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?
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Bible in a Disenchanted Age -a brief review
Why this book? For me? -I've been finding myself wanting to wrestle more and more with the interface between scholarly questions and de...
-
Interesting insight into the Muslim world: my favourite progresive muslim site has been hacked and attacked by islamists accusing those who ...
-
Some readers will recall that I'm keen in principle on a thorough review of the way we do dioceses in the CofE. I'm not starry-eyed...
-
This book is one that I now seriously consider recommending to the student Christian groups I'm in touch with whose basis is Evangelic...
No comments:
Post a Comment