Douche bags aside, I like the look of the new blog, it’s pretty f’n sexy. Keep up the good work, maybe I’ll stand in front of you again someday.

“Dear Michael,

This email, as opposed to the last, is being sent on behalf of myself and has not yet been cleared with other VARI members. I suspect that if you’d like to engage the ideas (ideas distinct from those sent to you in my previous email) of the group as a whole then you ought to attend one of our meetings (Tuesdays at 7, Stauffer Library, 020B), post some questions on our blog (http://varikingston.wordpress.com/questions) or accept my open invitation for a public debate.

Now onto the good stuff.

You have demonstrated that you are not interested in rational argumentation, and that you would rather engage in a lengthy inane debate to illicit conflict; a debate which I have neither the patience nor the time to partake in. If you had done ANY research WHATSOEVER into the abolitionist animal rights position, you would be able to answer many or your own concerns. As it is, you illicit an arrogance and ignorance that is befitting only the most prejudice and presumptuous of people. If you inform yourself about our position and still have questions, I will gladly oblige you (provided you do not threaten or slander VARI again). But, if you refuse to do anything but write me silly, obtuse emails devoid of both fact and argument, then I will have to kindly decline to respond.

In your first email you threatened our group, which is by itself grounds for the treatment you received. If you would have sent a pleasant email asking us why we use the term “abolition”, I would have responded to you in kind. However, you didn’t. So, what I am trying to get at is that you got what you deserved. In the second email, you went on a vitriolic rant denouncing the positions that VARI stands for (and ones that you have fabricated and pretend that we stand for), while continuing to speak disrespectfully to us, might I add (which is why you continue receive the treatment you are receiving), and thus made clear what your true intentions are: you are not concerned about the use of the word “abolition” per se, rather you see it as a way to attack a group of individuals who think differently than yourself and put your beliefs (that it is OK to torture and kill animals because they taste good) into question. Your sectarian views about what actions VARI should and should not put their efforts in to betray this as well. If you think that VARI should support cause X, then presumably you think everyone should, so I am not sure why you don’t harass everyone that doesn’t agree with you, but then again, I could not get into a head space as thoroughly confused as yours. Or, maybe it is because you simply detest animal rights advocates, a point which you have made abundantly clear.

Regardless, at the moment, you are not worth my time. I have explained my position on the matters you know something about (i.e. using the word “abolition”), while those which you clearly have no knowledge of ( i.e. what it is for a being to be sentient; what it means for a being to be a moral being; why concerning oneself with animals does not preclude one from concerning oneself with humans) do not even begin to illicit my respect. If you decide to apologize for your original treatment of myself and VARI along with a renunciation of your absurd threats and bring with it a clearer understanding of our position, then we may be able to communicate effectively. If not, Godspeed.

Peter

PS Here are some relevant articles to start you on the road to, at the very least, entertaining the idea that animals have a moral status.
Korsgaard, Christine. Facing the Animal You See in the Mirror
(Book) Francione, Gary. Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?
(Article) Francione, Gary. A Brief Intro To AR: Your Child or the Dog?”