It's both funny and tedious to watch Carolyn Daly blether on about how activists are "extremists." As she knows, it's a Machiavellian tactic to get a rise and to avoid the real issue: cruelty. Others accomplish the same objectives by ridiculing the term "animal rights."
Technically, they're right. As a professional communicator who knows the finer points of rhetoric, I am a professional smart-aleck. For example, "murder" is a legal term; no murder has taken place until a jury has convicted someone of murder. You could say the same of "animal rights." Rights are something of a legal entity, in aggregate.
Whatever. So, let's stay on topic. Systematic abuse of animals is unacceptable in a civil society. Fundamental protections are necessary and appropriate. Is New York City so backwards that it sanctions cruelty, right out in the open? For some lousy, cash-only business that predates the automobile? For a business that is lobbying for LESS acountability, not more, in Intro. 653? How many accidents go unreported? What are the criteria for "accidents," anyway?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment