Rhetorical Flair

I began this blog post intending to speak of Donovan and some contradictions that I find in her work, but while looking over one of them, I considered that it was perhaps not a contradiction but a rhetorical flair. So now I am forced to write this.

I am a writer, and I fancy myself, at least somewhat adequate. I have no scorn for rhetoric for rhetoric's sake, but when engaging in philosophy, it is, perhaps, a wise decision to grant the primacy to clear, distinct meaning rather than to style.

From the introduction: "The simple truth is that we exploit the other animals and cause them suffering because we are more powerful than they are."

From Regan: "It is not an act of kindness to treat animals respectfully. It is an act of justice."

Both of these were dismissed in class as rhetorical flairs, but when presenting an argument, it is cheap to slip in controversial claims under the guise of stylistic intent.

Animals should be mercilessly slaughtered.

For anyone who objects to this thought, don't worry about it. That was a rhetorical flair.

Question: Can a writer not be both rhetorical and unambiguous at the same time?