Quote:
Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom  I never labeled the entire group of people who oppose this bill as a propagandist group. Do not put words in my mouth. |
I did not mean to infer that you labeled "an entire group of people" anything so I am sorry if my post was confusing. I meant to point out that the group that created and supports the page you refered to would probably not appreciate being labeled as propagandists. They are no more "propagandists" than is the California Taxpayers for Safe and Healthy Pets group that was linked to earlier in this discussion (which I believe has also abandoned support for the bill which I find pretty darn funny).
How do you know that one group's facts are true and that the others' facts are not? Because of my job, I hear two sides to every story every single day. Both sides think they are correct and believe their facts are correct. It is human nature to think that the side you agree with knows the "truth" and the other side is making up phooey to support their position. I could easily say the same thing about groups like the NAIA (whose positions I generally support)-- that their facts are true facts and that organizations that support msn and permitting and licensing differentials (things I oppose) are using false information and exaggeration to convince people that these things are necessary. Personally I tend to believe that most of the facts concerning animal welfare issues probably fall somewhere inbetween where these different groups say they do.
I think this debate has disintegrated at this point so that we are not talking about AB 1634 anymore anyway. I think we can agree that everyone should actually read the law before making any decisions about whether to support it or fight it. I have my reasons for opposing it, you have your reasons for supporting it and others are free to decide for themselves.