Prop. 2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals Initiative Statute

Having watched both ads on T.V. and on YouTube I feel a YES vote is for me. Youtube has an ad called Vote Yes on Prop 2 [Warning Graphic Content]. This ad applies all of Aristotle’s three areas or rhetorical technique as described in the excerpt from his Rhetoric. First pathos is very strong in this ad. It shows pictures of the chickens, cows, and pigs in very small cages and you can see the unpleasant they are experiencing. Then at the end of the ad it shows animals not in cages and they look healthier. Of course this plays on a persons emotion (pathos) how could a person see an animal suffer and not be affected. The ad is well informed on how the animals suffers and how it can be changed by giving them digger cages. They also did research on how much it would cost to fix this problem. The ad says it would only cost about one cent an egg to fix the chicken egg problem. This would be the logos technique. Finally, it applies the ethos by naming the of veterinarians who stand by this prop and then you are giving a website to find out more information if needed. Then I watched the No on Prop2 ad. This ad was very shot with no real evidence to way we should vote no. The women is a pediatrician who was raised on a farm, she states her family knows the importance of having healthy animals. Okay, but that dose not mean other farmers know or we would not have it problem.  The whole ad is based on scaring you into think if you vote yes we will then receive our food from Mexico and that could lead to diseases. But there’s no evidence to any of their claims its just statements being made. The only rhetorical technique would be pathos, which they try to scare you into voting no.

1 Comment Add your own

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to comments via RSS Feed