Sometimes I try giving people a visual illustration of a communication that speaks for itself in regards to relaying a certain perspective. My intention is to inform, and showing a simple back and forth often serves to do this premise the most justice. This is 1 of those times…

So yesterday I was tagged on a post on Facebook that was made by Libra Max in response to a dog that was found in Los Angeles and then taken to 1 of the city shelters by one of PETA’s volunteers. The post came accompanied with 2 images, 1 being of the dog and the other being of the original comment section underneath the dog’s picture.

What prompted her post was that she was upset that PETA’s VP Lisa Lange stated that the thread should be removed upon 1 person suggesting that maybe the kill shelter wasn’t the best option for the found dog. Lange then came onto this new thread and passive-aggressively implied that the person (Libra) who originally suggested that the dog go elsewhere was being “hateful.” You can see it all in the provided links.

I’m not going to get into that debate here, and I wasn’t a part of it online while it was happening either. The truth is that people find dogs all the time and take them to corresponding shelters, hoping that the owner of the dog will come looking for it. I get that. What did draw me to comment on this rescuer’s post was what she ended up writing, sourcing the action taken by Lange as to “why” PETA has “lost credibility.”

As you could probably guess, I stated that “PETA lost credibility because they want all Pit Bulls banned and dead.”

What followed was a PETA supporter (Emily McCoy) responding to me, and then the below back and forth playing out. I’ve also, since this conversation happened yesterday, further gathered evidence of positions, stated positions, stated intent and stated opinion coming from the most publicly recognizable representatives of PETA (in regards to Pit Bulls and breed-specific legislation). You can see all of that RIGHT HERE.

Sadly, Emily McCoy, a former Pit Bull owner, represents the frustrating reality of so many well-intentioned people just not having a clue about what PETA really promotes and pushes (when it comes to Pit Bulls). Granted, what they promote and push is masked in doublespeak and feel-good language. Worse, Emily claims to have seen the evidence and has not deemed it worthy of actual proof. I even provided her with much of it, and she discerned it to be “boiled down soundbytes,” “bent versions of the truth, and “cherry-picked quotes.”

How is PETA saying in their own words (all sourced, able to be read in full) that they support breed-specific legislation, support bans on Pit Bulls (so long as it comes with a grandfather clause), support bans on the breeding of Pit Bulls, support shelter policies requiring the automatic destruction of any impounded Pit Bull, and so on, quantify as a soundbyte or a cherry-picking of the truth? What? If I stated unequivocally that I supported the Miami Heat over the Brooklyn Nets, does that not mean that I support the Miami Heat over the Brooklyn Nets?

Typically, Emily then flipped the script and accused me of fighting, said that I was just there to argue, called me disrespectful, called me condescending, called me presumptuous and unproductive, said that I came in with inflammatory rhetoric, said that I hadn’t done my homework, and said that I didn’t understand.