David Martosko wrote a piece called: Crying Shame. In it he asserts that the Humane Society of the United States uses deceitful ads showing puppies and kittens to raise money for their campaign to drive the price of meat so high that people will become vegetarians. He says that they have little real connection to your local humane society, and are really just a bunch of vegan "wing-nuts."
David Martosko isn't really concerned with puppies and kittens. He wants people to stop giving money to the Humane Society of the United States, and instead donate to your local humane society. As director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization supported by the food and restaurant industries, he wants to limit the amount of money that an organization normally on the other side of a whole host of issues has to oppose the interests of the people that pay his salary.
Not only is David Martosko not concerned with puppies and kitties, he isn't concerned with logic or reason either.
First of all, he throws in the insults. The Humane Society of the United States is a bunch of vegan wing-nuts. I'm not sure what is accomplished by calling them wing-nuts, other than prejudicing people against them, which is the reason he links them to PETA. I reallyt don't know what he accomplishes by saying they are all vegans. Are vegans always wrong? Can vegans not be trusted to have valid opinions on food? Of course, the bottomline is that some one's argument should be evaluated based on the argument and not based on what the person making the argument chooses to eat. Even someone who takes money from the food industry, and then hides behind the label of "non-profit" deserves to have their argument responded to with logic and reason. For teh record, if you want to see more name calling, go to the Center for Consumer Freedom's website.
Second, he indulges in name games. He links them to PETA. He refers to them as HSUS, rather than the Humane Society, because he is trying to differentiate them from the Humane Society.
Third, he makes a big deal about the fact that they don't run every local humane society, but they don't claim to. On their web site they state: "We work to reduce suffering and improve the lives of all animals by advocating for better laws; investigating animal cruelty; encouraging corporations to adopt animal-friendly policies; conducting disaster relief and animal rescue; and providing direct care for thousands of animals at our sanctuaries, emergency shelters, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and mobile veterinary clinics." Many of these projects are things that David Martosko criticizes them for doing under the cover of aiding dogs and cats. The problem is that they are gladly admitting to doing these things.
Fourth, This article has very little, other than an offhand mention of attacking egg farmers,on the actual disputes between the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Humane Society of the United States. This article isn't about teh substance of the issues, it is about scaring and deceiving people into ceasing to support the Humane Society of the United States.
Fifth, The use of phrases like "most of us were deceived" and the labels of "vegan" and "wing-nuts" and the links to PETA are attempts to paint the Humane Society of the United States as a bunch of elitist others. They aren't average Americans like us. This is another attempt to attack the messenger rather than the message. It is also pretty offensive to those that are labeled as elite and those that are labeled as average Americans.
So ... what do we do about arguments like this? I think the best thing would be to assume that if someone makes this kind of argument, rather than relying on logic and facts, they are wrong. When you see this approach, immediately conclude that they are wrong. Maybe that would force people to really address issues, to drop the name calling, and to stop insulting our intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment