• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Why I Hate Vegetarians" Essay Analysis

Extracts from this document...


By Chin Ching and Jensen Pon The commentary article "why I hate vegetarians" is about a women, who is the founder of the justice for women, a feminist vaguely to the left. She explains why she hates vegetarians. Her arguments are listens as follows: She hates the behavioral aspects of a vegetarians: They make her feel guilty; they employ mind control techniques to convert you; they make the wrong assumption that it is cheaper and healthier and they ignore your freedom of choice. The following is a detailed analysis of each point. Julie Bindel starts off her essay by criticizing the 'smug' attitudes of the vegetarians. She claims that most vegetarians believe that they are more superior than meat-eaters. She presents this idea with the use of negative adjectives to describe the vegetarians's attitude. They include, 'unpalatable', ' superior', 'smug', 'self satisfied', ' pompous aloofness'. To reinforce her point and to make it clear to the reader, she uses rhetorical questions such as 'They are better than you don't you know?' She criticizes the way vegetarians promote vegetarianism and recruit converts. One of the ways they do is making you feel guilty and self conscious of ordering meat. Furthermore, she criticize the exaggerated claims that vegetarianism can benefit he world as well as your health. These ideas are conveyed with the use of hyperbole such as 'cult', 'mantra', 'appalling', 'crusader' and 'safeguard'. She criticizes what she considers to be the wrong assumption that vegetarianism is a healthy choice and is generally cheaper than eating meat. To prove that vegetarianism is not always healthy, she recalls an incident where a vegan couple were charged for malnourishing three small children. She also sates that vegetarianism is a "privileged choice" and that poor people cannot afford to have this kind of diet. This idea is effectively delivered by backing up her argument with a real life incident and the use of technical terms like 'vitamin B12,' which makes her claim sound more convincing and authoritative. ...read more.


She criticizes vegetarians who put the welfare of animals before humans. She claims these animal liberationists are hindering the efforts of scientist in curing cancer and are causing the closure of rape crisis centers at the expense of animal charities. She makes her argument convincing and attract the readers attention by using rhetorical questions such as 'Would they be happy allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or having rats run loose in heir home?' She criticizes the unethical method of mind control that vegetarians employ stop the consumption of meat, which obviously goes against people's freedom of choice. this method is promoted by showing difficult child birth as the consequence of sex. Judging from all her arguments, I believe that they are highly ineffective even though she uses lots of persuasive devices. First, the nature of her arguments are based on a very weak foundation. For instance, she argues that she doesn't like the vegetarian's 'smug' attitude. Ironically, she hen contradicts herself by saying 'you are indeed what you eat', then why can't she ignore what non-meat eaters are eating. The fact that she contradicts herself shows an unjustifiable and unpersuasive argument. It also suggests isn't taking a serious approach to this issue. Secondly, she stereotypes vegetarians as people who are irrational, smug and radical people. This is completely untrue as these types of people occupy a very small percentage of vegetarians. The fact that she makes this wrong assumption shows her naive, ignorants and overly-sensitive attitude towards vegetarians. She also closely links the term ' animal liberalist and vegetarians. Vegetarians are people who eat vegetables for a diet. Animal liberalists are people who fight for animal rights. Attempting to connect two remotely distinct ideas: a choice of dietary and political views- does not have a logical argument and is my interpretation of what she calls a 'spurious argument'. Thirdly, the writer attack vegetarians with a totally irrelevant argument stating that they are taking away people's freedom of choice. ...read more.


How is showing animals being slaughter for food, a form of mind control ? It's a reality of life, which everybody knows. It's just like being forced to view the death of a relative in a hospital ward. To hide from the truth is to be irresponsible and naive. Her argument is as retarded as saying that Al Gore's presentation of 'An Inconvenient Truth' about global warming is a mind control technique employed to stop people from using CO2 emitting substances. It's the truth we've been hiding from the truth for so long. The reason why Bindel claims that this is a form of mind control is because she lives in ignorant little world of her own and has the heart of a child that is unwilling to face and admit the harsh realities of life. People can still decide for themselves, if they should give up meat provides them with a strong reason to give up meat, yet in no way is it depriving their freedom of choice. Fourthly, she incorrectly assumes that vegetarianism is a privileged choice in the developed world. This is not true in places like South Africa and China, where vegetables are the peoples's major source of diet. Yet again, this unreliable and subjective statements clearly indicates a weak argument based on false, misleading and incorrect information. To conclude, the article does not have a effective argument due to unreliable, insufficient and biased evidence. They tend to have a subjective point of view and are usually backed up with non-factual evidence. In terms of tone, the writer tends to express her ideas in a light-hearted and humorous manner. he article was written is a conversational format, which suggests it was written to entertain an audience with similar views to her own rather than invited a serious debate with an audience with opposing views to her own. ?? ?? ?? ?? Response to text where you analyze, evaluate and comment on the views expressed. Response to text where you analyze, evaluate and comment on the views expressed. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Writing to Inform, Explain and Describe section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Writing to Inform, Explain and Describe essays

  1. Literary Criticism Analysis

    She may have chosen to do so because the alternative was also based on sound interpretation, however, elaborating on it could have disproved her point. Therefore, she mentions it without going into further detail. Part III: Domina provides a logical interpretation of the affects of the themes of failure and falsehood, and delusions.

  2. Jaws Attack Analysis

    to her, where-as she is shouting "come on IN the water!" to the boy. This is a point of high tension. The non-diegetic music is low thumping strings and as the shark draws in and gets closer to Chrissies' legs the music begins to get louder, starts to quicken the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work