If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it? Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat? Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?
If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it?
***If I didn’t see anything bad in the text of it, then what PETA has to say about it has about as much weight before (for me) as it does now: zero.
Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat?
***I don’t proceed with your set of assumptions. PETA=Ethical Treatment of Animals, and probably not all PETArds believe eating meat is wrong, they just would want to see the animals treated “ethically”. So, your “given” is a false premise, an invalid argument.
Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?
***It’s okay to mistrust them, but to base your reasoning on that is invalid. For instance, if the Communist Party was smart, they’d endorse John McCain, right? Then all the folks who think like you would never vote for the republican, and their agenda would be furthered.