If you missed a blog or scored lowly on one of the week's blogs do this one, remembering to post a response. It's on a topic near and dear to some of our hearts: mustangs. Ironically, the topic came up in chapter one of our text and last week's Newsweek. Read the article, respond by comparing it to the essay we read in chapter 1, then identify and challenge any assumptions the author made.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42536
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Both essays state similar reasoning for some people wanting to lower the wild mustang population: overpopulation. This article offers a good alternative to the slaughtering of mustangs.
Assumptions:
~Just because recipes for horsemeat were in Time Magazine, the public approved of horse slaughter.
* No polls of public opinion were in the article from that time on whether or not they agreed with the slaughtering of mustangs.
~All Mexicans that work for horse slaughters kill horses inhumanly.
*The writer does not offer any proof or statistics of this.
The essays differ more than they are similar. In the first essay, the woman was all for emotional appeals and how sad it all was and heartbreaking to kill overpopulated mustangs. In the second though, they talk about how mustang slaughter was legal, then illegal, and how now that they are overpopulating again, some action must be taken. Although many people are still fighting to save the mustangs.
Assumptions:
~They argument is GOVERNMENT vs AMERICA, and if you don't side with them, you're not looking patriotic, because the mustang is a symbol of western culture in the US.
~"..the horses were glorified in the nation's memory." (not mine)
~That all people find the slaughtering "inhumane".
~Slaughter is the only solution.
~No proof behind his statistics.
IN RESPONSE TO WANDA!
Good point.. there are other alternatives.
Good posts, both of you. Which argument do you feel is more persuasive? To whom and why? I know that the first essay (in the text) was pretty effective to some members of the class (one even declared vegetarianism after reading it), was the other as effective or do you think it had a different purpose?
I think that both essays are equally persuasive, but to different groups of people. For example, the first one had tons of emotional appeals and effected people like Heather. The second one was more effective to me because it offered a solution. The second one had a different purpose. It was to tell what's being done. The first essay just talked about how horrible it was. By the way, Heather didn't stick to the Vegetarian thing.
I think that the first one was more persuasive because it kind of guilt ed people into feeling sorry for the mustangs. So PETA, vegetarians, vegens (spelling?), and horse lovers are probably pretty persuaded because they feel sorry for the animals because it goes against their personal beliefs. I think the second was less effective because it was more factual (with little proof but it tried to be anyway) and I think more people would be affected by feeling sad or guilty then informed about the mustangs.
Post a Comment