meat by saying we have a conscience and concern about where our meat comes from. He also mentions the Pultzer prize winner Michael Pollan's book to make himself seem credible and knowledgeable about the issue. The "Meatpaper" article makes us have remorse early on with pictures of a woman holding a dead turkey and discussion of rabbit brains, then the article progresses and that same lady actually saved four turkeys. She says that it is easier killing birds than mammals because with mammals there's a connection to being human. I completely agree with this statement. In "Why Vegetarians are eating meat" the author actually married a vegetarian. They are however compromising, she is eating less meat and in exchange he is starting to occasionally eat meat. That's how I think the issue needs to be approached: one meat eater at a time. If there is compromise then it makes it a hell of a lot easier. The author also mentions Michael Pollan's book.
I feel like the their is a clear divide between the articles we read for Tuesday compared to the articles we read for Thursday. In Tuesday's readings the information was presented much more factually and designed to catch the reader's attention through environmental and health issues; whereas Thursday's readings are presented in a much more opinionated format. For example, in Tuesday's reading "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet" Derrick Jackson uses facts on harmful emissions caused by the production of cows to propose the idea of eating less meat. Whereas, in Thursday's readings you have much more opinionated article like "Well-Done" that purposes the idea that Humans eat meat because they were made with carnivore teeth and have a "taste" for it. I feel like this argument is much more faulty because I believe you develop a taste for something through what your fed as a young child and not because your predisposed to it. I like how the articles take a different stand on the issue, but I'd like to see more facts and figures out of Thursday's readings and not just a farmer's Q&A.
The purpose or underlining theme between all three articles was very similar, there are healthy ways to eat meat. In the article "Why Vegetarians Eat Meat," Christine Lennon attempts to convince vegetarians that there are healthy forms of meet available, and there are those who avoid animal cruelty, but still eat meat. I think the jump on the band wagon strategy the author uses is very effective. She provides examples of well-known vegetarians, some of which are celebrities and others were renounced supporters of vegetarianism, who now eat healthy meat. This is an excellent way to convince vegetarians there are other options. The article "Well Done" has an overall sarcastic tone and criticizes the extremist views of vegetarianism. The author attempts to appeal to people's sense of logic. The author discusses who humans are genetically made to eat meat, how animals and humans are not on the same level, and how ridiculous far-fetched some vegetarians are becoming by refusing to eat fruit that has been non refrigerated and not cooked. The author of the article "Do Animals Survive by Dying" choose to keep her article in an interview format. This set-up makes the article easy to break down and read. The tone is very conversational. I found it extremely interesting that someone who was a vegetarian for 5 years can now slaughter animals the old fashioned way. At the initial glance, Novella Carpenter seems to switching between two extremes. As the article progresses, the reader learns that Novella was concerned about animal cruelty and healthier meat. She explains that she takes good care of the animals for their short life and feeds them healthy food in comparison to what most meat grazers feed their animals.
The videos in January 20th homework assignment try to persuade the viewer to either GO MEAT! or to take up the cause against farm factories (Meatrix) or even stop eating meat all together (PETA). The video Meatrix displayed a parody on the movie Matrix and I began the video laughing. However, after the producer got me to open up he began using scare tactics in the video to stop eating farm factories. The meatrix is the cold hard facts of the cruel way our meat is produced. Not only does this video try to tug on your sensitive side for the animals, but it explains that the antibiotics that we give them make improve their disease fighting skills which could eventually create a devastating and earth ending disease. I left watching this video a little scared. The second video I watched was PETA's "Go Vegetarian." This video was strictly made to tug at your sensitive side by showing clips of animals being killed un-humanely and comparing the animals to people. Some of the reasons the video uses to become vegetarian are that "they don't deserve it" and "no one deserves to see their family slaughtered" both of which I feel try to make the animals seem as human as possible. I did not feel this video did as good of a job at the Meatrix. Finally, I will discuss the Hillshire video. In their website Go Meat! it clearly has a fun undertone. No where in the website do they attack the debate, but rather try and make eating meat look fun by the funny parodies that they use. After watching Meatrix that used scare tactics and facts to persuade me, I was kind of hopping for something more from Hillshire that would reassure me that eating me is fine. As far as advertisements were concerned, Meatrix had none and seemed to be strictly about the fight against meat farms (which makes me feel even stronger about their video). PETA couldn't survive without donations and that is apparent in their website, and Hillshire is promoting their own brand of meat and so they don't have any other advertisers on their website.
After watching those commercials in class today, it is interesting to see how the public's view about meat has changed throughout the years. By watching the 1989 and 1999 commercials, one could tell that the people in the commercial were not concerned with how fattening or nutritious the meat was that they were about to eat. There was up-beat music playing and all the people in the restaurant were happy. A majority of the dinner plate was covered by a big piece of meat, while the other bit was either French fries or mashed potatoes. Which in it's entirety probably not healthy for you. Whereas, in the print ads of 2008 they are talking about the beef and how it is full of protein and refer to it as "lean" beef. Every box or label that we see in the grocery store is promoting "fat free", "organic", or "no trans-fat" among other various claims of nutrition. I think it is telling of our country that we have come this far and are very aware of our health and what we are eating. I think that we need to continue to pay more attention to where we are getting our food from and whether it is organic or the whether the meat is grass-fed or not. And I think that our country is headed in that direction.
The following is Katie's post which was posted before I started the thread.
ReplyDelete"In Meatless Mondays are Good for You... and the Earth", I believe that Julie Upton intended for the audience to be people who obviously eat meat, and are unaware of the harmful effects that meat has on your body and the earth. Also to people who didn't know that being a vegitarian was so good for you. I found this article to be most interesting of all three, because Julie Upton was short and sweet and had many facts, and statistics. She appeals to the audience because the article is concerning thier health. She uses statistics to try to convince her audience to go meatless, and also ties emotions in with weight control seeing as this is America and many people have weight issues. She also ties in the environment very well by discussing how and why all the meat we produce pollutes the air. This is a topic I have never thought about because I never realized how bad meat was for your health, or for the earth. I also never knew that being a vegitarian was so good for you.
All three articles were great for letting the audiences know that there are healthier ways, both for yourself and the environment, to eat meat. I personally enjoyed "Well Done" because it seemed to be making fun of the radicals a little bit, but it still got the point across. I don't think that what the interviewee in "The Urban Farmer" said about cities being filled with farm animals is actually going to happen. Americans enjoy their space too much. The articles do make me want to consider buying meat that comes from animals that are raised in better conditions though.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is clear that all three articles have the same type of familiar message, that there are healthier ways to eat. I really enjoyed reading the Urban Farmer. It was a topic that I had little knowledge in and it was interesting to be an outsider and read the interviewers questions followed with her responses about animal slaughtering. I have also heard of these things before where if an animal grows up in peaceful conditions and is treated better the meat is better, if not, the meat can be very bad for a person to eat. As a side note I feel that I am really learning a lot about my foods and could even take some of these articles and adopt them into my everyday life.
ReplyDeleteMichael Engle
ReplyDeleteJan 15, 2009
I enjoyed reading all the assigned readings; I gained a different perspective on eating meat. In terms of the article entitled, “The Urban Farmer Do farm animals survive by dying?” by Amy Standen, the article’s context is that it was written in March 2008 before spring. By writing this article before spring, it creates an opportunity for the reader to digest the information about Novella Carpenter’s eating habits, and potentially act on them when more suitable spring weather permits it. The audience this article was intended for is people who are open to the ideas of farming and raising their own food. The purpose of Standen’s article is to shed light on the eating habits of Novella Carpenter, and present them in a more interpersonal format via interview. A strategy Standen creates is one in which she demonstrates that are more smarter methods to eating and preparing food as opposed to relying on establishments to provide food.
In terms of the article by Jonah Goldberg entitled, “Well done,” the context of the article is that it was written in April 2001, during the onset of the Mad Cow epidemic. This provides great insight into the author’s thinking and approach to writing the article. The audience this article was written for was the general public, who were unsure as to where they stood on the eating meat stance. The purpose of, “Well Done” is to help people form an opinion and determine where they stand on eating meat. The strategy that Goldberg uses is one in which he discusses how a chef is switching a menu from featuring meat to a menu that is meatless. By discussing the chef’s decision, he cleverly describes different groups of people and their stances on meat, which allows his audience to make a decision to the meat issue themselves
In terms of the article entitled, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” by Christine Lennon, this article’s audience was someone who was unclear about the differences of factory and farm raised beef. The context of the article is that Christine Lennon, is married to someone who was a vegetarian for seven years, and eventually decided to start eating farm raised meat. This provides a backdrop as to how Lennon negotiated and reasoned with her husband, as well as set the tone of the article. Lennon’s purpose is to persuade her audience to eat farm raised meat as opposed to factory raised meat. A strategy Lennon used in persuading her audience to eat farm raised meat was by providing the benefits that farm raised meat has on one’s health.
I thought all three of the articles chosen for this Thursday’s reading assignment were particularly interesting even though they follow the same theme of vegetarianism and how it relates to our environmental and health concerns. Each article used very unique strategies and genres to convey their message in a way that easily engages the reader. “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” uses personal experience and anecdotes to tell a story and get across her message. She does a good job of educating people about this new trend in vegetarianism without being overbearing. In the article “The Urban farmer”, the interview form makes the article easier to read, I think, and way more personal. You don’t have to wonder what is true or not and what the author is trying to say because the answers are all right there. It is a refreshing style and I think the personal touch fits well with the topic. I, personally, don’t think I could follow that particular lifestyle, but it was interesting to read about none the less. My personal favorite, ironically enough, was the “Well Done” article. Though I did have some qualms over some of the word choices Mr. Goldberg uses, I found the sarcasm and general sense of disdain for the “vegetarian” movement amusing. It was interesting to see the other side of the argument, the one against vegetarianism. I do think it warrants further thought though, because whereas the arguments for vegetarianism have studies and statistics to support their arguments, this one’s most substantial counter-argument is that “It tastes good.” and “We were meant to eat [meat].”
ReplyDeleteThis selection of articles was very interesting, because it came from the side of people who still want to eat meat. Some of the opinions were extreme in their way of trying to convince you, and some of them were subtle. “Well Done” pretty much said that we shouldn’t worry about ethics and that we should just eat meat, because we are suppose to.
ReplyDeleteJonah Goldberg uses the strategy of being forceful and shooting down lots of campaigns pushing for vegetarians. He finds many possible reasons to tear apart vegetarians and their lifestyle even saying it is cult like. Livestock is in his mind man-made creatures that are put here for us to eat.. There are “vegan-vampires” and we should “Grub first; then ethics”. In my mind he seems a little to annoyed with people who simply care about animal rights. He is frustrated with their extremism and in return he is being just as extreme in his response to them
I found “A carnivore’s delight poses an ethically meaty dilemma” a more effective article by Mark Morford. This article had a flow that kept you reading it smoothly all the way through. He provided a more realistic strategy to eating meat where people can eat well-treated meat, a middle ground, where one can care, but still enjoy it. He uses vivid descriptions to describe the nasty side of the industry, that make wanting to eat humanely treated meat that much more appealing.
The audience of a few of these articles seemed to be people in California. I found this interesting, because I see California as an area were there are a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I think a fair number of these writers must be sick of no meat in their diet and trying to convince those around them it is not so bad if it is treated well.
“Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” by Christine Lennon used a strategy of convincing vegetarians to eat meat from local farms through a process of ‘everyone else is doing it’ so you should to. “Grass fed” and “pastor raised” is convincing vegetarians that they really have no reason not to be eating meat. I did not like how she used her husband as an example though, because it just made her seem a little controlling… if he or anyone else does not want to eat meat is that going to harm anyone?
“The Urban Farmer” an interview by Amy Standen was enjoyable, because it showed a woman who has just decided to handle the matter on her own and not trust in anyone else to do it for her. I had never thought about ‘urban farming’… a garden yes.. but a turkey was a very new idea to me. This strategy involved education and the introduction to a new way of thinking that I found very innovative.
All three of these articles shared a common thread: bringing attention to the quality of meat you choose to eat and if you choose an alternative lifestyle such as vegitarianism there are ways to incorporate meat into your daily routine. Some people such as the "Urban Farmer" thinks it is "gross" to eat factory-farmed animals. Though she took this idea to an extreme, I think the purpose of these articles was to educate carnivors (such as my self) about healthier, more ethical ways to incorporate essential proteins into our meals. My favorite strategy used in these articles was used by Mark Morford. While reading I felt as if he were actually talking to me. He was able to make his point without being condecending toward vegitarians or omnivores. I especially enjoyed the ending, concluding that it is acceptable to indulge in a tasty filet mignon.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat" by Christine Lennon was very intriguing to me. The only person that I know that is a vegetarian is my sister. Her reasoning for being a vegan is because she believes that eating meat is unhealthy for you. Her views have no affiliation with how animals are treated or raised. So I thought it was interesting that many vegetarians are vegans because of the way livestock is raised. In the article "Well Done" by Mr. Goldberg, he states that a British couple was about to go on trial for the death of their baby due to malnutrition from the diet of a spider monkey. I think that sometimes people take things way too far, and this is one of those cases. Since this was written in 2001, I was amazed that vegetarianism spread that quickly during that year. Recently we were talking about how America eats too much meat, so obviously Europe's ways didn't rub off on us too much. "The Urban Farmer" was also interesting. It was different to actually see the views of the local farmer and how they raise their own food.
ReplyDeleteThe article, "The Urban Farmer Do farm animals survive by dying?", was very interesting. I don't really see how people can raise animals and then kill them. I get attached to stuffed animals (I wouldn't eat let my dog have one I got was a 10). I also never knew that people had their own little urban farms and I think it's very weird that some people actually name the animals they kill. This article was kind of depressing seeing as I am a meat eater. The turkeys in the picture were so cute and it is kind of weird that that's what I ate just 2 monthes ago on Thanksgiving. I enjoyed reading "A carnivore's delight poses an ethically meaty dilemma". I think the author appeals to both vegeitarians and meat eaters by stating that he feels people should meet in the middle and find a balance in eating meat. In "Well Done" the author uses many strategies. He scares the audience by talking about the upcoming parents who are on trial for the dead child who died of malnutrition because of the crazy diet they had the child on. Also the author is funny with the whole thing about Bill Clinton, and sharing your food, or other things. I think that Goldberg makes many intelligent claims against vegetarians. I had no idea how big of an issue meat was in this country and it's very interesting to read about.
ReplyDeleteIn "Why Vegetarians are eating meat", I don't really see all that much benefit in grass fed beef buto each his own. As long as it tastes good to me I am happy. I dont really care what the beef eats, how much livestock is raised together, or how it is cleaned as long as it is safe and healthy to eat, and tastes good. I will say that supporting the ranchers is good though. In "A Carnivore's delight..." Morford uses a lot of imagery. He says " Humanely raised and kindly slaughtered and kissed by the sun and blessed by the sly and cooing angels of gustatory bliss" to describe the beef he prefers to eat. I think that is stretching it very far and outrageous but it is very descriptive. He also relates to all kinds of different people by throwing in certain jabs at all different types and groups of people. Again I dont really care too much about what the Beef eats. And killing it kindly??? Hmmm...? I think the smaller the ranches are the less cattle and the more relationships with the ranchers and cattle rather than a ranch that ownes thousands of cattle and they dont care about nor can tell any of them apart so killing them comes pretty easy as apose to the small ranches where they know each cow etc...
ReplyDelete"The Urban Farmer" was an interesting article. I really enjoyed reading it and being able to understand another viewpoint, but I'm not sure I agree with all of it. I think the idea of giving the animals a good life instead of packing them in a small area where they all eat dirt is a great thing. However, in one part of the interview a point is brought up that some people "have argued that a life lived for the purpose of dying is not a real life" but Novella explains that "you could say that, but you're ignoring human culture." Then later she contradicts this by saying that killing and eating animals "isn't a normal part of your life." I enjoyed reading this interview because I learned a lot of new things, but I disagree with a lot of what she said in terms of what is right and wrong, I'm not sure she even knows what she believes.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “Why vegetarians are eating meat” I found it interesting that the authors husband went seven years without eating meat then began eating it once it was raised more ethically. There really is no straight line with this type of choice but it seems feelings dominate most decisions. Though it does seem from reading the other articles that environmental concern is enough of a reason that humans should limit their meat intake. In “Meatpaper Interview”, I saw this lady on TV as she was whacking away and skinning that rabbits. It was actually kind of disturbing to see and kind of implants the idea that if I’m going to eat meat, I want it to be necessary since I know this is how animals are treated on large industrial farms. I like the mention that people should eat free range, naturally fed livestock as I agree it taste better and poses less ethical and environmental harm.
ReplyDeleteAll of the articles are meant to be sort of a scare tactic towards carnivores and avid meat eaters. In "Well Done" the target audience is meat eaters and the author brings in the mad-cow disease and other diseases and mentioned that it "ruins" appetites. A chef had even dropped all meat from his menu. I think that is a bit extreme because it will do nothing but piss off his meat eating customers and he will lose business. I completely agree that since meat provides proteins that vegetarians have to get through supplements, vegetarians will have a hard time converting America. America is probably the most meat eating country any ways so converting us will already be tough.
ReplyDeleteIn "A Carnivore's Delight" the author's approach is to make the audience feel guilty about consuming meat by saying we have a conscience and concern about where our meat comes from. He also mentions the Pultzer prize winner Michael Pollan's book to make himself seem credible and knowledgeable about the issue.
The "Meatpaper" article makes us have remorse early on with pictures of a woman holding a dead turkey and discussion of rabbit brains, then the article progresses and that same lady actually saved four turkeys. She says that it is easier killing birds than mammals because with mammals there's a connection to being human. I completely agree with this statement.
In "Why Vegetarians are eating meat" the author actually married a vegetarian. They are however compromising, she is eating less meat and in exchange he is starting to occasionally eat meat. That's how I think the issue needs to be approached: one meat eater at a time. If there is compromise then it makes it a hell of a lot easier. The author also mentions Michael Pollan's book.
I feel like the their is a clear divide between the articles we read for Tuesday compared to the articles we read for Thursday. In Tuesday's readings the information was presented much more factually and designed to catch the reader's attention through environmental and health issues; whereas Thursday's readings are presented in a much more opinionated format. For example, in Tuesday's reading "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet" Derrick Jackson uses facts on harmful emissions caused by the production of cows to propose the idea of eating less meat. Whereas, in Thursday's readings you have much more opinionated article like "Well-Done" that purposes the idea that Humans eat meat because they were made with carnivore teeth and have a "taste" for it. I feel like this argument is much more faulty because I believe you develop a taste for something through what your fed as a young child and not because your predisposed to it.
ReplyDeleteI like how the articles take a different stand on the issue, but I'd like to see more facts and figures out of Thursday's readings and not just a farmer's Q&A.
The purpose or underlining theme between all three articles was very similar, there are healthy ways to eat meat. In the article "Why Vegetarians Eat Meat," Christine Lennon attempts to convince vegetarians that there are healthy forms of meet available, and there are those who avoid animal cruelty, but still eat meat. I think the jump on the band wagon strategy the author uses is very effective. She provides examples of well-known vegetarians, some of which are celebrities and others were renounced supporters of vegetarianism, who now eat healthy meat. This is an excellent way to convince vegetarians there are other options.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Well Done" has an overall sarcastic tone and criticizes the extremist views of vegetarianism. The author attempts to appeal to people's sense of logic. The author discusses who humans are genetically made to eat meat, how animals and humans are not on the same level, and how ridiculous far-fetched some vegetarians are becoming by refusing to eat fruit that has been non refrigerated and not cooked.
The author of the article "Do Animals Survive by Dying" choose to keep her article in an interview format. This set-up makes the article easy to break down and read. The tone is very conversational. I found it extremely interesting that someone who was a vegetarian for 5 years can now slaughter animals the old fashioned way. At the initial glance, Novella Carpenter seems to switching between two extremes. As the article progresses, the reader learns that Novella was concerned about animal cruelty and healthier meat. She explains that she takes good care of the animals for their short life and feeds them healthy food in comparison to what most meat grazers feed their animals.
The videos in January 20th homework assignment try to persuade the viewer to either GO MEAT! or to take up the cause against farm factories (Meatrix) or even stop eating meat all together (PETA).
ReplyDeleteThe video Meatrix displayed a parody on the movie Matrix and I began the video laughing. However, after the producer got me to open up he began using scare tactics in the video to stop eating farm factories. The meatrix is the cold hard facts of the cruel way our meat is produced. Not only does this video try to tug on your sensitive side for the animals, but it explains that the antibiotics that we give them make improve their disease fighting skills which could eventually create a devastating and earth ending disease. I left watching this video a little scared.
The second video I watched was PETA's "Go Vegetarian." This video was strictly made to tug at your sensitive side by showing clips of animals being killed un-humanely and comparing the animals to people. Some of the reasons the video uses to become vegetarian are that "they don't deserve it" and "no one deserves to see their family slaughtered" both of which I feel try to make the animals seem as human as possible. I did not feel this video did as good of a job at the Meatrix.
Finally, I will discuss the Hillshire video. In their website Go Meat! it clearly has a fun undertone. No where in the website do they attack the debate, but rather try and make eating meat look fun by the funny parodies that they use. After watching Meatrix that used scare tactics and facts to persuade me, I was kind of hopping for something more from Hillshire that would reassure me that eating me is fine.
As far as advertisements were concerned, Meatrix had none and seemed to be strictly about the fight against meat farms (which makes me feel even stronger about their video). PETA couldn't survive without donations and that is apparent in their website, and Hillshire is promoting their own brand of meat and so they don't have any other advertisers on their website.
After watching those commercials in class today, it is interesting to see how the public's view about meat has changed throughout the years. By watching the 1989 and 1999 commercials, one could tell that the people in the commercial were not concerned with how fattening or nutritious the meat was that they were about to eat. There was up-beat music playing and all the people in the restaurant were happy. A majority of the dinner plate was covered by a big piece of meat, while the other bit was either French fries or mashed potatoes. Which in it's entirety probably not healthy for you. Whereas, in the print ads of 2008 they are talking about the beef and how it is full of protein and refer to it as "lean" beef. Every box or label that we see in the grocery store is promoting "fat free", "organic", or "no trans-fat" among other various claims of nutrition. I think it is telling of our country that we have come this far and are very aware of our health and what we are eating. I think that we need to continue to pay more attention to where we are getting our food from and whether it is organic or the whether the meat is grass-fed or not. And I think that our country is headed in that direction.
ReplyDelete