The first item we would like to share is from an animal rights person that e-mailed us and took on the mighty Mongo and his large melon full of intellect and common sense. It was funny. I must warn you they both ramble on and on and on. It's really long. Read it!

If you are a hunter, please click on the following links. They pay us every time you do! Ah...the juicy irony!

July 15, 2002 Greetings Mongo and Tard's Outdoor Shack,

It is the notion of our time that non-human animals exist for the advancement of the human species. In whatever field -- cookery, fashion, blood-sports -- it is held that we can only be concerned with animals as far as human interests exist. There may be some sympathy for those animals, as to limit practices which cause excruciating suffering, but those may only be limited if they are brought to public light, and if legislators receive enough pressure from the public to change. However, it is the purpose of this letter to convince you otherwise. The question at hand is: do animals deserve rights? It must certainly be true. Humans deserve rights and this claim is made on numerous appeals. Of one of the pertinent pleas is made on the claim that humans can feel emotions. More importantly, that humans are capable of suffering, and that to inflict such pain is unethical. Those who observe the tortures of the Nazi Concentration Camp are instilled with a humane creed held for all humans. But if there is no significant gulf between humans, that is to say there is no gulf based on skin color, creed, or gender that will make one human more or less valuable than any other, then by what right can a gulf be drawn out between humans and our fellow creatures? The suffering of humans is why we sympathize with each other. Since animals suffer, they deserve our sympathy. There is no real gulf separating the species. We all can feel suffering in the same manner. A racist's reasoning is flawed because he claims that one race is undeserving of sympathy, despite that it may be capable of suffering. Similarly, to claim that an animal deserves no rights or sympathy is faulty on the same reasoning. It creates a gulf between two different classes, claiming that one's suffering should be unaccompanied by sympathy. Simply put: the reason we give rights to human is because they are capable of suffering. Since this is true, we must grant our fellow creatures the same sympathy, as they are capable of the same suffering as humans. There is no gulf that can be conjured from the minds of philosophers that will erase that one fact: animals can suffer like humans. It is for this reason they deserve rights and sympathy. There may be those who oppose the rights of animals based on a sort of reasoning. They may be quick to point to plants and inquire if they deserve rights, too. However, plants are not conscious beings, and they are not capable of suffering. There can be no real sympathy with them. Another may point to how animals eat each other and ask why we should give them rights when they do not give each other rights. Of course, if animals are irrational and lack compassion, are we to be irrational and lack compassion? 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. Some may claim that humans have teeth designed to consume flesh, but this proves nothing. As guns are designed to kill, but that does not justify their usage. Others may claim that god had created animals specifically for our usage. But this was the defense used by slaveowners of their slaves, and it is no less hypocritical or unjust when people today make the same claim of animals. So, we can see, it is quite clear that our fellow creatures are deserving of rights and sympathy, as their suffering does not differ from human suffering. The first course of action is to refuse to take part in any activity that disallows animals their rights. In fact, it will be the course for activists to protest any such injustice. First and foremost is the gross practice of consuming our fellow creatures, when health, economics, and humaneness prefer otherwise. Therefore, Vegetarianism is the first logical step in Animal Rights. If we continue to kill and eat them, then what real recognition of their rights has there been? Another area where their rights are disregarded is in blood-sports, where creatures are hunted and killed for some sake of pleasure -- that terror in the hearts of animals brings warmth to the hearts of men. Vivisection, or experimental torture, is another area. To advance knowledge, they will sacrifice the lives of millions, to die in brutal and heartless tortures. The advancement of humaneness will come with abolition of these cruel and vicious practices. Those of us who work for the progression of the rights of animals and for truly equal rights of conscious beings are bold and ardent in our efforts. For the betterment of our fellow creatures is our cause.

WWW.PUNKERSLUT.COM

For 108, Punkerslut

if we're not supposed to eat animals why are they made out of meat?

Also, if animals have rights, then shouldn't we put lions in jail for murder?

You can't have it both ways pal.

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. When you grow up let us know and we'll take you hunting.

Greetings,

And thank you for your reply. >>if we're not supposed to eat animals why are they made out of meat? Is that why humans are made out of meat -- because it's okay to kill humans and eat them, just because they have flesh like any other animal? Whether or not animals are made out of meat is irrelevant. They can still suffer and feel pain, and therefore we ought to have a sort of sympathy with them, and certainly not kill them.

>>Also, if animals have rights, then shouldn't we put lions in jail for murder? You can't have it both ways pal. I already answered this argument in the letter I had sent to you...

>>Another may point to how animals eat each other and ask why we should give them rights when they do not give each other rights. Of course, if animals are irrational and lack compassion, are we to be irrational and lack compassion? 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.

<< Predators in the wild have to eat other creatures to survive. The human species certainly does not have to eat other animals to survive -- this can clearly be seen by our advanced agriculture.

>>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. To get some idea of the destruction and suffering wrought by trappers, examine these "body counts" for a typical Western state (Colorado) for the 1982-1983 season (a one year span):

• Coyote -- 14,419
• Bobcat -- 2,505
• Beaver -- 7,516
• Raccoon -- 4,800
• Red Fox -- 1,735
• Badger -- 1,832

These grim statistics are repeated in state after state, and must be added to the death toll of federal "predator control" programs that can destory over 100,000 coyotes in a single year. [From "EcoDefense" by Dave Foreman and Bill Haywood.] The population of natural carnivores is being disrupted by trappers and other cowardly hunters. Furthermore, the harvest of fruits and vegetables is hardly devastating environmentally. Eating meat and supporting that industry is, however, because an animal requires an excessive amount of water and grains to live. And no, I don't meat.

>>When you grow up let us know and we'll take you hunting.

I have been camping and in the outdoors before. Never once, though, when looking at a beautiful deer or a magnificent black bear, did I ever get the feeling, "Hhhmmm, I wonder what it would be like to kill that creature?" In fact, I would have been absolutely repulsed by the idea of it.

www.punkerslut.com

For 108, Punkerslut

Well I'm glad you're not just some wacko email bomber but a real person. A wacko, but at least real. So explain again how animals can have rights but no responsibilities.Please go past the "they can feel". Can you prove they are incapable of compassion any better than I can prove they have no souls? They are rational enough to eat what tastes good. If plants could feel what would we eat? Prove to me plants can't feel. And for my most serious argument that you brushed aside - how many animals died to clear the land for your veggies? The question is not absurd to a rational animal. When you get past your cognitive dissidence, I insist you refrain from all cultivated plants or admit your hypocrisy. Lastly - do we have souls? Do they? Did God make us special or are you still mad at him and denying his existence? Your most humble servant, Mongo

PS the hunter feels a range of emotions from peace to excitement to sadness to mourning to appreciation and finally pride. Distinguishing paradox from contradiction is an act of maturity. I hope you receive that gift as I have. Hunters kill to live and love what is taken and I know white tail deer more intimately than you can ever hope to. As a bonus they taste great!

>>Well I'm glad you're not just some wacko email bomber but a real person. A wacko, but at least real. I'm not sure if it's the compliment or its origin that is more complimenting.

>>So explain again how animals can have rights but no responsibilities. Human infants have no responsibilities. Does that mean that you and your redneck crew can have a baby barbecue, roasting live infants over an open fire, just because they have no responsibilities?

>>Can you prove they are incapable of compassion any better than I can prove they have no souls? They don't have any souls, but neither do humans.

>>If plants could feel what would we eat? Prove to me plants can't feel. Plants don't have a brain. Animals do. There are NUMEROUS evidences to suggest that the brain produces consciousness. Scientific American, July, 2001...quote:

----------------

- Koch, 44, directs the computation and neural systems program at Caltech. He arrived here in 1986, a time when consciousness research was still considered career suicide even for established brain researchers. But high-profile attention to the subject by Nobelists Gerald M. Edelman and Francis Crick, coupled with advances in functional brain imaging, has elevated the field--and its investigators--to respectability. Neurobiologists have since given up the notion that Koch may be dangerously offbeat, despite his having tattooed his arm last summer with the Apple Computer logo to demonstrate his love of the Macintosh (a zeal not even matched by Steve Jobs). The neuroscientist leads about 20 researchers and calls their mission to explain consciousness "one of the major unsolved problems of modern science."

----------------

Collier's Encyclopedia, under "Brain,"... quote:

----------------

All thoughts, emotions, sensations, movements, and desires have their origins in brain processes. Without a functioning brain, the human being is reduced to a vegetative state, unable to perform any actions or pessos any feelings, and left without he ability even to alter bodily function in rseponse to change. While this article will consider the human brain, which is more complex and highly developed than that of any other animal, the brains of all mammels, and indeed most vertebrates, are remarkably similar. The central nervous system is composed of the brain and the spinal cord. The nerves that supply the rest of the body are attached to the brain and sinal cord and include the motor nerves, which activate muscels, and the sensory nerves, which bring information into the central nervous system. In addition, the nerves that supply the internal organs are found outside the brain and spinal cord.

----------------

Consider the numerous experiments done by doctors during the French revolution, how they observed that a head decapitated from a body can still react to its environment for a brief period of time yet the body remained lifeless -- that the only major organ in the head was the brain. Further, consider how reactions to the body and changes in mood can be DIRECTLY correlated with the brain, signifying that pain and pleasure are things entirely from the brain. Furthermore, consider how scientists have identified the chemicals that produce happiness, and sadness, such as dopamine, among others. Also, consider how your body works: when you want to move a part of your body, your brain sends an electrical signal to the muscle to contract. Also notice how when something happens to your body, it sends a signal RIGHT TO your brain! If you could produce evidence that the brain is insignificant when it comes to producing consciousness, I would be all ears to hearing it. Furthermore, what we would eat if there were no unconscious, biological beings, is irrelevant.

>>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.

>>Lastly - do we have souls? No.

>>Do they? No.

>>Did God make us special or are you still mad at him and denying his existence? I almost laughed at reading this. How you know so little is absolutely amazing.

www.punkerslut.com

For 108, Punkerslut

Well I'm glad we're getting to your real personality. The feely touchy stuff is fading away quickly and the would be tyrant is bubbling to the surface. You're quite willing now to insult me as absurd, laughable and a redneck. Can't accept that I have a different world view - can you? What ever happened to live and let live. Is it possible you don't love animals so much but rather that you hate your fellow humans? Take for instance this statement. "They don't have any souls, but neither do humans." It is merely dogma - that is the assertion of truth without reason or logic. So you choose to believe in a different dogma than I - great I fully support you in living with any illusions you choose. The difference is that as a tyrant without power you only await the opportunity to gain control over other humans to enforce your will based on the dogma you have chosen. I choose to allow other humans the freedom to believe and act as they wish as long as they don't infringe on other humans rights. As to the points you addressed: infants, children and the retarded have limited responsibilities and rights based on their capacity. And yet we don't eat them because they are human and the vast overwhelming majority have, do and will believe humans have souls and are special. We are and rightly so speciests. Only through an elitist core of true believers can you get what you want. What hatred in you requires you to be disloyal to your fellow man? Prove animals don't show compassion or reason. Ignoring the point doesn't make it go away. Plants don't have brains granted, and it is likely that animals and humans get their feelings from their brains, but you failed to prove plants don't feel. It is possible that plants have another mechanism to feel. You are doing the same thing as the rest of us just to a different degree by excluding plants from your so called compassion. Prove they can't feel! And now for the major point that you can't face. The point that you would ignore and must invent erroneous facts to avoid. The Midwest was a vast forest from Ohio through Indiana to Michigan to southern Illinois that supported BILLIONS of creatures from mammals to reptiles to insects et al. The rest of the Midwest including northern Illinois and much of Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas was prairie that supported an almost equal amount of life. And you've paid to kill it off. Be true to your dogma and stop eating all cultivated veggies!!! You've already admitted that some animals died. Surely cultivated veggies are murder. Now do the research and come up with the true number. The horror!!! Change your ways or admit yourself the hypocrite. Now that I've worked you to the point of knowing but not admitting that you have participated in the destruction of your so called beloved animals by proxy, I expect your next email to include profanity and insults or not to come at all. The truth is you hate people and wish to control them, not that you love animals - isn't it? I'd suggest you go back to bitching about mom and dad with your friends while you drink coffee and smoke cigarettes and suppose you are a great intellect.

Your most humble servant,

Mongo

PS when you get older let us know and we'll take you hunting. So that you may gain gnosis in addition to the admittedly harsh dose of logic so far administered...........................

We sadly never heard from Punkerslut again. Must have run out of insults. The mighty Mongo prevails once again....On a side note I have learned not to try and have a debate with Mongo after many unsuccessful attempts. I tend to keep the conversation light and trivial..... "Nice weather we're having?"....."Where did you get that camo from?".........."Cool hat Mongo it actually fits"........

November 6, 2003 via e-mail

Dear Mongo and Tard,

Rest assured that I share the same soul for hunting and the outdoors as you both do. I also realize that most hunters don't have the resources or connections to have the best of everything used on an average hunt. My point is, you borrowed the slogan from the Mossy Oak commercial to make a point on your website, so the least you could do is provide more humorous editorials about that Punkerslut idiot. Maybe if you enticed him to write back, he would. (I realize it could be a "she," but she'll be so much more irritated if I call her a "he.") I enjoyed your commentary on that tremendously and have often revisited your site just to see if he ever wrote back. I laugh every time I read it. But, I digress. We at Mossy Oak are a family of hunters who love the outdoors, and love the critters that live there even more. Our mission is to make sure that the lifestyle we all enjoy is not taken away, and that the future hunters of this great land can enjoy the blessings that we have been so fortunate to share. Of course, we would rather you wear and support Mossy Oak as opposed to that other company you mention on your site, but that is secondary to the nature of the sport we share. The time spent with friends and family while hunting, is true QUALITY TIME. To us, there's nothing better. I was just bored at work and thought I'd send ya'll a note. Best of luck in the field, and God bless.

Jason Gordon Assistant Brand Manager

Mossy Oak

200 E. Main St.

West Point, MS 39773

February 8, 2004

Mongo here - despite several attempts to reach Punkerslut, we were completely unable to get any response. We even offered backstrap! Apparently, my vocalizing my impression of him (you know, when you grow up, you hate the world, go back to the coffee house and bitch about Mom turned out to be painfully on the mark- see link to picture above) created an unbreachable divide. Wherever you are Punkerslut all the hunters at www.mongoandtard.com miss you!

December 3, 2005

Punkerslut has been relocated. He even has his own website!

And so...Without further ado...Mongo and Tard present...

Punkerslut Part II !!!!

November 6, 2005

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?

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 me: criticism of what you wrote

me: defense of vegetarian diet

you: criticism of what I wrote

you: final word

me: final word

In the end, we'll both publish the debate. How does that sound?

Thanks,

Peace, For Life,

Punkerslut

P.S. The drug use? It's awesome.

November 13, 2005

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.

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.

For Life,

Punkerslut

November 15, 2005

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

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.

For Life,

Punkerslut

November 25, 2005

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 means would 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

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.

For Life,

Punkerslut

November 27, 2005

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 means would 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

Novemebr 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.

For Life,

Punkerslut

December 2, 2005

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

December 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.

For Life,

Punkerslut

Throw this up on your site and I'll do the same when I update next. (Probably a week.)

December 3, 2005

Ahhhh.....

As I sit here digesting the venison chops drizzled with whiskey sauce that my lovely wife made for dinner, I think "What great sport Punkerslut has been for this not-so-great sportman".

I think its time to light a cigar.

Mongo