|
|||||||||||||
|
Between Punkerslut on one side, and Mongo and Tard on the other
Their Website: Mongo and Tard Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:28:25 -0800 (PST) Hello Punkerslut. I posted our email debate on animal rights on mongoandtard.com. I still get emails from hunters (and occasional wackos too) on the debate. I would like to exchange links with you. I believe doing so would stir the pot and help you create more anarchy and bad feelings all around. What an offer! Let me know. Mongo. PS - How's the drug use, homelessness and anger at the world working out for you? Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 Greetings, I've been thinking of how to respond to your request for a link change, and I think we can come to some sort of an agreement. I'll do a link exchange with you in return for a rematch -- another debate, that is. We can do it via regular e-mail again: a question of ethics, with the vegetarian diet versus the omnivore diet. You write a piece defending the right to use animals as food, and I'll criticize it. Then I'll write a piece defending Vegetarianism, and you criticize it. Then, at the end, you write a final statement, and then I will. The debate format would go along the lines of: you: defense of omnivore diet In the end, we'll both publish the debate. How does that sound? Thanks, Punkerslut, P.S. The drug use? It's awesome. Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:40:38 -0800 (PST) Dude, With all due respect - didn't we already have that debate? (I had the towel mounted) If we're going to have a rematch, then I would prefer a new subject. One thing - the subject would have to be related to hunting or allow me to make fun of you or preferably both! I can tell by your email you are more mature now than the last time. I'm going to love the day when you get married and have a mortgage. I think I'll ask you about anarchy and free love in another ten years or so - hah! I'll always remember fondly your impotent anger. Were you in Seattle a few years back for the WTO riots? If so, then I guess your anger was potent. Mongo PS - I would never hold the occasional spleef against a guy, but you should watch out for all those exotic hallucinogenics you list on your site. I'm pretty sure Timothy Leery ended up in a mental ward playing lip music with his fingers. Date: Sunday, November 13, 2005 Greetings, A marriage and mortgage? Highly unlikely, good sir. It's easy for you to play my ideas off as emotional orgasms of teenage angst. That way, any response of mine can be treated like outcrying instead of seriously considered. Why don't you ask the same questions to the working class folks of Europe, where every country has a dominant labor-based, socialist party? Ask the 10,000+ member unions of Spain, the CNT-FAI, and see if they tell you that their ideas of Anarcho-Syndicalism are just infantile outbursts. The struggling peoples of the world work together in order to improve their own living conditions. There is nothing immature or naive about it. Rage in the midst of the world's conditions is simply a matter of having clarity. I wasn't a fan of Timothy Leary. His writings, from the early periods to the end, felt more like the musings of a crackhead than a genuine psychonaut. Feel free to pick any topic to debate about. I'm not quite sure what topic we could argue where you get to talk about hunting unless that topic is animal rights... but pick anything. My opinions are plentiful. Punkerslut, Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:08:18 -0800 (PST) As to our friends in Europe, don't they have 10-20% unemployment, anemic economic growth, demographics that force them to import labor from North Africa and the Middle East who's kids have a tendency to burn things, and a collapsing cradle to grave social system that causes even more riots every time the poor politicians try to reform things? Sounds like another short term system like the Soviet Union. You pick - West Germany or East Germany, North Korea or South Korea, the PRC (the old one not the capitalist one) or Taiwan, Vietnam or Japan. I hate to concede a point so early, but you, my good wacko, are right - animal rights have the perfect flavor. So I will begin: 1) I am a patriotic American christian man who believes there is a God and that Jesus Christ was his son sent to earth to redeem us of our sins. That furthermore, God gave us dominion over animals and that within the bounds of our humanity we may do with them as we want. I believe that humans have souls and animals do not. I believe that 80-90% of Americans agree with me on the above facts and we were endowed by our creator with certain political freedoms that guarantee us the right to hunt and eat animals within the bounds of the law. 2) You and all animal rights folks are hypocrites because you want to impose your views on others but are unwilling to end your personal use of animals. That is, you claim animals have rights but you ignore Americans' more important human political rights and you eat vegetables and use products that, in their production, have resulted in untold animal death and suffering. Let the semi-great Mongo vs. Punkerslut debate part II begin! Your most humble servant, Mongo Date: Saturday, November 19, 2005 Greetings, "God gave us dominion over animals and that within the bounds of our humanity we may do with them as we want. I believe that humans have souls and animals do not." This would certainly not be the first time that someone used the argument "god wanted this" to justify their action. I could pick a thousand examples, ranging from Fascists like Mussolini, Pinochet, and Franco, to much older tyranny, such as the kings who robbed their own people but defended their authority as "the will of god." Morality, ethics, doing what is right, and understanding the consequences of your actions, all of these things are secular. They are produced by the naturally occuring instincts of social behavior. It is more important that we listen to our conscience and our own capability of reasoning than listening to dead scripture that has no meaning or relevance to our life. Besides, the New Testament promotes slavery. Ephesians 6:5, "Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." Colossians 3:22, "Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God." If we should really obey all of the Bible, why exempt this one part on slavery and listen to just what the scripture says on consuming animals? "That is, you claim animals have rights but you ignore Americans' more important human political rights..." Just like the right to enslave, eating animals is not a political right I would give to anyone. If we genuinely believe that Americans deserve the right to life, as defended in the Constitution and all other noble documents, then we also have an inclination to respect the right to life of every conscious being. Animals desire to live as much as humans. To say that they should be denied rights is tantamount to racism -- just because of genetics, you deny that another individual could have any political, social, or cultural rights. "and you eat vegetables and use products that, in their production, have resulted in untold animal death and suffering." Vegetables are not conscious beings. That means that they are incapable of desire, and therefore incapable of wanting to live or wanting to die. They are also incapable of misery or suffering, memory, or the other qualities which are generally associated with consciousness. They are not aware, so to speak. Therefore, whether they live or die is not really a moral issue. As far as using products that produce "untold animal death and suffering," I try to consume products that are sweatshop labor-free and union-made. I don't wear leather or fur, etc., etc.. Besides, this is a debate about ideas, not people -- whether I have sex with meat behind closed doors or not doesn't change the fact that Vegetarianism is the moral and ethical thing to do. Hypocrite or not, my ideas are valid. -------- Now you respond to these, I'll make my own defense of vegetarianism, you critique that, I respond, then you do closing statements, and then I do closing statements. Punkerslut, Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:51:28 -0800 (PST) Deer Punkerslut, You have, in part, misconstrued my first argument - that God created man and animal different. I did not give you a "my Bible tells me so" argument. I referred generically to the Christian God. The same creator that is referenced over ten times in the Declaration of Independence. I find it ironic that you claim morality as secular when our government, western law and the very idea (that humans have individual worth) that has lead to your philosophy for the emancipation of animals are all based on the Judeo-Christian ethic or directly from the teachings of Jesus. In any case, I can prove my point in this regard with a series of questions. 1) Is there a God? - no has been your previous answer. 2) Do people have souls - once again you have said no. 3) Do animals have souls - another previous no. 4) Is the use of animals for food and other purposes, along with the ownership of animals enshrined in our laws, history and customs? 5) Based on your beliefs, would you change these laws to make it illegal to hunt, eat, own, and use animals for medical research? 6) If you answer yes to the above, what punishment would you meat out to violators? 7) Does the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with you on animals and people being equal? 8) If they do indeed disagree with you, what meanswould you use to enforce your beliefs? 9) Is violent revolution to overthrow the current system of government justified to save the animals? 10) Do you support the efforts of ELF and/or ALF? Let's move on to my second point, the fact that you benefit from the deaths of animals, only via indirect means. Since you have steadfastly avoided a direct debate I ask the following questions: 1) Is it possible that billions of insects, mammals, and all types of other animals died to clear the land that grow cultivated vegetables? 2) How many more animals would exist in ten years if farming were ended today in America? 3) Do you live in a house made with wood or drive a car, or ride in buses or planes? 4) Do you own any books or magazines? 5) How many animals have died because of the destruction to the environment by the wood products industry? 6) If you eat cultivated vegetables, live in a house or apartment building, own or use transportation, own or read magazines or books, use electronic devices do you deny they have been grown on land or have been made using wood or wood pulp? 7) Shouldn't you eliminate the animal deaths you have benefited from personally first before you make the rest of us change our behavior by force? Or, as the good Lord said, "Remove first the beam from your own eye before you point out the speck in your neighbor's eye." I do at least appreciate that you have admitted to being a hypocrite. I don't understand how you can claim your ideas are right if they are not right enough to motivate you to abide by them. As I have pointed out before, your ideas are assertion of truth without supporting empirical or logical proof. Do you remember the "Far Side" cartoon with the cows acting like people when the car drove over the hill? The cartoon is universally funny because it calls out an absurd dogma - that animals are like people. I suspect you believe your animal rights dogma because you are ignorant, in a gnostic sense, of what animals actually are. Your beliefs are possible because all you know of animals is Walt Disney, "Charlotte's Web", and "Animal Farm". Do you really think you would believe animals are equal to humans if you lived in a subsistence culture, worked on a farm or ranch, were a veterinarian, or had any actual extensive contact with animals past a petting zoo? One last thing - have the intellectual courage to make your own arguments and to answer these questions directly. In return, I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have of me. I believe, in the end, I will be able to ask one last question: If I am willing to let you live your life as you see fit, why won't you let me? Your most humble servant, Mongo Date: Sunday, November 27, 2005 }}"I referred generically to the Christian God. The same creator that is referenced over ten times in the Declaration of Independence." The author of the Declaration of Independence was no fan of the Christian God. He was a Deist, so I hardly think he would be referencing a creator that he didn't believe in. }}"I find it ironic that you claim morality as secular when our government, western law and the very idea (that humans have individual worth) that has lead to your philosophy for the emancipation of animals are all based on the Judeo-Christian ethic or directly from the teachings of Jesus." Again, not true. The first recorded law that defended the life and limb of its citizens was the Code of Hammurabi, written and upheld by a society of Polytheists in the year 1700 BC. The theories of individualism, liberty, and the rights of mankind were fostered by Freethinkers like Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau, and other philosophers of the Enlightenment. }}"1) Is it possible that billions of insects, mammals, and all types of other animals died to clear the land that grow cultivated vegetables?" Your argument is a question of hypocrisy. Do I really hold myself to the same standards that I claim that others should? Am I really doing as much as I could to stop the exploitation and death of innocent animals? After all, if I don't follow my own ideas, why should anybody else? That is a very natural and instinctual question of debate. I could answer this question in so many ways. I could say that this debate is not about my personal habits, but about the rights of animals. But, let me draw a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate my point. Two German citizens in 1943 commence in conversation. One tells the other: "Your boots are made by Polish slave labor. They are treated inhumanely. You shouldn't have bought this product." The other citizen replies: "But why? Your coat is made by Jewish slave labor. Both slave groups are treated about the same." And then the first citizen replies, "You're right. I am a hypocrite and have been gaining luxury at the hands of an enslaved people. Therefore, it is morally justified to do it, since I'm already doing it." I think the dialogue speaks for itself. If I went out right now and slaughtered a cow, it wouldn't mean that Animal Rights is a bad philosophy. After all, if I killed a human being, would that mean that Humanitarianism has no meaning, since I violated its principles when I claimed to be a Humanitarian? It's not a question about the way I personally live my life. This debate is a question of whether animals deserve the right to life or not. If you are otherwise genuinely interested in the way that I live and the products I consume, I can fax you my receipts for the past two months, along with an accomodating chart explaining every meal I've consumed... }}"Do you really think you would believe animals are equal to humans if you lived in a subsistence culture, worked on a farm or ranch, were a veterinarian, or had any actual extensive contact with animals past a petting zoo?" Why I believe what I do... "To return to our immediate subject: the lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. Happiness is never better exhibited than by young animals, such as puppies, kittens, lambs, &c., when playing together, like our own children. Even insects play together, as has been described by that excellent observer, P. Huber,* who saw ants chasing and pretending to bite each other, like so many puppies." [* Recherches sur les Moeurs des Fourmis, 1810, p. 173.] [Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, chapter 3.] "...the simple fact previously referred to, that after a time no animal can be caught in the same place by the same sort of trap, shews that animals learn by experience, and imitate the caution of others." [Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, chapter 4.] "Actions of all kinds, if regularly accompanying any state of the mind, are at once recognized as expressive. These may consist of movements of any part of the body, as the wagging of a dog’s tail, the shrugging of a man’s shoulders, the erection of the hair, the exudation of perspiration, the state of the capillary circulation, laboured breathing, and the use of the vocal or other sound-producing instruments. Even insects express anger, terror, jealousy, and love by their stridulation." [Charles Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, chapter 14.] }}"I believe, in the end, I will be able to ask one last question: If I am willing to let you live your life as you see fit, why won't you let me?" Certainly, this is no doubt one of the greatest questions that every oppressed group demands of their oppressor. Why not widen the question? If the creatures of nature are willing to let you live, why won't you grant them the same right? Vegetarianism is the method that I and others have chosen to break hands with the circle of cruelty that is supported by our society's poor ethics. Animal Rights activism is an attempt to educate and popularize the idea of Vegetarianism, so that people can work against an industry based on exploitation. You shouldn't be asking me this question of live and let live -- ask the creatures that you hunt and exploit. They are the center of this debate; it's not really a question of what you or I personally decide to do. Punkerslut, Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:49:50 -0800 (PST) Deer Punkerslut, I will reiterate the questions that you failed to answer. 4) Is the use of animals for food and other purposes, along with the ownership of animals enshrined in our laws, history and customs? 5) Based on your beliefs, would you change these laws to make it illegal to hunt, eat, own, and use animals for medical research? 6) If you answer yes to the above, what punishment would you meat out to violators? 7) Does the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with you on animals and people being equal? 8) If they do indeed disagree with you, what meanswould you use to enforce your beliefs? 9) Is violent revolution to overthrow the current system of government justified to save the animals? 10) Do you support the efforts of ELF and/or ALF? I believe you have conceded in part the second argument - that you benefit indirectly from animal deaths. I knew the cognitive dissidence I sowed in our first exchange wouldn't last. So I will ask my follow up question: Can you name anyone in the United States that does not indirectly or directly benefit from the deaths of animals? As to a point you have made - "The author of the Declaration of Independence was no fan of the Christian God. He was a Deist, so I hardly think he would be referencing a creator that he didn't believe in." Did you know that to this day the Congress gives its new members the Thomas Jefferson bible? It is an abridged version of the New Testament. "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That document was debated, edited, and then signed by over 40 men. You'll note that mankind not animal kind is created equal and we are endowed by our creator with political rights. This is the very reason I have asked you the above questions. That these truths are self evident is the reason I have not wasted time debating minutia of animal behavior. I submit that when the animals make a declaration of independence from people, then I will reconsider if they are even close to the likeness of God. Consider that the very ground we walk on (and grow food on) is the decomposed waste and bodies of eons of plants and animals that came before us. We ourselves, every atom, are made from the bodies of dead stars. All living things kill and are made of death. I believe it is a wonderful paradox, not a contradiction. One last thing, you said "Animal Rights activism is an attempt to educate and popularize the idea of Vegetarianism, so that people can work against an industry based on exploitation." If you look back over our debates, you will see this as a tacit admission that your arguments have failed and that animal rights is simply the justification for ending capitalism and traditional western political liberty. For, how else to work against free industries that are overwhelmingly supported by the people than to take political power away from the people? The American people vote at McDonald's every day. Punkerslut, if you really believe in the truth of your assertions and the fact that animals deserve the same rights as humans then show the courage to answer the above questions simply and forthrightly. I have repeated them to give you a chance to proudly stand up for what you truly believe. If you refuse to simply and directly answer these questions then I will have to assume that my fears of tyranny without power are well founded and I see no reason to continue the debate. Because, at that point, you will continue to cut and paste your arguments from esteemed sources and I will simply reiterate my declaration of victory and take comfort in the fact that the sort of people that want to deny my unalienable rights (all proclaiming rightness) had their run in Germany, Italy, Russia and China and their names have been discarded on "the trash heap of history". If, as old men (well I will be), we ever start up the debate a third time I suppose that this round's cognitive dissonance will have worked its way through your noggin. You will most likely find by then that life has made you less radical and more accepting of your fellow man. Your most humble servant, Mongo Date: Monday, November 28, 2005 }}"4) Is the use of animals for food and other purposes, along with the ownership of animals enshrined in our laws, history and customs?" Yes. Irrelevant -- racism, slavery, and genocide was once enshrined in our laws, history, and customs. }}"5) Based on your beliefs, would you change these laws to make it illegal to hunt, eat, own, and use animals for medical research?" Just the same way as I would change the laws if they support racial slavery. A few other who did the same include Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Susan B. Anthony. }}"6) If you answer yes to the above, what punishment would you meat out to violators?" That's certainly thinking way ahead of the argument. But the question of punishment in this debate is irrelevant. In another debate, we could argue about the origin of society's ills -- are things like unemployment, poverty, crime, and disease caused by people not working hard, or are they caused by an unjust social-economic organization of society? And, does punishment genuinely deter crime, or does it simply repress instincts, without changing them? Answer these how you like, it's irrelevant to our current debate, as this question is. }}"7) Does the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with you on animals and people being equal?" Of course. }}"8) If they do indeed disagree with you, what means would you use to enforce your beliefs?" I already stated how. "Animal Rights activism is an attempt to educate and popularize the idea of Vegetarianism, so that people can work against an industry based on exploitation." I've already chosen a way to change society -- the peaceful and just propagation of an idea. }}"9) Is violent revolution to overthrow the current system of government justified to save the animals?" It wouldn't stop anything. I hardly think that a minority of 5% ruling 95% can really work out, but, Capitalism seems to do fine, so who knows. }}"10) Do you support the efforts of ELF and/or ALF?" A.L.F. and E.L.F. are very dignified groups. They have harmed absolutely no human life and are responsible for saving animals that have been imprisoned and educating the public. A.L.F. provided media outlets with videos of vivisection and animal torture. }}"I believe you have conceded in part the second argument - that you benefit indirectly from animal deaths. I knew the cognitive dissidence I sowed in our first exchange wouldn't last. So I will ask my follow up question:" }}"Can you name anyone in the United States that does not indirectly or directly benefit from the deaths of animals?" I didn't say that I didn't benefit from the exploitation of animals. I only stated that such an argument was irrelevant. If, for example, I benefited from racial slavery, such as my the wealth of my family being derived from southern industry of the years 1820 to 1830, does that mean -- just because I benefit from it -- that I cannot believe in Civil Rights? If I benefited from the slavery of another race two hundred years ago, does that mean that when I argue for Civil Rights and equality, that my arguments MUST BE WRONG -- just because I benefited? Again, take another example. If we discover in ten years that Albert Einstein was a rapist, does that mean that the Theory of Relativity is automatically incorrect? The term used by most is AD HOMINEM -- to the man, not to the idea. This is a debate, not a match of moral strength versus moral strength. }}"I submit that when the animals make a declaration of independence from people, then I will reconsider if they are even close to the likeness of God." Of course animals declare independence from humanity. They simply don't do it in a human language. And why should they? They rebel and revolt in terms that they understand. Consider this one example of a mining mule being forced back in to the mine... "Usually when brought to the surface, the mules tremble at the earth radiant in the sun-shine. Later, they go almost mad with fantastic joy. The frill splendor of the heavens, the grass, the trees, the breezes, breaks upon them suddenly. They caper and career with extravagant mulish glee. A miner told me of a mule that had spent some delirious months upon the surface after years of labor in the mines. Finally the time came when he was to be taken back. But the memory of a black existence was upon him; he knew that gaping mouth that threatened to swallow him. No cudgellings could induce him. The men held conventions and discussed plans to budge that mule. The celebrated quality of obstinacy in him won him liberty to gambol clumsily about on the surface." ["In the Depths of a Coal Mine," by Stephen Crane, McClure's Magazine, Vol. III. AUGUST, 1894. No. 3.] An animal declared his independence to an army of miners. I don't think there is any other way to read this scenario or the thousands of similar stories. }}"Because, at that point, you will continue to cut and paste your arguments from esteemed sources and I will simply reiterate my declaration of victory." Actually, all of these arguments are my own, and all of the resources I quote are my own research. }}"If you look back over our debates, you will see this as a tacit admission that your arguments have failed and that animal rights is simply the justification for ending capitalism and traditional western political liberty." This has absolutely nothing to do with the western conception of political rights. Why not say the same thing about the laws banning cannibalism? "Those damned Leftist treehuggers want to make it illegal to kill and eat humans! They just want to destroy the human flesh market and bring Capitalism tumbling down!" That is simply ridiculous. Why don't you bring the same case to the DEA? "Your laws that ban heroin and cocaine are simply trying to destroy Capitalism by hindering the drug market! Free Trade means that every market can be exploited!" }}"the sort of people that want to deny my unalienable rights (all proclaiming rightness) had their run in Germany, Italy, Russia and China and their names have been discarded on "the trash heap of history." Yes, Leftist social reformers and revolutionaries were the ones who took charge in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China. In Germany, Hitler was no friend of the Left or progressive reforms. "We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people." ["Mein Kampf," by Adolf Hitler, Book 2, Chapter 7.] And perhaps these leftist social revolutionaries had a role in Fascist Italy? Hardly. "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect." ["What is Fascism?" by Benito Mussolini, 1932.] In Russia, it was the social revolutionaries who wanted to abolish misery? Again, not true. Lenin and Stalin were not Democratic in the least sense. Yes, their spoken intentions were Socialist, but their actions were hardly so. Genuine Socialists organized and fought in Kronstadt against the Bolshevik government. Alexander Berkman writes, "The Kronstadt garrison consisted of less than 14,000 man, 10,000 of them being sailors. This garrison had to defend a widespread front, many forts and batteries scattered over the vast area of the Gulf. The repeated attacks of the Bolsheviki, whom the Central Government continuously supplied with fresh troops; the lack of provisions in the besieged city; the long sleepless nights spent on guard in the cold -- all were sapping the vitality of Kronstadt." ["The Kronstadt Rebellion," by Alexander Berkman, Berlin: Der Sindikalist, 1922.] I could draw similar quotes from Nestor Makhno, an Anarchist revolutionary of the Ukraine who fought red soldiers by organizing local villages. And China? It's the same case. The group that alligned itself with social justice did not have sincere intentions. If you think you can associate Animal Rights activists in the same category of Fascism, you are very far off. Defenders of progressive change have always been the enemies of Fascism and Totalitarianism. And your primary argument... }}"You'll note that mankind not animal kind is created equal and we are endowed by our creator with political rights. This is the very reason I have asked you the above questions. That these truths are self evident is the reason I have not wasted time debating minutia of animal behavior." That's silly. Your ideas are right because they're self-evident -- they are evidence of their own truth? That's amazingly convenient. My ideas on Animal Rights are also self-evident. What? You want evidence? They don't need evidence. That's the definition. Self-evident. Brilliant. }}"If, as old men (well I will be), we ever start up the debate a third time I suppose that this round's cognitive dissonance will have worked its way through your noggin. You will most likely find by then that life has made you less radical and more accepting of your fellow man." Wow. Just... wow. A real mature way to engage in a debate is: "Yeah, so, I see you've changed since last time. I guess you finally caved in on your silly ideas, seeing as you finally came around to accepting what I believe. Yeah, it was nothing. You can thank me again in the future when I change you some more." What changes, anyway? Do I still believe in Animal Rights? Yes. Am I still a Vegetarian? Yes. Wow, holy shit, you really changed me around. You'd definitely turn a head or two at the local debate club. You seem to keep arguing the same point: because I benefit from the mass slaughter and exploitation of animals, Animal Rights can have NO MERIT. I've addressed this, though, several times in this piece and in the previous ones. I didn't say that I do engage in activities that hurt animals -- I said that such an argument didn't matter. It's IRRELEVANT. Punkerslut, Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 03:40:15 -0800 (PST) Deer Punkerslut, I believe this will be my last email on this subject. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate you answering most of my questions. I am surprised that you do not support violent revolution although you deferred answering the question of what punishment we animal exploiters deserve. Before we end this I would like to review the evolution of my main argument from email one on that all people benefit from the deaths of animals including animal rights activists such as yourself. Here is where you started on that point: "}}PS the vegetables you eat were grown on land that used to be habitat for animals - millions of animals. The deer I kill provide food for me and my family from habitat that is not ruined. As a matter of fact hunting has 1/35 the environmental impact of other meat products according to a study by the University of Wyoming. You pay other people to till the soil thereby killing off animals by wrecking their environment. By your definition the only human thing to do is commit suicide. The animals a hunter kills has a horrible devastating affect on the ecology. To make the claim you are making is absolutely absurd." Later you said "Furthermore, the harvest of fruits and vegetables is hardly devastating environmentally." That was what you said in your first reply. You went on to say in your next defense of animal rights hypocrisy "And for my most serious argument that you brushed aside - how many animals died to clear the land for your veggies? Hardly any. The Mid-West was all grazing fields with no permanent, natural inhabitants." Hardly any? Now you say "I didn't say that I didn't benefit from the exploitation of animals. I only stated that such an argument was irrelevant." So let me summarize you rebuttals - absurd then hardly devastating then something about having sex with meat in the closet (huh?) and finally "Hypocrite or not, my ideas are valid." Punkerslut, this point is valid and you have come around to understanding that you cause animal death and suffering by your very existence. Is there any human who doesn't cause animal suffering and death? Although I could have used many arguments I made a religious argument because you believe you are morally superior to me. In your first email you said "If another animal, even a human commits an act of rape or murder, does that justify us doing it, simply because he does it? Certainly not. Imitation is no grounds for morality." and now you say "This is a debate, not a match of moral strength versus moral strength." I also chose religion as an argument because its beliefs can not be attacked logically since it is based on dogma. I have shown numerous times that your beliefs are also based on dogma and that therefore the debate is really about what you would do to me and my kind if you had the power to control us. Lastly I will give you this warning - stay away from the path of violence. For even violence against property has the potential to kill people. Your friends at ALF have committed arson. Arson kills people on occasion and the perps are then charged with murder. The other real danger in your belief system is that when the people, or lets say animals, need representation that they can not provide themselves one person ends up running things. The most capable and motivated to lead will be the despot. I leave you with a quote from a recent article about North Korea - "Meghan Clyne of the New York Sun cites a report on North Korea compiled by David Hawk, the author of "Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps." Hawk and his South Korean researchers obtained dozens of eyewitness accounts of persecutions of Christians. Michael Cromartie, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which issued Hawk's report, "called on Mr. Bush to include the specific findings of the North Korean report in his diplomatic discussions with Chinese and South Korean officials ... and to urge leaders of both Asian nations to take a firmer stand against their communist neighbor." He is proud of the report, citing the difficulty in bringing together reliable information from within that ideological mudhole.The report tells, among many other accounts, of a woman in her 20s who was washing clothes in a river. A fellow washerwoman saw a small Bible fall out of her basket and reported her to the authorities. She was executed by firing squad. That martyr got off lightly. Nine years ago in South Pyongan province, a unit of the North Korean army was assigned the job of widening a highway connecting Pyongyang to the nearest seaport. Demolition of a house standing in the way revealed, hidden between two bricks, a Bible and a list of 25 names: a Christian pastor, two assistant pastors, two elders and 20 parishioners. The 25 were all detained and, later that month, brought to the road construction site, where spectators had been arranged in neat rows. The parishioners were grouped off to one side while the pastor, the assistant pastors and the elders were bound hand and foot and made to lie down in front of a steamroller. As if following a script written in early Roman history, they were told they could escape death by denying their faith and pledging to serve Dear Leader Kim Jong II and Great Leader Kim Il Sung. They chose death. Ms. Clyne quotes Mr. Hawk's report: "Some of the parishioners ... cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed beneath the steamroller." None of us should be so certain of our moral superiority, nor claim we have done better than others in our choices. I wish you the best and pray that you will let me live my life without intimidation or terrorization. Your most humble servant, Mongo Date: Friday, November 2, 2005 }}"I also chose religion as an argument because its beliefs can not be attacked logically since it is based on dogma. I have shown numerous times that your beliefs are also based on dogma and that therefore the debate is really about what you would do to me and my kind if you had the power to control us." What the hell is this? "You and your kind"? Wow. You have the right to hunt and kill, because you greatly outnumber those who would outlaw hunting, and yet you use that phrase, as though the first thing an Animal Rights Reform would entail would be the execution of all hunters. This is a debate about what I'd do to you? Yeah, when you said you wanted to debate Animal Rights, to me that translated exactly to: "What I would do to you if I had political power." That's EXACTLY what the debate has been about this whole time. You know, e-mail #1 describing basic torture sequences, and e-mail #2 explaining what is to be done with your property once deceased, and e-mail #3 with lots of suggestions for practical places to bury the remains! If something is dogma, it can still be attacked logically -- or maybe not, since dogmatic people don't listen to reason. }}"Lastly I will give you this warning - stay away from the path of violence. For even violence against property has the potential to kill people." Stay away from the path of violence? Oh, yeah, because up until this point, I thought you were the one who was killing and torturing the innocent to satisfy some desire. What the hell was I thinking? Of course I need to be the one to stay away from violence. Like we agreed, this whole debate has been about me wanting to commit terrorism against you and your ilk. (sarcasm off) You made an assumption about an Animal Rights activist and warned me not to commit violence. Now I'll make an assumption about rednecks and warn you not to fuck your daughter. }}"Your friends at ALF have committed arson. Arson kills people on occasion and the perps are then charged with murder." Arson kills people on occassion? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, wait, wait, I see your reasoning. (1) Arsons are committed. (2) Sometimes people die from arson. (3) ALF commits arson. Therefore, (4) ALF murders people. Why not... (1) Some people are dogmatic. (2) Dogmatic people are sometimes wrong. (3) You're dogmatic. Therefore, (4) You're wrong. That is completely logical. There is the other option, you know, like actually researching ALF. }}"The most capable and motivated to lead will be the despot. I leave you with a quote from a recent article about North Korea..." What the hell is this? "Feel sorry for my people" time? History is somewhat riddled with violence and oppressed groups. Do you honestly think that Christians have suffered more persecution than they have given to the world? The hundreds of thousands of "witches" burned in Europe, church support of racial slavery and Nazism, the Inquisition, the probably millions killed during the crusades... Your quote about an unjust government killing Christians has absolutely nothing to do with this argument and it has absolutely no relation to my ideology. I have always, always, always preached tolerance for all ideas, religious or political or cultural. If a person wants to believe something, let them. It's when someone wants to act on something that society has to react. And how we react, of course, depends on public opinion. What a horribly unsatisfying debate. Your whole intent was to make me out to be some person who wanted to oppress you, the majority, and, I guess, also wanted to kill Christians... or something. Punkerslut, Throw this up on your site and I'll do the same when I update next. (Probably a week.) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 05:41:37 -0800 (PST) You are officially on our links page as well as having the rematch in our rant and rave section. Peace, out - keep thinking. Mongo
|
