Unless you're working off of at minimum more then the foxnews article then you definitely do not have enough information to make that judgement. So no your point isn't terribly valid or relevent as you're only saying "in my opinion surely they would have known what the money was going to be used for", and though it's nice of you to weigh in with your opinion, you don't have an argument to base it on, at least not one that you've presented.
And politeness is perhaps the most important aspect of rational discourse. Without it the actual topic, and the facts, are quickly obscured by personal attacks, and your own hatred of the person presenting the opposing view will make you irrational.
In my opinion PETA knew what the money was for.. kind of like how in my opinion, the sky is blue. Are you saying that when PETA gave away thousands of dollars, they had no idea what it was for? Did they just do it on a whim? Did those people win the PETA lottery or something?
PETA gave the money to terrorists. They're the ones holding the smoking gun here. I'm not the one whose views need defending. If PETA or its near-sighted apologists want to challenge my argument, they could start by explaining what the money WAS intended for.
One other thing: I love how I'm being criticized for the content of my comments, while no one EXCEPT me sees fit to criticize miss "I love PETA and you're brainwashed retards!" here. Why don't you people lecture her? Is it because you consider her utterly beneath you and unworthy of any response.. or because you're in the habit of using liberal thought-police dodges to dismiss opposing viewpoints without having to form a credible counterargument?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 04:03 am (UTC)And politeness is perhaps the most important aspect of rational discourse. Without it the actual topic, and the facts, are quickly obscured by personal attacks, and your own hatred of the person presenting the opposing view will make you irrational.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-18 12:03 pm (UTC)PETA gave the money to terrorists. They're the ones holding the smoking gun here. I'm not the one whose views need defending. If PETA or its near-sighted apologists want to challenge my argument, they could start by explaining what the money WAS intended for.
One other thing: I love how I'm being criticized for the content of my comments, while no one EXCEPT me sees fit to criticize miss "I love PETA and you're brainwashed retards!" here. Why don't you people lecture her? Is it because you consider her utterly beneath you and unworthy of any response.. or because you're in the habit of using liberal thought-police dodges to dismiss opposing viewpoints without having to form a credible counterargument?