The Persuasiveness of the Animals

In “The Case of the Animals versus Man” the animals are taking the humans to court for claiming that they were created to be the slaves of man. Throughout the book humans have attempted to claim that God made them superior and thus the rightful masters of all the animals in the world. Time and time again the animals had many rebuttals, sometimes even making a point so powerful the humans were left speechless. In chapter 32 on page 267 the carnivores’ delegate says, “When they mistrust virtuous and honest members of your kind and throw them to the beasts of prey, if we don’t eat them it’s because we know that they’re good. For it takes the good to know the good…” (267). Men consider the animals to be beneath them but will rely on their judgement when it comes to testing the goodness within a human. With this statement the animals strengthen their argument and manage to leave man scrambling for a counter argument. A jinni sage also finds this statement to be true and backs up the animals. There are times where the animals loose speed and contradict themselves, but I believe that their arguments in this case do a fine job of reminding man just how important animals are.

Dafne Juarez-Gutierrez

The Case of Baloney Vs. Baloney

By Jose Lopez

A persuasive speech has the ability to inspire, persuade, and establish a message by using words to make the audience comprehend the point of view the speaker is trying to invoke. In “The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn” there have been instances where arguments through persuasion have been flawed for both sides of the argument. The story is about an argument occurring between humans and animals that has been taken to the King of Jinn. Humans have been accused by the animals for being abusive and insulting by making irrational points that animals were deserved to be treated as less than humans. Furthermore, animals themselves have been contradicting each other throughout the arguments.

The first argument that is formed from the humans is that they stand up straight and animals bend over to the floor because God intended the humans to rule over the animals. However, the animals contradicted this belief and stated, “He knew and wisely ordained that their form is best for them and ours for us.” (109). The argument continued and the animals have mentioned that the sole purpose for humans being taller than animals was simply that God made the food intended for humans in a tree where on the contrary the meals for the animals were on the ground. This argument made me think of Darwin’s theory of evolution and biodiversity in the sense that every kind of animal is different in some way depending on what they eat, where they live, and how they nurture. I believe this argument to be flawed because the humans nor the animals have seen God in person to know why he created things the way they are. The argument of evolution could have been mentioned in this debate in order to provide concrete evidence.

Another irrational argument was provided by the rabbit. There was tension throughout this debate because of the attack towards the horses. Humans have degraded the animals yet, they appraised the horse for being so majestic and perfect in every aspect. “In their handsome form and fine proportions… They have keen senses…” (122). These are marks of appraisal and approval made by humans. However, the rabbit contradicts this statement by saying how horses lack insight, “He’s just like a sword in this way, without sense, sentience, or spirit…” (123). The animals were seen to be protecting each other by stating how they were each created differently to serve a certain role yet, the rabbit throws this argument away. I believe this to also be a reason for which the horses himself did not have a say in the arguments between humans and rabbits because he has been domesticated to a point where they are slaves to mankind, similarly to the fables provided by Aesop and dogs.

The ways each side presented their arguments could have been improved in various ways. But the key factor that caused the biggest hole in the arguments were the horses. The humans stating that animals are imperfect to nature yet, appraising the horses and saying they are perfect. The animals giving the presentation that animals have been created a certain way that God intended yet the rabbit degrades the horses by calling them ignorant.

Hopping to Conclusions

Throughout the debate of ownership between humans and animals in The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn, all of the animals who have spoken, have provided some kind of argument as to how they have been treated unfairly by humans. There are cases in which they have been used through wars, have had their babies taken away, and have been used for methods of carrying their loads. Even the pig, who emphasizes some sort of confusion at how they are treated by people of different beliefs, still manages to poke some fun at humans and their way of viewing the different animals, when they themselves are so different. However, there is a different perspective that is brought on by the rabbit.

Instead of directly claiming any wrongs that humans have done upon them, the rabbit creates claims against the horse, a wild beast. The rabbit talks about how it helps humans hunt them by leading them and goes on to create a comparison of the humans and the horses by attacking their sense of loyalty. This specific argument is seen as confusing. On one side, the rabbit is contradicting the argument of the animals and can be seen as jeopardizing their argument, but it can also be noted that similarly to the pigs argument, the rabbit is making a jest out of the humans. The rabbit does not simply state that the human is unloyal, but it states direct examples that indicate that humans move on from one thing to another in order to get the best that they can, and when moving on, they forget about any gratitude that they should hold for the help and aid that they have received.

Although the intention of the rabbit can be seen as a means to gain an advantage over humans and the tactics that they implore onto the animals that they domesticate, the way that the rabbit delivers this argument creates an ambiguous view. The mule having to intervene and tell the rabbit that it was taking it too far and that God could not grant every animal every gift and each would have their own flaws, adds an awkward way of trying to interpret the rabbit’s intention. It also creates the question of whether or not it will create an effect in the case, if so, for which side? Depending on the interpretation of the rabbit’s speech, each side can use it as a means to gain an advantage on the other side.

 

1. Rosenda Sanchez-Avina