The article, “Social Networking Sites Can Be Forums for Cyberbullying,” (Foxman, et. al, 2009), deals with the issue of cyberbullying online as becoming a real threat, and parents and educators of middle and high school children must work together to combat antisocial and harmful harassment to make these crimes punishable by law. In its’ premise, or reason, the article indicates that cyberbullying is more prevalent in middle and high schools, because the use of cell phones, the Internet, and other technological paraphernalia plays a significant role in the social lives of nearly all adolescents.

While hatred has existed since the beginning of time, the invention of the Internet has helped to spread hatred and prejudice more quickly and more forcefully than ever before. Cyberbullying has been widely reported and broadcast on the news when there have been suicides as a result of cyber harassment, and intimidation occurring. Many schools in the U. S. have already adopted anti-bias training programs established by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to put workshops into middle and high schools for their educators and students. Forty-one states in the U. S. including California, have adopted some regulations mandating that schools implement anti-bullying laws, which are based on the ADL’s model; however, more states need to adopt more comprehensive policies to guard against bullying. The unstated premise of the argument is that if cyber-perpetrators are left unpunished, those who fall victim to cyberbullying will get hurt and potentially harm themselves or others. Our nation as a whole will suffer the consequences of cyberbullying if our government fails to enact laws, and promote more programs in our nation’s schools to protect our children.

We need to do more to promote advocacy, education, and awareness from acts of hatred, such as cyberbullying. In conclusion, social networking sites can be playgrounds for cyberbullying by spreading hatred and prejudice online. Our government is not doing enough implementing of specialized workshops and trainings in anti-cyberbullying prevention to help protect our middle and high school children across the nation. Cyberbullying damages reputations and destroys lives, and more needs to be done to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.

According to Vankin (2009), “Ever-escalating cruelty toward other species will not establish our genetic supremacy-merely our moral inferiority” (para. 29). Although many attempt to debate the issue if animals should have rights, the greater issue is that animals deserve to be treated morally. The text is premised with multiple examples discussing animal rights and what types of rights they should have. Vankin argues that while many attempt to prove or disprove that animals should or should not have rights, there are many pitfalls and holes in the arguments which create doubt and uncertainty.

For example, renowned philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Nicolas Maebranche outright rejected that animals should be allowed to have rights because animals are merely equivalent to machines, which are driven by course instincts and unable to experience pain (although their behavior sometimes deceives us into falsely believing that they do). Others, such as Law Professor Steven Wise, argue that animals indeed qualify for personhood because the legal standards for granting personhood are based on four categories of practical autonomy.

Autonomy involves the ability to be desirous, to intend to fulfill and pursue one’s desires, a sense of self-awareness, and self-sufficiency (Vankin, 2009, para. 3). Vankin says in this article that these claims go too far and that it’s easier to argue the moral rights of an animal than their legal rights. Vankin also states that because of human empathy, Kant and Melebranche may have been wrong. Animals may have the ability to suffer and agonize, and we can tell through our empathy as human beings.

Since animals appear to resemble humans, with regard to our emotions, they must have the same experiences as us and therefore deserve our pity. On the flip side, the idea that just because another organism looks, behaves and communicates like us does not guarantee that it is in essence like us (Vankin, 2009, para. 15). The unstated premise is that society as a whole has a moral obligation to treat animals with respect and with high moral standards. We have no right to judge the animal kingdom, as we cannot prove our superiority over them.

In conclusion, more focus needs to be given to treating animals with respect and dignity because we, as a human race, cannot know for sure whether or not animals suffer pain, or what is truly good or evil for with whom we cannot communicate with. Moreover, because it is typically immoral to kill, torture and destroy, the answer seems obvious that it would be immoral to hurt animals and not allow them to have rights. We have a moral obligation toward the weaker and meeker, and should not place ourselves in the position to decide who lives and who dies.