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.
If PETA as the organization is behind it, you know it cannot be for the eating of meat. If the Discovery Institute is behind it, you know it cannot be about the advancement of methodological science because that is 180 degrees from their goals.
For instance, if the Communist Party was smart, they’d endorse John McCain, right?
Bringing it closer to the topic, what if the Communist Party were behind McCain's rise to power? I just did some more research. Apparently the DI is not so directly involved. The Louisiana Family Forum was behind the bill's drafting. They directly support creationism and oppose evolution. I had the right principle, possibly the wrong target.
I said possibly because the Discovery Institute often lends consulting services to those people who are considering attacks on evolution/proponency of Intelligent Design. We know the Discovery Institute was behind the school board's decision in Dover (the board didn't make the decision until receiving legal advice from the Discovery Institute and a promise to defend them against lawsuits from the Thomas More Law Center). They analyzed every mistake they made in Dover and likely taught those lessons learned to the LFF. Thus we have a law that looks benign.