Analyzing Purpose

In this blog post, I will take a look at the purpose of the argument that I will be participating in for project 3.

"Purpose" (via vimeo). 

As a result of my public argument, I want people to stop telling other people what to eat. I also want people to stop trying to get the government to mandate what people eat. I want companies to have to put on their labels whether or not something contains an artificial sweetener, so that people can make the decision for themselves.

Likely results from my argument: people feel informed about artificial sweeteners, don't feel like I tried to make them eat sweeteners or not eat sweeteners, agree that they want their food labeled so that they know if they are eating sweeteners, see why the government shouldn't mandate artificial sweeteners.

Unlikely results: agree with my argument completely, feel like they should or should eat sweeteners based on my argument, get angry after reading my paper.

For example, people could agree that they want their food labeled so that they can decide if there are sweeteners. If this happened, companies could possibly put on the label, "contains an unnatural sweetener." I feel really annoyed when I buy something that has a sweetener because companies slip in sweeteners and they're called crazy names and I have no idea what they are. This could cause less people like me to waste money and feel annoyed at companies.

Like I said in a previous post, the people who would be most interested would be diabetics and women over 30. This is because they are main consumers that I have personally noticed. These people should want to be informed about the pros and cons of sweeteners so that they can make their own decisions. I think that diabetics shouldn't feel as though they have no other options for enjoying food except having sweeteners. Of course, if that's what they want, they should have it, but they should know their options.