I blogged last week about Peter Singer's appearance at the University of Minnesota, and the campus paper featured a follow-up piece today. Though I was intrigued and pleased to learn that his main focus was animal rights and welfare, of particular interest to me was the final paragraph of the editorial:
Singer’s talk was not self-righteous or zealous; it was not hysterical or inflammatory. It was simply a presentation of facts and ideas to support his cause. While his views remain extreme to some, at least he is presenting them in a way that makes people think. If more activists would take his approach, they would find they would garner a lot more support in the long run.If someone as controversial as Peter Singer can make people think more deeply and responsibly about animal rights with calm, reasoned, and persuasive presentation of ideas and facts, what does that say about the perceived need in some quarters for more aggressive tactics, which seem (at least in the short-term we're in) to backfire tremendously for activists and the animals they represent?
Categories: Peter Singer | animal rights | advocacy
