Well, I feel like I chose to listen to his argument. He carries on a very conversational conversation. His opening talks about how he spent time with his grandmother and how her cooking was his sign of affection. How he grew up being told not to hurt animals, but to eat meat. How he spent years convincing himself that it was okay to eat meat because he didn't directly kill animals. And how he doesn't want his children to realize the same thing and call him out for his hypocrisy. He quickly changes his tone to convince the reader that eating meat is a great offense. Foer even goes so far as to say that eating meat is synonymous with rape. But even when Foer changes his tone to be more intense, he never loses that level of friendliness he establishes in his introduction. It never looks like it's on a soap box. At the same time, he never seems to be making a suggestion. His piece dances on the fine line between casual conversation and radical diatribe. He makes me feel like it's important to be by his side, but not urgent. I can fully support Foer in the way he presents himself. Where Lennon doesn't push — and McWilliams pushes too hard — Foer steers his audience toward his point of view and lets them decide for themselves. And it resonates with