sources engaging

The primary goal of this paper is to compose an article in response to an editorial in a major newspaper such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post. This editorial must be about either animals or plants. In return for a separate counterclaim, the answer essay should refute the claims raised.

I had to submit an article from the New York Times in order to finish this document. It was a story about a Saudi man and his cat. Based on the New York Times, a 26-year-old man from Saudi Arabia had been arrested after he had posted several videos on snap chat (Amiot & Bastian 23). In this videos, this man had allegedly shot three cats with a rifle from a moving car. When he was questioned why killed the cat, the man had several answers. First, he said he did not like cats. Secondly, he believed it was not haram (a mistake) to kill cats (Boshnaq 5). Lastly, the main reason that made him kill cats is the fact that he has to wash at least four cars every week. This made him angry and disturbed.

The Saudi man posted his videos with snap chat filters (Amiot & Bastian 17). This filters portrayed him having ears and a nose that belong to a cat. His voice was modified to sound like that of a robot. His acts prompted his arrest based on reports from the Saudi Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture. According to the ministry and Islam teachings; interfering with Animal welfare is against Islam teachings. Muslims also believe that Prophet Muhammad was kind to cats and other animals, this means that people should not destroy God’s (Amiot & Bastian 56).

ARGUMENTS AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Animals are considered as part of God’s creation (Boshnaq 2). This means they should be treated the same as Humans. According to the editorial, cats are considered to be sacred since Prophet Muhammad was kind to them (Amiot & Bastian 26). However, based on my own arguments and counterclaims I think that there should be a balance between Animals and Humans.

This balance will help sort the level of interaction in Nature. However, there has been an upset in the recent years. Both animals and Humans have broken their boundaries and interfered with each other’s ecosystems (Amiot & Bastian 50). In this respect, it is best to conclude the fact certain laws ought to be put aside. This laws will help in Governing the interaction between animals and Human Beings.

Based on the New York Times article, it is evident that animals are well protected. They are protected by welfare laws that keep them away from danger (Amiot & Bastian 29). This laws do not recognize whether the animals are on the wrong or the right side.

In reference to the incident describe above; despite the fact that the man did wrong in killing the Cats, he ought to have figured out another form of judgement (Amiot & Bastian 40). This judgement was supposed to ensure that he did not suffer or have any grievances and complains of having to wash four cars each week. This man should have been pardoned, he should not have been arrested and taken court. Generally, it is safe to say the fact that the Saudi man would not have killed any Cats if they had not interfered with his personal life.

Despite the fact that Human and Animal life should be treated with the same balance, I think that Humans should be given an upper half in some manner. In reference to the editorial journal, the Ministry of Saudi Arabia seems to give an upper half to the life of animals. This can be proven by the fact that the ministry did not care about the life of the Human beings; the life of animals had being given an upper part.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the balance between Animals and Humans ought to be balanced. The nature of interaction, rights and privileges should be on the same level. No party ought to be given an upper half. Action should be taken on both sides. This means that each party that interferes on the nature or balance should face certain consequences.

Based on the editorial, the Saudi man was arrested and taken to Court by the ministry. There are no claims as to whether any action was taken about the cats. In order to ensure there is a balance between Humans and Animals, the laws should take action on both sides. The laws should not apply on one side only. It is safe to say that this editorial is biased and does involve the whole sum of the equation on the rights and privileges of Humans and Animals.

Works Cited

Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6. (Boshnaq)

Boshnaq, Mona. “Video Of Drive-By Cat Killings Prompts Arrest In Saudi Arabia.” Nytimes.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 9 Sept. 2017.