Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Wait wait... decoyman... If I eat live babies on a regular basis, then come out and talk about how horrible abortion is, does his mean people should listen to me about how horrible abortion is (assuming I'm using real facts and all)? I have a hard time listening to a speech from the pot about how black the kettle is....
Well, that's the question, UB, and it's a philosophical one, I admit. Your metaphor is flawed, however, and a bit extreme. A better comparison would be if you regularly
had abortions (gender-specific impossibilities aside, of course
), then maybe had a change of heart and went on the pill so you wouldn't have to have abortions anymore. If you
then went off about how horrible abortion is, you may very well be considered a hypocrite. On the other hand, if your scientific reasoning was well-researched and accurate, why would you be any different from any of the scientists, politicians, etc. whose positive social impacts live on to this day despite their personal shortcomings?
Now, it's one thing to categorize a person. It isn't (or shouldn't, at least) be so easy to categorize a group made up of diverse individuals. PETA undoubtedly has members who aren't so fanatical and crazy – people who are genuinely trying to do the right thing. If this came from them as a means to positively promote their views, why should we not take it for what it's worth?
There are other problems with this game, but for me, the fact that it's from PETA doesn't preclude me from at least considering its worth. Come on, talk about the message's REAL shortcomings (like lack of citing evidence for these claims) before you discredit the whole thing. Saying, "Oh, it's from PETA, don't pay any attention to it," just shows shortsightedness. Come on, I'm up for debating this, but you guys are going to have to give me a better counter-argument than that.
Edit: UERD (and others) have said it well.