quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Glad to post, K.

I lost my respect for PETA years ago. Frankly, I still wince at the years when I believed everything they said for gospel.

The thing about PETA is while they often make good points -- the means are often screwed. I totally agree that the diary industry, for example, could use a little reform (hence, myself and other pre-vet students at UF are considering joining the dairy industry to make these changes possible). But to go and distribute 'GOT BEER?' advertisments across collge campuses. Sure, that may swing with the college idiots, but those of us that got in for academic reasons can usually see through a shitty compaign like that.

The point is -- whose opinion do you value more? A fanatic group that has been accused of supporting a terrorist group (ALF), or a group of individuals knowledgable and experienced in the field that want the same goals but under different, more logical, means?
Logic and reason are of course vital to any moral/ethical stand that a person wants to make--- and in trying to convince someone of the merit of your argument. But passion (non-violent passion, of course) is also very important in delivering your message. Peter Singer (the author of "Animal Liberation", widely considered the "bible" of the modern animal rights movement) is without doubt one of the brightest and most reasonable philosophers on the planet, but he's also a tad stale and emotionless. Sometimes it takes an emotional nuke to wake people up from their apathetic slumber. Logic, reason, AND passion is the key, in my humble opinion. Sure, PETA is far from perfect, but they also have an abundance of all of these afore-mentioned qualities.