Okay, maybe this is just the way the world works and as I often "bloviate" myself (laugh track indicating unintended joke on self) I can accept mine as a kind of hypocritical position. I want you to shut up if you have no grounding in the issues you're talking about...you should be asking questions not offering opinions based on nothing.
Now my friend Jon recently called me out about a comment I made about Wal-Mart and Levi's saying I presented no facts and had no real knowledge of the industry. True and true. I did do "middling" research looking to "back-up" the quote I offered and found, I think, some valid facts about the situation. But, I am not privy to certain information that would prove or disprove this--most is proprietary and I am not inclined to hunt too much.
Anyway, recently listened to Gary Francione "debate" with Wesley J. Smith on the Michael Medved show about Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare.
3 Points to make (and do they matter to you?):
1. Medved is a "right-wing" Christian "apologist" with a bullhorn called a radio show. (I'm using quotes here--not sure why, but I think because I want to say these may be arguable points--but I don't think so)
2. Smith is an author (a practicing attorney till 1985) then a "public policy" advocate--primarily advocating all things "human" are great, and all things Western are great. Typical, I think of "Power" apologists or "prevailing white social view". No "specific" scholarly grounding in Welfare and Rights for animals--just an opinion that fits his worldview on all subjects.
3. Francione--author of many books about Animal Rights and the Law. He also has a "worldview"--one in which humans kill (murder) sentient beings primarily for pleasure and he believes this is morally indefensible--ie, wrong. Not because of god or the bible or historical precedent.
So, you decide. Bloviators vs. Scholars (I'm sure you know my position). Also, feel free to disagree with any and all of the above...it's fun when you do.