Rhetoric; Vegan Outreach versus Jeremy Rifkin
Rhetoric is often a descriptive piece of writing that is meant to persuade the reader. It can be seen in the pieces by Jeremy Rifkin and Vegan outreach that are bringing out the benefits of being a vegetarian. The two both use their factual knowledge on the issue to try and convince the reader that being a vegetarian or eating less meat is more important in terms of nutrition than eating more animal products in meals.
Vegan outreach’s origin of the article expresses the general message in a simple and clear way but is more sarcastic in the way they portray their suggestions. “If you care about animals consider not eating them”. Here they are starting off with a pale truth. This evokes thoughts in the reader. They use the pieces (both Rifkin and vegan outreach) to expound the theory in question that is, to expound their view of animal products. Vegan outreach tells us of the sadistic nature of acquiring animal based food products by clearly describing how male chicks are put in a grinder simply because they do not lay eggs. Similarly, Rifkin explains the concern that large industries have developed in the welfare of their animals to the extent of sponsoring research in their behaviors.
Another similarity in the pieces is seen in how they inform the reader. Vegan Outreach informs the reader about the possible benefits of not using animal products or cutting short the consumption of the same. Using individual accounts, they give a picture of how it is that an animal can be humane, how it can be reared to give and live a happier life, about their likes and preferences. Jeremy evokes empathy when he brings to light the cruelty of slaughtering the animals (Rifkin 8). He describes vividly how chicken suffer as they are stunned by an electric shock before being exsanguinated. This triggers the thought of empathy by the intended consumer of the product whether it is really worth the pain that the animal undergoes to set him a plate. This question is also posed by one of the student accounts in the article by vegan outreach.
The two pieces are outright argumentative. They are using various ways of persuasion to tell the reader to be part of the people who consume less animal products. Vegan Outreach argues from the perspective of the betterment of lives of the animals that survived slaughter. This springs from the fact that one can still get nutritional satisfaction or even better nutrition with more plant-sourced food. This highlights the question on which one should debate. The piece by Jeremy however looks into the same question by bringing in the concerns large organizations have for the same debate (Rifkin 16). He illustrates the issue about them having concerns for the emotions and feelings during their treatment and procedures before their slaughter.
Despite the alignment of their intentions, the two pieces portray many differences. The first and most evident one is the use of illustrations by the Vegan Outreach piece. They have input more picture than explanations to instill the picture required in the mind of the reader. Vegan outreach utilized the images to evoke empathy from the reader and to enhance the capturing power of their piece to the attention of the reader. The visual attraction one gets clearly delivers the message intended. This way of persuasion lacks in Jeremy’s piece. He stuck to the laying down of facts in prose writing. He tries to be vivid in the method of explanation that he uses (Rifkin 24).
Another major difference seen is the use of personal accounts. The piece by Jeremy lacks this. He sticks to the use of general facts and does not include any individual opinionated comments of the topic. Vega Outreach displays this and to a larger extent creates a more personal feel of the piece with which they use to provoke a rather self-question within the reader. It also gives the reader a picture of the effort input by the researcher in the making of the article and how much effort people are actually putting at a personal level (Vegan 13). This will indirectly pose a challenge to the reader.
To add on that, Jeremy uses a continuous way of writing. He portrays his argument by talking of how similar humans are to these animals. He keeps making suggestions that because of this great similarity, we should treat animals a little closer to the way we treat ourselves and fellow humans (Rifkin 22). He goes on to say that laws and policies should be put in place to aid in the protection of animals from the animosity of humans. As he concludes, he poses a number of rhetoric questions to add the weight to his own compilations. This is however contrasted in a way in the piece by Vegan Outreach which uses brief sentences illustrated deeper by the pictures given. The words are short and straight to the point.
Finally, the two rhetoric pieces vary greatly in the sources of information that they give. The vegan outreach tends to draw a picture of empathy by touching on the individual accounts of the victim animals or individuals (Vegan 12). One would say that they give a more personal feel to their piece using the accounts and the images they couple in with. This is pictured differently in the piece by Jeremy. He uses more professional sources and references to bring out his points. He gives accounts of scientists’ research findings. One would say that his intended audience was a rather scholarly one rather that the general public.
Effectiveness of the style
The piece by the Vegan Outreach shows a better persuasiveness than Jeremy’s piece. This may be because of the reasons highlighted herein:
To start with, Jeremy uses prose writing to outline his opinion (Rifkin 42). This is a rather dull way to share a message as long and rather continuous reads can be a boring channel to many. This is because people prefer an easily understood, straight to the point way of communication. It is clearly shown by the Vegan Outreaches piece. The piece uses a large number of pictures to capture the attention of his readers. They use the shortest sentences possible to make their points brief and readable in a pretty shorter while. This would appeal more to the reader.
Furthermore, Vegan Outreach’s use of personal accounts and comments made by individuals induces interest in the reader. It also challenges the reader in a way, this can be so when one refers to David Carter; the NFL athlete’s comments about being healthier while utilizing purely vegetarian diets (Vegan 12). It also does not fail to include an experience by Gunita Singh of Boston University who tells of how she became healthier after her decision to choose non-animal products. The professional account by a medical doctor backed by a picture increases the acceptability of the message being communicated.
In conclusion, Vegan Outreach fails to identify and expound on the weaknesses of its dietary suggestion. For instance, when it diverts the attention of why one would need to consume more vitamin C to be able to absorb more of the richness in minerals found in the food from plant sources or the reasons why one would require further iron supplementations by focusing on the benefits of a vegetarian diet like having low cholesterol and being able to offer a variety. This may raise questions in the reader’s mind that may affect the acceptability of the message. It however shifts the attention by giving the reasons through real-life scenarios. This is appealed more though the pictures.
On the other hand, Jeremy’s article focuses more on the science behind the cruelty on animals. He fails to offer possible solutions or alternatives to the same, making the Vegan Outreach a more reliable conveyer. He also fails to illustrate his arguments in any way other than the words he used. This may miss to capture the reader’s attention.