I knew Matthew Scully, the animal rights movement’s favorite conservative, would attack A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy. When he did, I expected him to respect readers sufficiently to disclose that I criticized (and praised) his book Dominion. He didn’t. I didn’t expect that he would mount his attack in the National Review. He did. Oh well. That’s public advocacy.
In due time, I will be responding at length to Scully’s harsh criticisms (about which I alluded the other day), so I won’t belabor the matter now. But there is a nasty canard in Scully’s review that is so unhinged and provocative that I can’t let it lie on the table until my full reply is prepared. From his review, “The Cause of Humanity” (no link):
Smith keeps going on about [human 'moral distinctiveness'], and the euphemisms only get worse in his treatment of animal experimentation. He offers soothing descriptions of violent experiments (chimps are ‘seated quietly, not struggling’ as their limbs are about to be broken).
That is wholly and outrageously false. I never wrote about a chimp experiment that involved breaking their limbs. Indeed, I have never heard of such an experiment. Scully can rail all he wants against my book. But he has no right to fictionalize what I wrote to score cheap emotional points. It lacks integrity.
February 24th, 2010 | 9:29 am
Integrity and the Internet tend not to go hand and hand, far too often, sadly.
Secondly, NR should be ashamed of publishing this–have you demanded a retraction?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:34 am
We are in the process of handling this matter. More later.
February 24th, 2010 | 11:32 am
Sigh.
Smith, Smith, Smith. Far too many assumptions. My assumption: your straightforward post here over Scully, book, chimps, etc, is factually correct.
Moving forward… Smith, what on Thor’s green Earth makes you assume a former speechwriter for Bush has any ability to get basic information, let alone analysis, correct? Are you in the slightest surprised that a conservative displays the poorest of scholarship capabilities? He edited for National Review, not exactly the pinacle of scholastic accuracy. He worked for Bush. He worked for National Review. As I recall, he reportedly was involved in some Palin speech(es). (I personally always thought he was an emotional wind bag, an acerebral huff – my opinion)
Did you really expect anything more?????
Anyways, should this be true, I wish you well, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I have heard (an’ sure seen) plenty of medical experiments on animals (mainly seen on Canis familiaris and Bos primigenius) – I ain’t never heard o’ that one as an experiment. I could see that somewhere in time a chimp’s arm has been broken in a struggle, cage rage, etc, but I’ve never come across documentation.
February 24th, 2010 | 11:34 am
pinnacle, no pinacle
February 24th, 2010 | 11:57 am
Where did he get that phrase about “seated quietly” from? What was the actual context?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I’m not entirely sure. I wrote about the Silver Spring Monkey case in the book, during which a researcher was falsely accused of animal abuse and neglect. He was working with monkeys to see whether the brain was sufficiently plastic to reteach numb limbs to do functions even without feelings. His lab was infiltrated by Alex Pachecho, co founder of PETA, who pretended to be a student volunteer. When the researcher went on vacation for 2 weeks, the lab custodians stopped showing up and the lab became filthy and unsanitary. Pacheco took photos and called the cops. When the researcher returned, he was arrested.
It took 8 years to completely clear his name. He eventually created a great stroke rehab technique that is now being used in children with cerebral palsy. Here’s a piece I wrote about it in the NR some years ago. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200402100912.asp
February 24th, 2010 | 11:42 pm
Let Mr Scully have his fun for now but we your faithful readers know that you do have a good heart and in no way would you want to intentionally hurt any animals.
Peace
February 26th, 2010 | 10:44 am
Victor. Cut the BS. Of course Wesley doesn’t mind people torturing animals provided there’s some human benefit to be obtained from it.
As you know, he bases his acceptance of animal experimentation not on some ordinary rationale like expedience. No, he bases it on the dubious theory of “human exceptionalism.” That is to say, in WesleyWorld, members of homo sapiens get to define what “humanity” is, and then use their own definition to justify exploitation and destruction of other species. Kind of like “Through the Looking Glass.”
Likewise, in WesleyWorld it’s perfectly OK to ignore the effect that our own species’ profligacy may be having on other life forms, because homo sapiens is the biggest and the best (by our own definition). In WesleyWorld they call examples of climate change “global warming hysteria.” Anyway, it’s all moot. Doesn’t the Bible say that humankind has “dominion” over all this stuff? So there, that settles it.
Self-delusion you see, Victor, requires only that you suspend your sense of logic and come to Jesus — sorry, I meant WesleyWorld — with the mindset of a small and very credible child. Nothing new there, though; religion has been advocating it for centuries. The technique is called “when in doubt don’t think. PLEASE don’t think.”
February 26th, 2010 | 2:45 pm
HW, I don’t necessarily buy into “human exceptionalism” as Wes has defined it, but it’s no better or worse than AR folks saying that other animals are “sentient,” or that animals have “inherent value,” or trying to make terms like “vivisection” and “speciesism” synonymous with evil. It’s all word games and propaganda ploys to me. (Wes being a lawyer, word games have more validity to him than me.) None of those terms holds up to close objective scrutiny. Of course the term “animal rights” is an oxymoron per se, since rights are a strictly human tool for regulating human society.
The more common sense approach is to recognize that all species act in their own interest, and that there is nothing wrong with that. Competition is the basic engine of evolution.
We must also recognize that success can breed failure, like when a virus overmultiplies and kills its host. Once we’ve reached the top of the species pyramid we’re the only ones who can knock ourselves off. Well, us, or about a 10-degree rise or fall in average ocean temperature. Or a nice viral mutation. Or a well-aimed asteroid… ;)
February 26th, 2010 | 8:19 pm
padraig:
I appreciate your point, and I freely admit there’s plenty of nonsense on both sides of the debate. But I do think the people who are touting “human exceptionalism” should get an award of some sort for their efforts: perhaps life membership in the BS Brigade.
There’s not an awful lot of difference between human exceptionalists and so-called dominionists (the bunch who’ve been trying to sneak fundamentalist Christianity into government for decades). The exceptionalists have simply given the old BS a snazzy new philosophical wrapper to appeal to those who can read (and, I daresay, bathe occasionally). Human exceptionalism is not scientific; indeed, it’s as unprovable as the virgin birth. Yet there are those — like Wesley — who want to see it incorporated into the law of the land.
Thanks, but no: if people want to live in a theocracy they can always move to Iran.
February 28th, 2010 | 2:18 am
[...] Humane Watch can laud me. Which reminds me: I will soon have a, shall we say, robust response to Scully’s diatribe published for your consideration. Stay [...]
March 3rd, 2010 | 12:04 pm
Personally I feel that attempting to find cures & less painful medical procedures is much more compassionate choice then doing nothing. I refuse to be a hand wringing apologist because I feel human life and future pets will benefit from medical research preformed on animals done today.
March 8th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
[...] Matthew Scully’s screed against A Rat is a Pig, etc., discussed here, National Review gave me the opportunity to write an extended reply. Let me deal with his [...]
March 10th, 2010 | 1:43 pm
[...] it seems, is that he cannot bear those who see it otherwise, which accounts for the furious tone and intellectual dishonesty of his [...]
March 11th, 2010 | 12:14 am
[...] benefits from proper and humane testing on animals. One critic of my book, Matthew Scully, has claimed that I support experiments in which chimpanzees have their arms broken, but that is erroneous: [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact