The Cruelty Behind Your Ballpark Hot Dog Analysis
The Cruelty Behind Your Ballpark Hot dog is an article published by the Los Angeles Times where author Bruce Friedrich voices his concerns with the inactions of the USDA in response to violations of The Humane Slaughter Act made by major “slaughterhouses” across the country. By using several rhetorical devices, Friedrich voices his opinion on the actions taking place in several abattoirs across the country and his disappointment in the responses to them. I generally disagree with the way Friedrich conveys his opinion; however, I understand and support the morality of his message. Bruce Friedrich makes his argument through the use of pathos, a rhetorical appeal that evokes an emotional reaction from the reader, and several other rhetorical
…show more content…
devices. Throughout his article, Friedrich describes several incidents of inhumane treatment of the animals at the slaughterhouses to create an emotional reaction in the reader. Therefore he is able to achieve his intended goal in writing the article, causing people to disagree with the practices taking place at these slaughterhouses. Throughout his article Friedrich openly voices his disgust in the actions taken place at these locations and the USDA’s lack of a “stern response”.
It is obvious that he wants these plants shut down and the people working them to be tried legally. This can be seen through his repetition of writing that the consequences for said actions should result in these plants being “suspended” and “shut down” and the workers “criminally prosecuted”. While he makes this his goal in writing the article, he fails to mention the negative possible reactions this could cause. Furthermore the author neglects to inform the reader of any negative consequences that could occur if these plants were shut down or if the workers were prosecuted, which consequently detracts from the message he is trying to convey. The author gives several specific examples throughout the article of animal abuse which he then follows with the corresponding consequences of these actions and the lack of implementation by the USDA in these incidents. The author writes in this specific order to create an emotional response from the audience by first making the reader remorseful for the animals explaining how they were brutally treated. He then describes how there were no consequences for these actions which consequently causes the reader to feel outraged and more likely to side with
Friedrich. Furthermore, Friedrich is able to achieve his intended effect through the manipulation of his word choice. When describing the incidents that took place, he uses words such as: “killing”, “botched”, “tormented”, “criminal cruelty”, and other manipulative words. Through these word choices, it is clear that this article is biasedly written and opinionated to create the maximum emotional response from the audience. While I agree with the author that these animals were treated incorrectly and that some consequence should have been implemented, the use of his diction makes his article seem opinionated which allows opposition to form from some readers taking away from the message he is trying to deliver. If he had written without such obvious bias and used less loaded words, this article would have had a bigger impact. In response to the authors attempt to create an appeal to the audience, I found myself having a strong emotional reaction to one of his statements. “Personally, I see no ethical difference between eating a chicken or a cat, a pig or a puppy; I don't think slaughtering animals for one's dinner can ever be humane”. Examining the structure of the sentence I analyzed the and scrutinized the several rhetorical devices in it. He uses binary opposition in this statement to show that in his opinion eating a farm animal which is socially accepted is no different then eating an animal that most people would consider pets. When writing these binary oppositions he also uses agnomination by comparing two different animals whose name starts with the same letter. Cat and chicken, pig and puppy.
Additionally, aside from the rhetoric used, Friedrich’s statement itself caused a strong emotional response in opposition of his belief. Cats and puppies are common household pets while chickens and pigs are commonly eaten animals, therefore saying there is no difference in eating them would not be a widely agreed with belief. Likewise, his argument that “...slaughtering animals for one’s dinner can ever be humane” also holds no ground because in order to stay healthy people need the nutrients provided to them through meat from animals that are “slaughtered”.
That being said, I agree with the morality of the message Friedrich is presenting. Aside from the his seemingly extremist views on the punishment of these plants, I agree with the morality of his message that the animals in these and other cases should not be treated in the inhumane way that they were. While I disagree with the author in that I believe animals should be killed for food purposes, I agree that if they are indeed put down it should be painless and humane.
Comparatively, I disagree with the way Friedrich conveys his message. Throughout the entire article I felt that he was deceiving and manipulative with the way he described the incidents and his word choice. He describes all of these specific examples and says he’s heard of dozens more; however, he uses no statistical data at all to back up his opinion. While I don't know whether or not the statistical data would support his argument, I am led to believe it doesn't and that he did not include any on purpose to make his argument stronger. I believe if he included statistical data and case studies it would make him a more trustworthy writer.
All things considered and as noted above I generally disagree with the way Friedrich conveys his opinion; however, I understand and support the morality of his message. I believe while his article is obviously biased and opinionated it is not just a frustrated rant. I believe he carefully thought and and used the specific rhetorical devices he did on purpose to get an emotional response from the audience to achieve his intended effect. With Friedrich’s carefully thought out style, language, and rhetoric he is able to voice his opinion in the way that he wants to, creating the emotional response from the audience that he had planned on.
devices. Throughout his article, Friedrich describes several incidents of inhumane treatment of the animals at the slaughterhouses to create an emotional reaction in the reader. Therefore he is able to achieve his intended goal in writing the article, causing people to disagree with the practices taking place at these slaughterhouses. Throughout his article Friedrich openly voices his disgust in the actions taken place at these locations and the USDA’s lack of a “stern response”.
It is obvious that he wants these plants shut down and the people working them to be tried legally. This can be seen through his repetition of writing that the consequences for said actions should result in these plants being “suspended” and “shut down” and the workers “criminally prosecuted”. While he makes this his goal in writing the article, he fails to mention the negative possible reactions this could cause. Furthermore the author neglects to inform the reader of any negative consequences that could occur if these plants were shut down or if the workers were prosecuted, which consequently detracts from the message he is trying to convey. The author gives several specific examples throughout the article of animal abuse which he then follows with the corresponding consequences of these actions and the lack of implementation by the USDA in these incidents. The author writes in this specific order to create an emotional response from the audience by first making the reader remorseful for the animals explaining how they were brutally treated. He then describes how there were no consequences for these actions which consequently causes the reader to feel outraged and more likely to side with
Friedrich. Furthermore, Friedrich is able to achieve his intended effect through the manipulation of his word choice. When describing the incidents that took place, he uses words such as: “killing”, “botched”, “tormented”, “criminal cruelty”, and other manipulative words. Through these word choices, it is clear that this article is biasedly written and opinionated to create the maximum emotional response from the audience. While I agree with the author that these animals were treated incorrectly and that some consequence should have been implemented, the use of his diction makes his article seem opinionated which allows opposition to form from some readers taking away from the message he is trying to deliver. If he had written without such obvious bias and used less loaded words, this article would have had a bigger impact. In response to the authors attempt to create an appeal to the audience, I found myself having a strong emotional reaction to one of his statements. “Personally, I see no ethical difference between eating a chicken or a cat, a pig or a puppy; I don't think slaughtering animals for one's dinner can ever be humane”. Examining the structure of the sentence I analyzed the and scrutinized the several rhetorical devices in it. He uses binary opposition in this statement to show that in his opinion eating a farm animal which is socially accepted is no different then eating an animal that most people would consider pets. When writing these binary oppositions he also uses agnomination by comparing two different animals whose name starts with the same letter. Cat and chicken, pig and puppy.
Additionally, aside from the rhetoric used, Friedrich’s statement itself caused a strong emotional response in opposition of his belief. Cats and puppies are common household pets while chickens and pigs are commonly eaten animals, therefore saying there is no difference in eating them would not be a widely agreed with belief. Likewise, his argument that “...slaughtering animals for one’s dinner can ever be humane” also holds no ground because in order to stay healthy people need the nutrients provided to them through meat from animals that are “slaughtered”.
That being said, I agree with the morality of the message Friedrich is presenting. Aside from the his seemingly extremist views on the punishment of these plants, I agree with the morality of his message that the animals in these and other cases should not be treated in the inhumane way that they were. While I disagree with the author in that I believe animals should be killed for food purposes, I agree that if they are indeed put down it should be painless and humane.
Comparatively, I disagree with the way Friedrich conveys his message. Throughout the entire article I felt that he was deceiving and manipulative with the way he described the incidents and his word choice. He describes all of these specific examples and says he’s heard of dozens more; however, he uses no statistical data at all to back up his opinion. While I don't know whether or not the statistical data would support his argument, I am led to believe it doesn't and that he did not include any on purpose to make his argument stronger. I believe if he included statistical data and case studies it would make him a more trustworthy writer.
All things considered and as noted above I generally disagree with the way Friedrich conveys his opinion; however, I understand and support the morality of his message. I believe while his article is obviously biased and opinionated it is not just a frustrated rant. I believe he carefully thought and and used the specific rhetorical devices he did on purpose to get an emotional response from the audience to achieve his intended effect. With Friedrich’s carefully thought out style, language, and rhetoric he is able to voice his opinion in the way that he wants to, creating the emotional response from the audience that he had planned on.