‘Seriously?’

466:

The vegan advocate ultimately sets out to impress and inspire … without the use of emotional blackmail or any kind of too-clever persuasion.
The subtle process of influencing others (to get them to think more the way I think) involves acceptance on all fronts – at some stage I need to show an acceptance of opposing views that disagree with my own. This is ‘acceptance’ rather than approval, and within that specification is my implicit promise not to get aggro over anything. Anyone representing an ‘opposition’ view needs to be assured of equality of status, between us both. Until that is clear, there can’t be any launching into deep waters. If my assurance isn’t there, and if I don’t reinforce it frequently, my ‘opposition’ friend will always be reluctant to enter into meaningful dialogue with me.
Look at it this way - my well-thought-out position is likely to contrast with the less-well-thought-out position of my ‘adversary’. And for that reason alone I shouldn’t get heavy about a subject which is, for them, relatively little known about.
All I’d ask of the omnivore is that they agree that ‘Animal Rights’ is a subject worthy of being taken seriously. If they don’t think it is, THEN I believe I have the right to ask why ... in order to avoid wasting my time discussing this subject if it’s only going to be seen as a frivolous matter. Only then, on both sides, can something profound come out of our discussions.