The following passage is particularly amusing: Supporters of ag-gag laws have argued that they serve to protect the agriculture industry from the negative repercussions of exposés by whistle blowers.
If one replaced "supporters" with "critics", the sentence would make more sense, not less.
I think the sentence makes perfect sense-- critics/supporters make the same argument, just with different priorities: Supporters place farmer interests over animal welfare, critics do the reverse.
I do have to say that the supporters/farmers position looks objectively ethically questionable to me, but the old saying surely applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
The following passage is particularly amusing: Supporters of ag-gag laws have argued that they serve to protect the agriculture industry from the negative repercussions of exposés by whistle blowers.
If one replaced "supporters" with "critics", the sentence would make more sense, not less.
I think the sentence makes perfect sense-- critics/supporters make the same argument, just with different priorities: Supporters place farmer interests over animal welfare, critics do the reverse.
I do have to say that the supporters/farmers position looks objectively ethically questionable to me, but the old saying surely applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"