If I could be a dictionary, I would make “Meme Roth” an entry as an action word, defining it as “the act of proceeding sharply.” Although watching Meme speak so bluntly about her views on obesity was at times painful and offensive, there were parts of me that found her statements valuable. And believe it or not, there seems to be an organization to her quick-witted remarks, “a method to her madness.”
One of Meme’s several underlying rhetorical strategies throughout her several appearances seems to be causal arguments. One way in which she structures her causal argument is by first presenting the cause and then elaborating on its effects. For example, a cause Meme presents in several of her appearances in the media is obesity. She then goes on to explain the effects of obesity on the individual and even on the nation as a whole. Health problems such as heart disease and Type II diabetes, higher costs and expenses, premature death, and less opportunity in the work force are among the many effects presented by Ms. Roth as a result of obesity. She also switches it up by presenting obesity as an effect and afterwards illustrating its causes. The lack of Americans to display a sense of moderation with regard to food, the absence of physical activity as a daily regiment, the danger of second-hand obesity (a term she personally coined), and junk food are among the many culprits presented by Roth as responsible for obesity becoming so rampant in our nation.
By utilizing personal experience, Roth is further able to perpetuate causal rhetoric within her arguments of obesity. As a child of two obese parents and as a parent herself, she mentions, if she is able to maintain her weight at a healthy range, then she proposes that any other person in America should have no excuse (including genetics) to be obese or overweight. As a matter of fact, within this argument, Meme has implied a correlation between two ideas. How strong is her correlation? In my opinion, not very strong. Meme has built an assertion based only upon her health and condition. Simply because she is able to not be “obese” by her own standards does not mean that another person will be able to maintain weight as she does or even want to consider Meme’s standards of “normality.” Maybe a person who looks obese to Meme already feels normal and does not wish to change. This, therefore, underscores the flaw in Meme’s correlation. There are too many confounding factors, one of them being personal standards.
Roth also utilizes analogies to underscore her causal arguments. In one of her interviews, she compares a twinky to a cigarette. Meme goes on to support her claim by saying that a cigarette will eventually kill you, just as eating too many twinkies. Although some people may agree that her analogy makes a valid point, others may question the extent of her analogy. Is she reaching too far? This question may be a bit controversial in itself. My opinion, however, is that Meme is NOT reaching too far. A twinky, just as a cigarette is made up of chemicals that cause harm to the body. A twinky, just as a cigarette may become addicting. A twinky, just as a cigarette may cause health problems.
Meme Roth, by using causal arguments, is able to bring about evidence to such a widely discussed topic as obesity. By organizing her arguments, Roth has shown that her rhetorical abilities are fairly sound.
