Yesterday, I heard the announcement on NPR for Diane Rehm’s Monday show and recoiled in horror as it appeared she used the terms “animal welfare” and “animal rights” interchangeably.
Unfortunately, these two terms apply to philosophical opposites. It is like interchangeably using the terms “WWII history” and “Holocaust denial”, or “climate science” and “global warming denial”, or “evolutionary biology” and “evolution denial” (aka Creationism in its various stripes including Intelligent Design Creationism).
What is common to all these pairs of terms is that one is legitimate line of work, while the other is religiously or politically motivated assault on empiricism and modern society, trying to gain legitimacy by mimicking the other, pretending that it is very similar to the real thing, intentionally blurring the lines between the two and sowing confusion, pretending there is a debate where there is none, and thus fooling the media into giving them equal time in pursuit of “balance” (one of these days, religiousity and conservative ideology will be, hopefully, treated the same and not given a voice in the media, as they are both based on wishful thinking, emotional pathology, and irrationality).
I hope she has the distinction between the two clear, or will by Monday, and will not invite to the show and give a podium to a representative of an animal rights organization. After all, animal rights organizations are officialy (in a number of countries including the USA) classified as terrorist organizations. If you are not yet clear about the distinction, please use this excellent online resources:
Once you have checked ALL the links, you may post a comment. Don’t just do a knee-jerk, fly-by comment on the introductory stuff I wrote on the top of this post. Get the relevant information FIRST.