I re-encountered this story tonight and have been thinking about a comment I saw on facebook or somewhere that represents the near-universal negative backlash PETA got: "They should just pay those poor people's water bills because it's the right thing to do!"
I am so confused.
Background: Detroit went bankrupt last year. One of the ways it decided to make back some money was to come down hard on people who had been using the city's water without paying for it (presumably because they really couldn't afford to, though I haven't actually researched that this is the case).
PETA, with its flair for no press is bad press, offered to pay the water bills of these people for any month in which they ate no meat, or something along those lines. Everyone, naturally, got mad at PETA.
Now, I can get why, sort of, people would be mad at PETA. If you view water as a human right, attaching strings to water is immoral. But let's examine that.
t=0 Detroit residents have no water, because the city government is finally trying to exercise fiscal restraint. The situation is, in a word, terrible.
t=1 PETA offers them water, with the caveat that they can't eat meat. [As an aside, meat is kinda expensive. So maybe this is a good sacrifice to make. Counterpoint, of course, that when you're poor is when you are least likely to have the luxury of thinking about what you eat every meal. And meat isn't that much pricier than comparable protein sources; sometimes it's cheaper.]
t=2 Everyone who has the luxury of being able to pay their water bill gets righteously angry on behalf of these poor Detroit residents. Most call for PETA to fuck off. If t=3 is PETA fucking off ... well, water bill still needs to be paid. Nothing has changed.
So I'm writing this at 4am, but it really baffles me. What I don't understand is what exactly is wrong with PETA's offer. It is not, despite what that angry quote above says, PETA's responsibility to pay anyone's water bill. It may be the government's responsibility to provide its citizens with water; that's another debate. But PETA does not enter into that equation. PETA's offer does not somehow remove water from Detroit citizens. At worst, it does no harm, does not change the status quo. At best, someone in Detroit -- maybe a couple of these poor water-users is already a vegetarian -- gets free water out of nowhere.
So, hubski, question: if PETA had never gotten involved, it would never have occurred to anyone on the planet that a controversial animal rights organization had a duty to pay someone's water bill. That is nonsensical. PETA creates what it sees as a win-win situation (and I'm inclined to agree that at the very least no one can lose); everyone gets mad at PETA. What am I missing?
EDIT: here is a sample article, and the caveat is actually vegan, not vegetarian. Which is a bit more complicated, but still worth the $145 water bill (?!) this woman wants paid.