For a Western audience this seems cruel because for it cats are animals kept as pets and not as a food source. By appealing to the viewers’ base emotions like pity and disgust, their opinion can be won over.
In Figure 2 the issue of animal rights is framed in a way which is more reminiscent of typical television advertising. The woman shown is fit, blond, and beautiful. The audience sought is for the most part a male one. Instead of using pathos, this picture instead skirts the issue of animal treatment and merely displays a woman wearing a shirt stating “animals have rights.” The issue is animal rights, but the means of spreading the message is a markedly sexual one. The eyes of the man watching are attracted to the woman’s chest, as is his natural inclination. He inevitably reads the message there written and internalizes its meaning.
In Figure 3 there is a picture of a pig with several puppies. In this case the method for framing the issue of animal rights is neither pity-based nor sexual. The text points to the fact that pigs are just as smart as dogs and that they “have feelings too.” Here the author of the photo wants to first connect the plight of the pig with that of the dog, an animal known as being a pet. More importantly, however, is the fact that the pig is described as having feelings and being smart. These are characteristics normally associated with humans. By imputing them to an animal, the intent is to make the viewer both sympathize and empathize with the pig. Known as anthropomorphism, this entails the assigning of human features to an animal so as to foster a sense of equality and dignity for the