Well, I thought my Tweet was everything I had to say on the extraordinarily laughable concept of “animal privacy rights” but it seems that is not the case because I would give good money to A) know what doctorate Msieu Mills actually holds, and B) where the fuck is East Anglia. I can see how being a “senior lecturer in the School of Film and Television Studies” might give one the illusion that one has Important And Smart Things To Say, but this waste of oxygen knocks the shit right out of that notion.
“It might at first seem odd to claim that animals might have a right to privacy. Privacy, as it is commonly understood, is a culturally human concept. The key idea is to think about animals in terms of the public/private distinction. We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they often do engage in forms of behavior which suggest they’d rather not encounter humans, and we might want to think about equating this with a desire for privacy.”
Ok, Sparky, I’m going to give you a skosh of credit for at least acknowledging that “privacy” is a human kink (one typically installed by your friendly neighborhood cult religion), but everything else you’re saying is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Let’s engage the logical bits of our brain, shall we? Two animals meet, like the smell of each other, instinct takes over, etc. Any notion of “privacy” these two might in the least entertain has absolutely everything to do with not being predated in the middle of a vulnerable moment, and nothing whatsoever to do with those crazy bipeds ogling the process. Survival of the fittest, you freaking moron, not modesty, not shame, not any of the bullshit baggage you bring to your own fumbling attempts.
I have a feeling this entire “study” stems from an embarrassing incident in someone’s pants while watching monkeys at the zoo, and “publication” in this case is simply a cheap form of attempted therapy.
LOL at your excellent insight and conclusion. I’m of the opinion that “emotional flashing” should be illegal.
Joan of Argghh!
May 3rd, 2010
This is just another example of trying to equate Man and animals. Which means, bringing Man down to their level.
As an aside, your “MotD” title should also go the Ionia School System Administrator. Unfortunately, he (or she, as the case may be) is far from alone in the “Zero Tolerance” madness.
That ZT is, however, a great way to avoid any responsibility for making decisions. “It’s the RULES. My hands are tied.”
Back to the animal study: I’ve seen more than one installment of the prairie-dog shows. Not once has any of them turned to the camera and said, “Shoosh!! We’re talkin’ here!!”
ZZMike
May 30th, 2010