You may infer what mish-mash means all you wish... I've indicated that I consider it innocuous and offered an apology if offense was given... nothing, however, was implied beyond my observation that the "philosophy", as presented, appears to be a patchwork of various things assembled and articulated using a definitionally self-referential vocabulary; something you admitted to.
I don't know that a rethinking of human-animal relations are the product of "more serious thinkers"; it seems more akin to the anthropocentric tendency to give to animals characters and characteristics that are solely human and then gloss those up in words typical of "studies" courses.  There is much more thought around the idea that the animals exist so that humanity might; that the earth exists so that humanity might; that the sun exists so that humanity might, etc.