Are you a vegetarian, an omnivore, or a carnivore? Each year the world is becoming more extreme in everything including people’s eating preferences like going vegetarian or eliminating vegetables and going carnivore. These observations raise concerns; concerns organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals feel very strongly about. PETA’s main focus of the “go vegetarian” campaign is the cruelty in which animals are slaughtered and the large amounts of these slaughters (“Why Does”). They also believe that going vegetarian will help people lose spare weight, a big problem in today’s society amongst both genders because “vegetarians are 20 to 30 percent leaner” (“Lose”). Although the weight issue is continuously becoming popularly targeted amongst both genders, women have always been the center of the scrutiny for which bodies are imagined to look like. With that being said, women are more prone to being targeted since there are already ideals established to what good looking women should appear to be as.
While PETA is fighting for a good cause they may be doing so in incorrect ways. Most of their ads for the “go vegetarian campaign” are visually offensive. Having an overweight woman at a beach with the words next to her to “save the whales [,] lose the blubber: go vegetarian” insults those who eat meat by calling them overweight but in a derogatory manner considering they go to the extreme and call them whales, one of the animal for which PETA is fighting for (“Lose”). This sense of ill-fated humor may be still effective in that one could take a big offense to their weight and actually go vegetarian to stop being ashamed of what they believe people interpret them as.
Many across the United States spoke out ag...
... middle of paper ...
...on weight related issues, or it may be that I simply do not appreciate a vegetarian organization assuming they are leaner or healthier than those that are not vegetarian especially when the a balance diet includes meat, according to the food pyramid.
Works Cited
PETA. "Lose the Blubber: Go Vegetarian." Web log post. Peta.org. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 17 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.
PETA. "'Save the Whales' Controversy Inspires Chef." Web log post. Peta.org. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 31 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.
"PSAs by Campaign: Vegetarianism ." peta.org. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 29 Mar 2012.
"Why Does PETA Use Controversial Tactics." Peta.org. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.
... a topic of interest and if done tastefully, can be very persuasive. Many of PETA’s ad campaigns are related to sexuality, violence, discrimination against how people look, and the dominance over women. There are many pro-vegetarian and pro-vegan ads that do not degrade women and still are persuasive. Based on Kilbourne’s argumentative points, PETA ads are inappropriate and violent. Although many ads are degrading to women, some ads for vegetarianism are family friendly and are acceptable for publishing.
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
[Topic sentence for first body paragraph]. The first event that led to an increase vegetarianism in America was Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle in 1906. Upton Sinclair‘s The Jungle, was about Chicago's filthy, unsanitary meat-packing facilities. The novel resulted in a few percent of Americans no longer wanting to eat meat for fear of unsanitariness, and thus resulted in the first noticeably increase in vegetarians in America, even though the government passed the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The second major event that led to a slight increase in vegetarians was in 1958. It was reported that animals were cut piece by piece while still conscious in slaughter houses. This caused an outcry from by a large number of animal lovers, and they campaigned to put an end
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
Years ago it would have been unheard of for anyone to not eat meat on a daily basis, since during one period of time it was considered a staple for some. However, meat eaters started to pay attention to what they were consuming once Upton Sinclair’s famous novel The Jungle was published in the early 1930’s. It drew so much attention that the Pure Food and Drug Act passed to prevent the unsanitary and hazardous practices mentioned in The Jungle from happening. However, before Upton Sinclair’s novel was published few were already recognizing the ethical and nutritional (in this time period) hazards that happened because of the commercial meat industry. The International Vegetarian Union was established in 1908 and was one of the first notable movements and the organization that brought the most publicity towards vegetarianism in the western world. This organization stood against the ethical, environmental, and economic effects the commercial meat industry had on our nation. Even with the founding of this organization many do not understand vegetarianism or veganism in Europe or the United States and thus discuss it negatively, but this is an event that should cease to happen. The negative discussion of vegetarianism has negative effects that should be avoided and will be discussed.
Though vegetarianism was never a taboo subject as are some other controversial topics, The question of whether or not human beings should live off meat still is highly discussed amongst all types of people. Spiritual leaders, activists, scientists, and doctors have spoken up on behalf of their group’s opinion. Amongst the arguments of what is right when it comes to the food chain, resonating on many a mind is where the concept of vegetarian came from. Was it started as a religious virtue or a moral decision? Perhaps it was a forced lifestyle or a diet trend gone wrong (or right depending). Health wise, which is better for us? Educating ourselves by answering these questions helps us answer the, perhaps, most important question of all. Which lifestyle will we, as individuals, choose?
While plant-based diet have been around for decades, veganism did not make headlines until the late 1990’s. ‘Vegetarian’ first appears in a title of an article on September 16th, 1852, five years after the Vegetarian Society was formed (Vegetarian Society). Although veganism has clearly risen in popularity in the 21st century, it can not be concluded that American’s view plant-based eating positively. Multiple articles have been published bashing the lifestyle. ‘Vegan’ first appeared in a title of an article on December 6th, 1998, fifty-four years after the first vegan society was formed (Vegan Society). The article was titled, “All Species Welcome At A Vegan Mixer.” The author wrote about veganism as a foreign idea and made jokes on vegan’s behalf. The second time veganism appeared in the New York Times was in December of the same year. The article exposed a vegan eco-terrorist group, giving all vegans a bad reputation. Two years later, on February 1st, 2000,
There are a myriad of myths and misconceptions that surround the words “vegetarian” and “vegan.” One perhaps thinks that becoming vegan is synonymous with becoming weak and holier-than-thou or only consuming foods such as Tofurkey. Thankfully, this isn’t the case for the vast majority of vegans or vegetarians. For financial and health concerns, many Americans are consuming less meat and poultry; approximately one third of Americans follow a diet centered upon vegetables and whole grains, with the occasional consumption of meat. Nonetheless, meat consumption per capita is still extortionate in America—the highest per capita with the exception of Luxembourg—largely due to its ingrained nature in our economy and culture.
Christine Cuomo spoke about many interesting topics on what we ought to eat. She presented a very good argument on how eating meet is what we should no be eating and that rather more healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables are better for us in several ways and for many reasons. Christine is an ethics professor at the University of Cincinnati and during here presentation she made arguments that were somewhat controversial about what people ought to eat and what they shouldn’t ought to eat; and why. Even though some of here argument were controversial she seemed to put her perspective in very understandable ways that even those against her position would still enjoy hearing what she has to say. She is a vegetarian but is not one to force the idea on you, and she still eats cheese and drink milk. She talks about how animals are slaughtered for food and its not fair to them. She presents an argument on how butchers treat animals horribly and even though they are a source for our food they is no reason for animal brutality. During the presentation there was a picture of a high pile of pigs slaughtered. The picture was quite grossum and didn’t need much words to tell the story. Animals are just treated very violently as if they have no type of feeling for pain. This is not right. Personally I would like to see animals treated better before they are slaughtered because they have feelings of pain just as we do. I wish more people, including myself, can have the will power to stop eating meet to send a message to their butchers and factories that are displaying such animal brutality.
Walters, Kerry S, and Lisa Portmess. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print.
"Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources." PETA.org. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. .
...e Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.6 (2008): 580-96. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
Campbell, T. Colin, and Nancy Rodriguez. "Would We Be Healthier with a Vegan Diet?." Wall Street
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
Freeman, Carrie Packwood. "Framing Animal Rights in the "Go Veg" Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations." Society & Animals 18.2 (2010): 163-182. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.