the ad I used was a toddler smoking a cigar with the text "you wouldn't let your child smoke."
"Like smoking, eating meat increases the risks of heart disease and cancer".
Why do they do it?
In the “You wouldn’t let your child smoke” ad the advertisers try to persuade the community and especially people who have children by considering their emotions. They appeal to their maternal nature to convey that when someone lets their child eat meat or animal products it is as bad as if they let them smoke. The relation they use is shocking. It’s difficult to accept and therefore could also cause some members of their community to disregard the information. However they would appeal to members of the vegan community that already refrain from meat and dairy. It would reassure the vegans that consumed animal products in the past that the changes they made were beneficial. If there were statistics between the products then the fact could be even more effective. The advertisers could’ve included the percentage in which cancer is increased. They also could’ve used other carcinogens aside from tobacco though that would decrease the shock and possibly the effectiveness of their ad.
Should everyone really stop feeding their children meat and stop eating it themselves? Recent evidence suggests that they should. Red meat and processed meats are now classified as a class one carcinogen. The consumption of meat poses many other health risks as well but societies are being diffused (becoming more like western culture) with chains of fast food restaurants and animal agriculture. It’s generally norm in these societies to eat meat. People may never consider an alternative vegan diet and form misconceptions. The advertisers could instead show more benefits of veganism and debunk misconceptions and questions like “where do they get their protein?” Common misconception is that only animal products contain protein. They are actually getting their protein through any plant food that they consume! Twenty to forty percent of calories in some of the most common plant foods including beans, broccoli and spinach come from protein which is a percentage comparable to the amount of protein in most types of meat. Furthermore the average American gets roughly sixteen percent of their calories from protein which is three times as much as recommended by the World health organization. (The advertisement is directed towards western culture. They use a white American boy) so this information may be worth noting. Sometimes later in life these internalizations become harder and harder to change.
Parents have a responsibility to nurture their children to the best of their abilities so that the children can gain their full potential. An example is say a parent chooses to force values on a child. They choose the values for their child instead of letting them develop their own. This makes more sense when related with the current matter. There are times when a child wants to understand why they aren’t allowed to do something but they can’t because their parents imbue the belief that they are doing something wrong and that it has consequences. They are not teaching the child that the action is normal. If they wanted to smoke it’s not because they are delinquents; they are curious. Similar to when they feed their child meat. The child does not rationalize what they’re doing; they’re following their parents values. This is not always the case in regards to when a child rebels. they desire individualization. It’s important that a child develops values of their own as soon as possible. They need an environment that allows them to understand the true consequences aside from being spanked. They need to understand for themselves that what they eat is important.
One might glimpse at the ad and say “well that’s a little different” though there is an underlying message that is meant to be subtle. They don’t say “become vegans” from the beginning instead there is small caption that is meant to be inferred from their main point. If the child was given three different options of what they could eat; broccoli, candy or meat, which would they choose? They would choose candy. What is candy though? It’s a manifestation of desire as in if there was no demand for it then it would not be there. The person who actually bought the candy is at fault though they were victims of corporate greed. It’s the same as the meat industry advertising their products and making them as appealing as possible. If there was not influence involved then perhaps the communities would seize to function according to their desire. The advertisement draws attention towards the child who is smoking and conveys that point. If there is so much evidence then why does the meat industry continue the trend?
A majority of parents still question if the vegan diet is healthy. Also the meat industry is an industry motivated by profit. There is way more commercialization for the meat industry then the vegan community or animal rights movement. Furthermore they don’t realize that there are consequences of animal agriculture. The amount of greenhouse gasses contributed to animal agriculture is “between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009).” This could be effective information in convincing people to change. The reluctance to change is the problem of course. Even if shown evidence; some of these communities are going to deny it. Their ancestors ate meat. Didn’t humans eat it since the beginning of time? A reasonable debate though in a way it’s like saying their ancestors used to use each other as slaves and form slave trades so it’s okay for them to do it too. Research also suggests that Neanderthals ate a significant amount more of fruits and vegetables than previously thought and early homo-sapiens ate more and more plant based foods.
The problem is the text relies on the parents’ realization that feeding their children animal products is not something they should do. It doesn’t show an alternative as to what they and their children could eat instead. The advertisement raises more questions. One may ponder why eating meat increases their rates of cancer or what “going vegan” actually means for them. Nine time Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis discovered what it meant for him. He originally went vegan for the initial health benefits and realized that his performance was drastically increased and that he did not need animal proteins to be successful as an athlete.
There are ways in which the advertisement is appealing. In some ways it is very unifying. It could ultimately cause people to delve deeper into veganism or cause them to disregard it completely. The creators of the advertisements seem to have the best interest of their community in mind. They’re hoping people make the best choice based upon the information they provided.
Posted by speckofwater at 09/29/17 04:52:28link to the ad in-case you want to see it: https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVjId2clZCXQAid4nnIlQ?p=anti+meat+advertismenets&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&fr2=piv-web&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1-news.softpedia-static.com%2Fimages%2Fnews-700%2FCigar-Smoking-Toddler-Featured-in-New-Anti-Meat-Consumption-Ad.jpg%3F1358953659&action=click
Posted by h_o_rng at 09/29/17 18:23:541. You need to try minimalism... So much good stuff disappear in the excess.
2. I have been looking down on this ad for a while by my gym; its a female holding a baby or child. However this female is naked.
Due to this the female model (being naked) responds by posing sexily (possibly it can be edited out but I doubt it to be a good idea in the first place) and the result is creating an unnecessary link in the mind of a person.
that has to be cleaned as it is a factor in pedophily: Many eyes see it and it causes a collective affect on some individuals (luckily aint one of them).
The answer is not for people just to get used to it; its a healthy response to look sexy upon being naked especially when you know you are going to be seen by many of your gender of attraction.
Posted by h_o_rng at 09/29/17 18:37:32Corporate greed is a classic scapegoat and its not okay, it harms quite a few - what uses corporations depicting these as evil; useful till cast aside? Karma by the way is used as a pacification lock even though there is quite a bit of truth to it.
Changing the very planetary environment, resetting various things. Now consider that greenhouse gas production once more...