Editor, the Gauntlet,
Re: "Horse-loving hypocrites," July 22, 2004
Based only on Dyck's brief ob- servations and poorly considered ideas, the article was both presumptuous and ignorant. Dyck gives no concrete evidence that animal rights activists are hypocrites; he merely extrapolates and assumes that activists eat meat and wear animal products while simultaneously claiming to defend animal rights. Did Dyck actually see such occurrences? And beyond his lack of evidence, is it fair to criticize people who are attempting to change the world one step at a time? Instead, these people should be commended for recognizing harmful activities and having the courage to act upon their beliefs, regardless of whether they are able to embrace an entirely cruelty-free lifestyle.
I would also like to take this opportunity to question Dyck's closing argument: "It will be a good laugh when they [animal rights activists] get their butts whipped by people who work for a living." How does standing up for animal rights equate to not working? Does this principle extend to other organizations that stand up for rights, such as Amnesty International? Clearly, having and vocalizing a viewpoint different from Dyck's cannot be equated with a person's personal work ethic or employment situation.
Finally, I would like to suggest more careful proofreading for the future. In Dyck's second paragraph, the use of the word "apathy" contradicts his argument. In describing the indifferent Stampede goers, Dyck refers to their "complete lack of apathy", a phrase that suggests the people were in fact interested in the protesters' message.