Animal Cruelty Towards Animals

The debate over wearing fur is just a fashion trend or whether it is cruelty towards animals is never ending. According to Brendan O’Neill, it is foolish to be anything but believing that humans are at the top of the food chain. He states that animals cannot feel nor do they think of pain as humans do. The intended audience are the “hypocrites” who do not fully support either side. The use of irony and sarcasm play a role when used mildly but when it is the primary appeal of the author’s claim it is not effective for convincing the audience in some parts while in others it makes his side seem more logical than his opposition. According to O’Neill, “These days, probably only the worse fate that can befall a celeb than to be caught wearing a fur coat is to be caught with child porn on their hard disk.” (O’Neill 1) Although this quote provides shock value and sarcasm to the situation, it does not make the audience feel bad or good that they are hypocrites. It in no way makes the audience feel like …show more content…
According to Dr. Stuart Derbyshire, an expert in pain, unlike humans, animals react to death as an instinct to their primal ways. “Animals do not understand the concept of ‘today’, unless we think foxes use calendars and keep diaries…” (Derbyshire 2) This is one case where sarcasm could be used to convince the audience. It is coming from someone specializing in this field of study so it could be successful but the only downside is that Derbyshire’s credibility could be less because of it. O’Neill says that to be pro-animal is to be anti-humanity, which seems outrageous and another means to sway the audience to his side. He ends the article saying that the worst thing that can possibly happen to an animal is to be caught by a human. This is, again, sarcasm towards all those who are sympathetic towards animals and animal cruelty which seems to be used just to mock the opposing