Hate Mail :P

Wow. I just got my first ever random-angry-guy-hates-my-blog-post comment. It's kind of exciting. It's regarding the post I did on Why We Don't Eat Animals. (The Book).

I also love it when people get so angry about random internet posts and videos, and they lash out irrationally. Usually they make grammar mistakes, etc, when they do. This guy was no exception.

Call me a weirdo, but I really do take pleasure and entertainment from angry interneters. I just find it amusing that people can get so worked up over such silly things.

Anyway, in case you're curious, but too lazy to click and read the post, here's the comment and my ensuing response. (I don't claim to be a great writer or debater, but I feel like I did a rather satisfactory job at countering his fury with reason.)

First of all, his name is Jed. I just kept seeing Jed Clampett in my head. Except that Jed doesn't have a problem with eating animals for food.


Jed said...


You are an idiot.


Reading your extremely ignorant post I don't think I'm wrong when I say you believe this sort of treatment is the exception not the rule, yes? And does this make it OK?!


The book simply gives children an opportunity to form their own opinion before they have been conditioned into believing that the way in which meat and dairy is attained is appropriate and humane. 


You're misguided socially constructed idea on this issue is both contemptible and juvenile. Please do yourself and the rest of the world a favor and watch the film earthlings before you further embarrass yourself with your naive and trivial view on this issue.


www.earthlings.com


My Reply: (A little long, yeah. But thorough and calm.)


Dear Jed, 


First of all, "you're" is a contraction consisting of the words "you" and "are". It is not a possessive, and therefore does not mean what you think it means. 


Also, you really could use a few commas in there. My eyes started to hurt.


BUT


Giving you the benefit of a doubt, and assuming that you are not an illiterate boob, I'll address your comments one by one in a logical and reasonable fashion.


A) Not having the same beliefs as you does not make me an idiot any more than it makes me a tube of toothpaste. When two people believe different things, what makes them truly wise is the ability to sit together and calmly discuss the issue while still respecting each other's differences. 


B) You're not wrong. I do believe this is the exception. I grew up in an extremely rural area, near my fair share of real live farms. My information isn't based on biased documentaries, but on the evidence of my own eyes.


You'll note, however, that I never once said that made it okay. I know some places really are like this. And I know it's a terrible thing. I have trouble squishing spiders, even when they are in my bed. I am the farthest you can get from a proponent of animal cruelty.


But this isn't a post about ignoring inhumane practices, as you seem to suppose. It is a post about a specific book. Consider this a book review instead of a diatribe, if it makes you feel better.


C) And regarding that specific book... have you read it? It doesn't sound like it. And if not, you are unqualified to make any debate on the topic. 


But again, assuming you have read it, and that you come here prepared as a reasonable and rational human being, let me remind you what my post already laid out as the basis of my argument. 


I do not have a problem with vegetarians or vegans. 


I do not condone animal cruelty. 


I do not even have a problem with books that try to actively promote a concept I disagree with. 


What I DO have a problem with is twisting information. With contradicting oneself. And with literature that's straight up preachy. (Everyone hates being preached to). 


My current job (and hopefully future career) is very closely tied with children's literature. I am profoundly interested in getting quality reading material to our youth. So it bothers me when a non-fiction book contains unfounded facts or a skewed view of one side of the story. This book is guilty of both. 


(You can argue with me all day, but it's still true that elephants and gorillas don't live in the Amazon Rainforest.)


I am a firm believer that facts should not be ignored simply because we don't like them. 


D) I believe in the freedom of choice. The best way to encourage a child to become a vegetarian (or any other kind of activist) is not to preach to them. It is not to scare them into something. It is not to hide certain facts from them. 


Children aren't as dumb as we adults often take them to be. We don't have to pander to them in order to help them make the right choices in life. 


The best way to educate a child into becoming a responsible adult is to give all of the facts (I really emphasize  the word ALL), allow said child to consider them, and then allow them to make an intelligent choice. Kids have a better head for right and wrong than we do, and if they are shown ALL of the information, they'll nearly always make the right choice.  


E) That being said, my opinion is neither trivial nor juvenile.


I don't consider the quality of children's literature to be at all a trivial matter.


I have a passionate and logical stream of reasoning behind my argument, making it clearly un-childish. You don't have to agree with my take on things. And I don't have to agree with yours. But we can disagree and still be mature adults without resorting to name calling and steam blowing. 


In the future, I'd advise you to check your anger, insults, and rash commentary before you embarrass yourself by calling someone else juvenile.