The entire world can be moved with only a few good words. With a well-planned speech, anyone could could convince anyone else of anything. Needless to say, if this speech was flawed, and it is found out that it is flawed, your whole plan goes up in smoke. In The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn, humans are enraged with the fact that animals don’t want to work for them anymore. They take their case to the King of the Jinn, and make some pretty odd arguments. To start off, almost all of their evidence revolves around features that are subjective. They claim to have a “fair form” (109), “superior intellects” (109), and an “upright carriage” (109). Having a “fair form” is subjective. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Subjectively, the form of a human is ideal, but would it be ideal for a cat? a dolphin? In that vein of thought, who is to say that a human has a superior intellect to the animals? Just from hearing the animals’ refuting statement, “[God] knew and wisely ordained that their form is best for them and ours for us” (109), the animals seem to be logical, and intelligent. What does having the ability to stand upright have to do with anything? All this leads to the assumption that the humans are making a subjective, and completely arbitrary argument. The humans seem to be ridiculous, spouting off irrelevant information with a tone that sounds as if they are the all-encompassing leader of all knowledge in the universe; that everything they say is fact, simply because they say it. Long story short, don’t be human. Be an animal instead.
-Michael Ngo
Environmental Justice in Beast Fables 
The main argument is: Form is best suited for those gifted to it, and that it may not work for another.
I feel that the post could be improved if the Author spent a little more time about the fallacy of the human argument that the human form is perfect, and touch upon more the animal argument that each of God’s creatures are adapted to best fit their needs.
I think that mentioning that when the humans claimed to have a ‘fair form’ or ‘superior intellect’ is purely subjective was a good point. I think this can be improved by ending fixing the last 2 sentences. Saying ”don’t be human. Be an animal instead’ was a very weak ending.
Michael, I really enjoyed your original idea that most of the arguments humans held were completely subjective, you argue that all of their arguments were based around subjective traits, however I would disagree. The human argument for animal inferiority and enslavement is based around, yes, subjective traits, but also what their perception of the Qur’an, Bible and other sacred religious texts are. This is not to say that their perception was one that the religious texts intended to invoke, but they argued with them nonetheless.
P.s. Of Mice & Men reference….niiiiiice!
-Leena Beddawi
I enjoyed the different perspectives you provided in your blog post. The introspective idea you brought into your post helped create a broader message. Super cool!
your opinion of the humans making irrelevant or even trying to sound “all-encompassing” was great but I feel liked it lacked an analysis or even a deeper explanation of why you thought this way. you make strong points that just could be explained further. overall good job!