|
April 02, 2007
Give me pity, or give me contempt!
An anonymous commenter named "Candace" has just discovered a post I wrote so long ago (about the ongoing effort to make the Philadelphia Zoo get rid of its elephants) that I'm afraid no one will notice it. From the tone of her comment, I don't think Candace is happy with me or with the other commenters: You people are nauseating, and the elephant jerky comment is especially puerile, as well as pathetically ignorant. The commentary about PAWS and Pat Derby is completely inaccurate. Why don't you bother doing some research before posting such idiocy?I try to be reasonable about these things, so I left the following reply: Candace, thanks for coming, but I have a few disagreements with what you said.Anyone who wants can feel free to weigh in; I just thought this deserved front page treatment, as I wouldn't want it thought that I am hiding criticism. Much as I disagree with them, I'll say this for the animal rights activists. They don't hesitate to let you know what they think. When I have written about the Philadelphia Zoo elephants, the activists who disagree have not hesitated to appear and tell me why. Wish I could say the same for the anti-gun activists. They almost never come here -- no matter how many posts I might put up about the gun issue -- especially local attempts at gun control. (That last list of links was an abbreviated one, BTW.) They are certainly well organized, and they certainly aren't in short supply. So what gives? Why is it that anti-gun activists think people who disagree with them should simply be avoided, while AR activists think people who disagree with them should be confronted and debated? Does anyone know? UPDATE: Jeff Soyer (who devotes far more time to the gun issue than I do) notices that very few people attend anti-gun rallies. Dozens! And half of them city council members....Via Glenn Reynolds, who notes that "'dozens' pretty much counts as nobody in this context." Hmmm..... Maybe I misspoke when I said they "certainly aren't in short supply" for they obviously are. But how can that be? I mean, gun control is The Major Issue in the Philadelphia Inquirer! It's the One Single Biggest Issue On Which All Candidates Agree in Philadelphia's mayoral election. There are of course regular demonstrations that must be attended by all the candidates, plus the huge crowds, which I'm sure number into the dozens. I guess it's a question of too much work, and not enough dozens to do it all. So it's probably unreasonable of me to expect them to behave like animal rights activists. (I should try to be more understanding.) posted by Eric on 04.02.07 at 08:57 AM
Comments
I think you're onto something there. No liberal wants to cop to not being liberal about something. Eric Scheie · April 2, 2007 10:55 AM Gun control is one of a handful of issues that reminds us we live in a representative democracy, and not a plain old democracy. The fact is, gun control is pretty unpopular, but the political classes have convinced themselves that it is a good thing, so they've largely come to an agreement to simply agree on the issue, for the most part. The same is true in most of Europe, re: the death penalty. Europeans want it, but their politicians have decided they should not have it, so that is the end of that. Jon Thompson · April 2, 2007 10:14 PM I think there's a sense of urgency to Animal Rights activists that is missing in anti-gun activists because there are animals out there suffering every day that they are trying to save. You can see them while they suffer. There's no real equivalent with gun control (there are crime victims, of course, but you can't point to one until it's too late). My girlfriend is a reporter and one of her beats is animal stories. It's remarkable the liberties the animal people will take--call her at any time of the day or night, even when they know it's her day off, and expect her to drop everything and pursue their story. The level of dedication to animals (and lack of regard for humans) is impressive. tim maguire · April 3, 2007 02:59 PM Tim, I'm reminded of my time working at a school newspaper in high school. We ran two stories about a month apart; one was about an orphaned dog, the other was about an orphaned child. We received over two-hundred responses from a school of two-thousand about the dog, asking how to donate money (and a few simply sending cash and checks to us; we had to return it all, sadly), wanting to adopt it, etc. On the kid? Nothing. No one wrote in to send money or ask how they could help. Jon Thompson · April 3, 2007 08:54 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
hair raising economic schemes
Pass the lard! And don't praise the ammunition! Can "responsible journalism" become irresponsible? In The Right Hands In The Wrong Hands Forgiving the shooters Coldening strikes home! A New Kind of Science Understanding the statistics Get the moderates first?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It would seem to me (and I admittedly fall in neither camp) that the willingness of the Animal Rights activists to debate, while the anti-gun lobby will not, is based on both a belief of correctness in each group and a feeling of empathy that they have potential to evoke.
ie: It is reasonably simply to create sympathy for 'life' regardless of whether that life is human or not. Very few people will side with someone who beats their dog, for example.
However, the argument against personal liberty - which does not directly concern life - ie: the gun control argument - is on much shakier ground because Gun Control Activists are aware they are lobbying against liberty, and are afraid to engage in debate as they know this will be brought to light.
Might not be right...but it seems plausible, no?