TOW#23: article "The Value of a Life, Though Toxic and Tiny" by Pamela Gwyn Kripke

Bunny Vs. Snake

Which one is cuter, a bunny or a snake? Many people would choose the bunny because it is soft and fluffy, whereas the snake is slimy and creepy. But does that change whether one life is more important than another? Pamela Gwyn Kripke writes about who receives a cute little frog as a pet. But when he realizes that it is poisonous, he does not find it as amusing anymore. 

At first the boy fed the frog and took care of the frog all the time. After he realized that it was dangerous, he was reluctant to take care of it. The frog began to suffer because it was not fed nor taken care of. Ultimately, the boy realized that he had done a horrible thing and that just because the creature is no longer a safe pet, it does not mean that the frog's life is worthless. 

Kripke appeals to pathos by talking about a pitiful animal. When the frog is describes as suffering and sad, it creates a guilty feeling towards the audience because people feel bad that an animal is suffering because of carelessness. Being indifferent toward an animal just because it is not appealing to one's eye is wrong. Every life is important equally; no life is more important than another because of its physical appearance.

Kripke sends out a broader message throughout this essay. Her reference to frogs could be a reference to people, that everyone is unique and important in their own way. No one is more important than another. Everyone and everything are equal. It is upsetting to see one or one thing being love more because of its physical appeal. It is not fair and judgmental.

Everything and everyone deserves love and care. Physical impairments should not determine that. The frog was poisonous, so what? Does that mean it deserves less love than anything else? It is an alive, breathing creature that was made to live. It should not be disregarded because it isn't appealing. 

(http://m.cdn.blog.hu/co/colombiageodiversa/image/ranas%20venenosas_AutoCollage_12_Images.jpg)

The World's Most Poisonous Frogs

TOW #22: GLAD Advertisement for Plastic Wrap

(http://webtoolfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/creatiw41.jpg)

GLAD is a famous brand that is well-known for its sturdy food containers, trash bags, and plastic wraps. The advertisement for its plastic wraps consists of a quarter of a watermelon on a single white plate. But inside the watermelon is no watermelon, but raw meat. That is disgusting; but then what is the purpose of this picture?

In order to emphasize the effectiveness of GLAD's plastic wraps, it shows raw meat inside of a watermelon. This is to show that watermelons that sit out without GLAD's plastic wraps end up tasting like "meat" or something rotten. On the bottom right corner is says, "Let it taste the way it should...". This means that a watermelon should taste like a watermelon: sweet, juicy and delicious. It should not taste like "meat". But if one uses GLAD's plastic wraps, food will stay fresh and delicious. Otherwise, the food will rot and taste like something it is not supposed to.

This advertisement is very intriguing because it makes people think. It is not direct about what it is trying to say. Instead, one has to look at it closely and analyze its possible message. If the message was stated directly, would it be as effective? The indirect message makes the advertisement more interesting and mysterious, which is eye-catching to the audience.

This advertisement is believable because it is created by a credible source: the company GLAD itself. On the bottom right corner of the advertisement, it shows the plastic wrap product from GLAD. This shows that GLAD created this advertisement, and since GLAD created this, it makes their argument valid and supported.

Effective advertisements does not have to be convoluted pictures. A simple picture may be more effective, even if it is just a watermelon with meat in it. And this advertisement demonstrates that wonderfully. It uses an effective image and credibility to convince the audience to buy their products.

TOW#21: article "Cruelty of the aquarium exposed in killer whale documentary 'Blackfish'"

Killer Whales are not Killers

On February 24th, 2010, an Orca named Tilikum killed its trainer, Dawn. There was no violence intended. It was merely out of play. However, there are some cases where these captivated animals go mentally insane and intentionally hurt people. But why? Places such as Sea World in Disney World and Aquariums around the world mistreat their animals.

How do are these animals obtained? They certainly aren't taken nicely. They are first captured in large nets into boats. Then they are kept in enclosed, dark sections for several days alone. Finally, they are taken to be trained. These animals are forced into do silly tricks for the purpose of amusing the public. These animals are tortured and neglected for the sake of entertainment. How is this justified?

Orcas, for example, are one of many animals that are trained. They are known to be very gregarious. So being trapped in a small enclosed space makes them go crazy. A documentary called "Blackfish" came out in 2010, which depicts what really happens behind the scenes of these "fun" amusement parks. The documentary shows that these Orcas have never attacked people in the wild. Thus, this proves that it is the imprisonments that make them go crazy.

There is definitely an appeal to pathos. People are grown to adore these Orcas because they are beautiful, lively creatures. Seeing documentaries such as these, people would feel guilty for ever going to an aquarium and stand against these places. The documentary brings a lot of sadness, regret, and pity. This could potentially cause people to boycott against these aquariums in order to save these animals. This reaches out to advocates of animal freedom.

Will Sea World ever close down, probably not. However, it is crucial that this truth was revealed to the public because then someone somewhere will be aware of this and possibly try to do something about it. This article was very informative of how manipulative these places are. These places try to make the public believe that these animals are treated with great care, which is a lie. When will animal cruelty end?

(http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/cruelty-of-the-aquarium-exposed-in-killer-whale-documentary-blackfish-8733758.html)

TOW#20: Visual

Reading Goal- My reading goal is to pick an appropriate visual and find important rhetorical devices that explain the purpose of the visual. I also hope to analyze the rhetorical devices well and tie it back to the thesis.

People Are Not Robots

More than 40,000 people die from car crashes every year. The main cause is drunk driving. Many people disregard the fact that drunk driving is extremely dangerous. So how can they receive the message? BMW, a luxurious car brand known by many, creates an advertisement about drinking and driving. Car crashes have been more frequent than they used to be so BMW wanted to get its message out to the world.The advertisement encourages people not to drink and drive and to show how serious it is, and the advertisement makes use of many rhetorical devices, such as pathos, ethos and implications to show it.

For starters, the first thing that may jump out at the audience is the picture of two legs, one real and one not real. This appeals to pathos because it allows the audience to have pity for people with disabilities. The advertisement used this picture to show that human parts are not as easily replaceable as car parts. This picture shows that even though this person replaced his leg with another, it is not the same. Therefore drunk driving is dangerous because it causes loss of one’s limbs. BMW convinces people to not drink/drive by driving fear into the people of the loss of irreplaceable body parts.

There have been so many advertisements about drinking and driving. But why is this one the most effective than the others? BMW created it. BMW is a famous car brand that has a lot of credibility. Since this expensive car brand mentions a serious topic, people will pay attention. Thus, this advertisement appeals to ethos. If the advertisement were not sponsored by BMW, would it be as effective and credible? Since the car brand is admired, it is very influential. Hence, BMW exhibits that drinking and driving is a serious matter by showing that they are serious about it as well.

The advertisement does not go on explaining an entire paragraph about why not to drink and drive. Instead, it simply writes, “Spare parts for humans are not as original as those for cars. Don’t drink and Drive.” This implies that replacing a car part would be unnoticeable, however, replacing a human part will not be exactly as what it used to be. This also implies that people need to take care of their bodies, since they are not replaceable means. BMW emphasizes the value of human limbs by contrasting a replacement of a human body part and a car part.

Drinking and driving is not something to take lightly and BMW thinks that too. Since it is a well-known car brand, the brand is effective in creating this advertisement because people will pay attention to what they say. It appeals to pathos, ethos, and has strong implications to portray the message that human body parts are irreplaceable. Like BMW states, do not drink and drive at the cost of your limbs.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_rIvVmychsw8/S4XL1_gpQxI/AAAAAAAAKh8/PQ_9_KPNAkk/Meaningful%20advertisements%202.jpg