Sociologically speaking, if a person wants others to accept the dubious notion of moral rights for all nonhuman animals, then that person (and you know who I’m talking about, don’t you Rog?) would have a better chance getting others to accept that notion by actually stating a sound and valid argument for it rather than spitting and sputtering and whining and crying about how others aren’t showing the proper respect for his ideas.
Seriously. Respect for his ideas, a person demands.
As if ideas are something that deserve respect. As if “philosophical animal rights” are something that could be respected. What the hell does that even mean? Are we to believe that there’s only one formulation of rights for other animals, or are we supposed to respect equally all the competing and mutually exclusive accounts of rights for animals? Silly isn’t strong enough a word, this is just plain stupid. Mention the word “rights” and your ideas demand respect. Don’t accept that animals have moral rights and you must be an enemy of animals and of ‘the movement’.
Forget about the concern for the lives and well-being of other animals, folks, this social justice movement is about respect for ideas and honoring the notion of “rights” that is so dear to silly old fools. Good to know it. And people wonder why real sociologists recognize animal rights as a functional religion.
One Comment
I’ve received hundreds of emails from people asking me why you continue to articulate your position, Tim, to those who are wilfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting you.
When I wrote my PhD thesis (did I mention that I have a PhD?) I covered this topic from a sociological perspective. (Did I mention that I have a PhD?) and I found that when one person intentionally misrepresents the work of another, and encourages others to misunderstand that work, despite such dishonesty being detrimental to a cause they claim to hold dearly, it may be worth considering if that person has motives that are less than honourable. For the animals, of course!
Post a Comment