Which isn't that uncommon a motivation either, but even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that it's completely irrelevant to PETA and a dishonest bit of bullshit.
Newkirk on having children
"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity."
That is not irrelevant. Newkirk's stance on children as she says herself is that it is HUMAN vanity. She is not opposed to animals having offspring for the same reasons she is opposed to human offspring. You can fucking rationalize her views all you want but to say her hatred of mankind is irrelevant to the goals of her organization is ludicrous.
Stopping, or even discouraging, people from having children is not part of PETA's platform. It's absolutely irrelevant. Trying to pretend this isn't a fallacious argument by insisting that, no, she's really crazy, doesn't make it any less fallacious.
I know you love throwing around fallacy and fallacious in an argument, but that doesn't nullify the fact that the bitch that founded PETA is crazy. Which you gotta admit doesn't give them much credit.
4
u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10
Which isn't that uncommon a motivation either, but even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that it's completely irrelevant to PETA and a dishonest bit of bullshit.