Rhetoric of Anti-Vaccination Comments by Joe Rogan

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Logos
Ethos and Pathos
Critique of the Argument
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The Joe Rogan podcast is famous for providing analysis to current and trending topics. The podcast has been blamed for providing misinformation to the listeners. On April 23, Joe Rogan mentioned that healthy young people should not be vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus. The information was received with uproar because it spread the wrong information at the time when the vaccination drive was ongoing. The white house through Dr. Fauci disapproved of the information provided by Joe Rogan. The professionals noted that there is a risk of passing the virus to the older generation or other vulnerable groups. This essay will use logos, pathos, and ethos to evaluate the anti-vaccination comments by Joe Rogan.

Logos

The argument by Joe Rogan relied on the logic that young people who exercise and eat a healthy diet are not likely to get the disease. Therefore, Rogan argued that the youth do not need the vaccine. According to Rogan, keeping fit and being young serve as enough protection against the virus (MSNBC). This argument jeopardizes the health of other people who interact with the teenagers and are already vaccinated (Stecula and Matt). The World Health Organization confirms that there is a risk of adolescents acting as carriers of the virus (Felsenstein and Christian). Carriers may not experience the severe symptoms but can spread the virus to vulnerable people. The information provided by Rogan also failed to consider the nature of the virus. The virus has several mutations which are different in the way they affect the body. Some of the young people may vulnerable to the new strains which underline the importance of getting vaccinated.

The comments by Rogan also failed to incorporate the living situation in most homes. Young people live at home with their older adults who are placed in the vulnerable category. The CDC has placed people aged 50 years above as susceptible to the disease because of comorbidities such as diabetes and high blood pressure (Felsenstein and Christian). Therefore, young people living with their relatives need the vaccine to ensure that they can not pass it to them. The argument is not based on facts and should not have been provided by the individual because of the risks it extends (Stecula and Matt). All people need the vaccine because of the complex nature of the disease. Also, protecting older adults by getting vaccinated can be fulfilling for younger people.

Ethos and Pathos

Rogan may have used the argument to instill apathy against the vaccine in young people. The podcaster’s main aim was to take advantage of the vaccination divide to change the way the youth view vaccines. Appealing to the emotions of people by inspiring apathy against a particular product or service can be successful if the messenger has a large following. Even though data shows that the virus does not affect young people at a higher rate, it is essential to be considerate of the people they interact with (Stecula and Matt). The argument by Rogan would have made sense if all the young people self-isolate daily and avoid interactions, which is impossible.

The argument by Rogan incorporates the concept of ethos because of the choice of words. The podcaster uses words such as healthy, young, eating well, and exercising well as a way of compelling the listeners to believe what is being said. Speakers and writers use words that can easily convince the reader or listener that the information being provided is factual. Rogan is not a medical professional but the podcast provides a platform to become a source of information for people who have subscribed to the podcast. Therefore, it was essential for the podcaster to use words that appeal to the emotions of the listeners. Listeners who fit the description provided may opt to avoid the vaccination.

Research shows that the number of infected young adults may not be correct because most of the cases identified are symptomatic. The asymptomatic cases have not been addressed partly due to the low testing among young people (Felsenstein and Christian). Additionally, young people do not perceive the disease as serious because of the information that it does not affect young people severely. This information combined with the anti-vaccination comments by Rogan can increase vaccine apathy among young people.

Critique of the Argument

The Rogan argument on vaccination of young people falls under the hasty generalization fallacy. This is because the podcaster made general remarks about the need for a vaccine for young people. The remarks are not founded on any evidence and only generalized young people together (Stecula and Matt). It is reasonable to say that young people have a low risk of getting the disease. However, making conclusions using the generalized idea produces the wrong result. For example, a young person can contract the disease and get severely ill. This is true even for those people who keep fit and eat well. Therefore, the argument is fallacious because it made general remarks regarding all young people who eat well and exercise every day.

Also, the argument may fall under the bandwagon approach because most people believe that young people do not need the vaccine. People may believe that something is true because a majority of the people have the same opinion. The media plays a big role in spreading such misinformation by providing platforms to individuals who want to spread lies. Additionally, the appeal to authority is another fallacy that can describe the argument. Joe Rogan is a respected podcaster who commands a huge following. The argument on anti-vaccination was received by many people who may believe it because of Joe Rogan’s presence in the media (Stecula and Matt). Credibility is important because many users make assumptions when it comes to assessing information from popular celebrities. Therefore, just because the argument comes from a celebrated podcaster does not mean that it is factual and correct.

Conclusion

The argument by podcaster Joe Rogan on April 23 this year was controversial because it failed to take into account logic and facts. Rogan noted that young people who eat well, exercise daily, and are healthy do not need the vaccine. This information is not factual and may create vaccine apathy, especially among young people. Rogan may have used his authority and wide following to misinform people. Research shows that the youth have the lowest risk of getting the virus. However, there is a possibility that the virus can affect some of them severely. Therefore, vaccination should be for every person to protect vulnerable communities. Also, professional bodies such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC)and World Health Organization (WHO) have indicated the importance of vaccination for both young and old.

Works Cited

Felsenstein, Susanna, and Christian M. Hedrich. “COVID-19 in children and young people.” The Lancet Rheumatology 2.9 (2020): e514-e516.

MSNBC. “Joe Rogan, who’s not a doctor, gives terrible vaccine advice | The 11th Hour | MSNBC.”YouTube, 2021, Web.

Stecula, Dominik, and Matt Motta. “Joe Rogan told his millions of listeners not to take his anti-vaccine advice seriously. Is it too late?”Washington Post, 2021, Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Rhetoric of Anti-Vaccination Comments by Joe Rogan

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)