Normally I would find it redundant to keep responding to letters, but in this case, instead of debating my case with the authors of hate letters on a one-to-one basis, I need to respond to protect the integrity of my point.

To refresh, I wrote a letter in response to the context of Tracy Woods who drew debased caricatures of people who eat meat, and instead of convincing people of her point, she attacked those who may oppose. Although I eat meat, my letter had nothing to do with promoting meat eaters or knocking vegetarians, instead it had to do with the approach Ms. Woods utilized.

Unfortunately, a rebuttal to my letter from Christopher Herbaugh and Annie Foresburg misconstrued the point I was conveying. First they generalized that my studies in business would make me view issues only in a financial realm. Would it be a fair parallel to state that Mr. Herbaugh’s philosophy major doesn’t entitle him to have judgements about biological issues? Of course not.

I drew a parallel in my original letter to be as ludicrously extreme as Tracy Wood’s, paraphrased—remembering who a hamburger came from as blood drips down your mouth—to make my point. I didn’t care if the issue was vegetarianism or dry wall application but simply to avoid attacking to convey a point and to use fair parallels.

Todd Obmascik

Graduate Student

Business