29 April 2010

Wildlife documentaries infringe animals' privacy

I'm sorry but this really did make me inwardly say, 'he just cannot be serious': Wildlife documentaries infringe animals' privacy, says report | Environment | The Guardian: "'We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they do often engage in forms of behaviour which suggest they'd rather not encounter humans,'"
I think that he should look up the word 'privacy' in a dictionary. I'm pretty certain it can't, by definition apply to natterjack toads, for example. There is a difference between 'privacy' and 'vulnerability'. Why would humans want privacy? Are those concerns that a squirrel could have?

No comments:

USAican RW Christians misunderstand "socialism"

 The other day on Mastodon, I came across an article about left-wing politics and Jesus. It appears to have been written from a Christian-na...