support

Veganism Against
“and we say, "Yes, but consuming animals is part of the food chain. I mean, it's the circle of life: everyone who is born must one day die,
that's a natural process, that's symbiotic and harmonious to nature and the world that we live in. And our food chains are incredibly
important. They symbolise part of the natural order and help maintain and form ecosystems. Fundamentally they are there to ensure
that population sizes of animals are kept consistent and to ensure that the natural ecology is just well balanced." But what we do to
animals when we selectively breed them, when we genetically modify them, when we artificially inseminate and forcibly impregnate
them, when we mutilate them, when we exploit them for what they naturally produce for their own species, when we load them into
trucks, take them to a slaughterhouse where we hang them upside down, cut their throat and bleed them to death has nothing to do
with a natural order, and most importantly, It fits none of the criteria required to be labeled as a food chain. You see, the food chain
that we cite is a human construct created very conveniently to try and justify what is an entirely unnecessary act. It ignores the
complexity, an interdependent web of life that form our natural ecosystems. It is an appeal to nature fallacy that overlooks our ability
to make moral decisions as beings who possess moral agency. In essence, the food chain argument draws upon the idea of might makes
right the belief that because you have the ability to physically exploit someone else, you're somehow justified to do so as well.”
Via: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byTxzzztRBU&t=663s
“There is no life without death. This is a harmonious cycle, this is how nature works you can't get outside of it, you can stick your
head in the sand and pretend you're not killing something it’s just not how nature works. 55 sentient animals lives lost to produce
100 kilograms of usable plant protein. That's 25 times more killings than to produce the same amount of rangelands beef. Over half
the mice taken by predators after harvest plus 80% decrease in population. Either they're killed immediately or they starve to death
because they don't have their food source anymore. There's so many more examples of this -people probably heard this by now- of
animals getting chopped up in the combines, or we were diverting huge waterways to create this land to grow mono crops and it kills
ecosystems. So many animals, that we can't even calculate, die from the way we do mono crops corn, wheat, and soy. The biggest
question here is “what is the alternative?” This is the big ethical argument, is well we need an alternative. We can't just live off of
air. Part of the story is that animals are gonna die in nature either way, and it's not a good death. Animals don't just die of old age in
an old cows home and get some morphine if they're feeling bad. They get eaten alive, sick, or starve to death. There is no alternative,
like if you think about this ethical argument you have to think about the alternative you can't just think well i don't want an animal
to die for me to eat because that's not the question.”
VIA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz0SXNARz7I&list=TLPQMTQwMTIwMjEuySDFcmR32w&index=3

Slaughterhouse Greenhouse gases Exploitation Carnivore Circle of life Necessary

The excessive use of this
word by the speaker tells
us a little about the kind of
information the speaker
gives.
The speaker refers to how
slaughterhouses and
other factories that are
used to make animal based
products are negatively
affecting the environment.
This word is typically used This word is frequently
by this side when describing used as one of the claims
the actions of people who against veganism when
eat meat. explaining the human
biology of why people need
meet.
This is another example used When explaining why
for the justification of people should eat meat,
eating meat that this side this word is repetitively
often uses. Which conveys uses to express how
their biased view on the drastically important meat
subject. is to everyone’s diet.

Pathos, Ethos Logos, Ethos

The speaker uses All three of these red flags to support his claim of pro veganism and
does this by using two rhetorical devices, Pathos and ethos, when conveying the messages
to the audience. By talking about the terrible conditions of the animals and the affects
these slaughterhouse factories have on greenhouse gases the speaker intentionally
tries to connect to the emotions of the audience. At the very beginning of the speech He
also portrays ethos when telling the audience that he used to be anti-vegan and thought
people should never go vegan. The reason he says this to gain credibility as someone who
claims to have seen it from both sides.
This speaker uses logos when focusing on data that supports their main claim. They show
tables graphs and percentage pies to convince the audience that their reasonings to be
against veganism is logical. They also use ethos within their logic when demonstrating a
short clip from a farmer, someone of credibility, who explains why meat is essential and
how the life of a farm animal is not as bad as anti-meat propaganda tells it to be.

Inductive reasoning Deductive reasoning

The speaker shows positive outcomes and uses factual evidence and data to support their The speaker gains credibility by presenting a method of farming, typically seen by most
ideal scenario of a world where people have vegan diets. By challenging the audience to farmers today, called rotational grazing and uses this existing concept when connecting
visualize his claims in action he is able to help the audience come to a larger conclusion. to the bigger picture of how animals play a part in it all.