Rifken makes many statements towards animal abuse but none against, is that not suspicious to you? He talks about the the different examples like Koko to get to you through pathos and make you fall for his trap, he names no negatives, and his unreliable support for his statements has led me to go against his belief.
Rifken starts out by naming every statement that comes to his mind whether it be a scientific study, animal like Koko. However, did he once name something against any of his claims? Did he ever talk about what would happen if we did give animals such rights, and how we would enforce them? There are many reasons against his claim from an economic standpoint, a social standpoint, as well as a logical one. How could we enforce this? Would we convince the whole world to do it too? What would happen to all the farms and farmers? Would every single animal be included? There are too many unanswered questions in this to be able to be even a thought.…show more content… “Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks” (para 11). This is one example of his pathos appeal, he lures you in with sad stories about death and mourning but this is only one animal out of the hundreds of thousands that exist. He continues using abusing pathos and making you ignore the fact that most of the information has no named negative effects but in reality it will have many that will highly impact the daily lives of almost everyone and everything. There are many jobs based on the growing and slaughtering of animals and that would be terminated as well as many traditions and holidays like thanksgiving
