Saturday, September 20, 2008
Pollan: Part One
I agree with J.R. that Pollan's argument "embodies all the principles of a fair and principled rhetoric, grabbing both the mind and heart." Pollan's argument uses a wide variety of both pathos and logos to convey his argument regarding animal cruelty. From what I have read thus far, his logical appeal provokes one to think about numerous questions he has put forth throughout his piece. The moment that stands out the most in my mind is when Pollan discusses the chimpanzee compared to the mentally retarded. Why should an equally intelligent primate be tested upon just because he or she is not a human being? Pollan sees both sides of the argument and puts for the notion that there is multiple ways of looking at the situation. Pollan claims that his first line of defense was "animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethnically than they treat one another?” Pollan then proceeds to understand that animals do an assortment of activities that human beings tend to frown upon in our society; such as rape and murder. Pollan comments on the fact that countless dogs will receive Christmas gives this season, but most pigs will not. The idea that we would give gifts to a dog rather than pig just because pigs are typically raised to be eaten is depressing. Pigs are just as intelligent as dogs, but their characteristics differ greatly causing us to view them in entirely different way then we view "man's best friend". Pollan persistently continues to find his defenses shot down as he continues to find ways in order to defend his take on animal cruelty. Pollan's piece encompasses both arguments, for and against animal cruelty, a technique that leaves little to be said; rebuttal cannot be strong if the author has already addressed both sides of the argument with evidence and examples.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with the last part, that Pollan seems to be "straddeling the fence" on this topic. He will says the pros and cons on both sides of animal cruelty and then not really say which side he is on. But I like your references to the story, they were most rememberal and had great points to prove, so I enjoyed reading that in your blog. But do you think that Pollan's piece was really that great? I mean yes the facts were strong, and he did present the topic that made the reader had to really think before they made a decision on the issue. But I don't really think he grabbed both the mind and heart? Yes he provided facts, but maybe as a society we might be to sympathetic towards animals that are pets. You did state the difference between the dog and pig. But it is a fact that they are different, and still not many people have pigs as pets? So I was just wondering where the pathos you got from the story came from is all. I hope this last part didn't make me sound shallow. :)
I think that the first part of the essay was not as powerful as it could have been. but then I read the second part and then it made sense. I agree with you on the Pathos logos part. He definitely made the whole argument very emotional. It appeals to pet lovers too. Pets are not just dogs. they are whatever you what them to be. I agree with you on the Chimpanzee comparison. It is not fair for an animal with feelings to be tested on and he or she cant even voice how they feel. The animals are being taken advantage of. If I had a pig I would totally give him a christmas present. :)
Post a Comment