Straight talking

77:

I often rely too heavily on speaking with great emotion. I forget how that must sound. This subject ignites passion and for me it stirs up confrontation. So, it’s a ‘yes’ for straight talking, as long as we leave space for opposite opinions to be aired. And I must learn to listen without butting in prematurely.

            We’re most of us amateur communicators - we aren’t trained to see ourselves as others see us, and to adjust accordingly. Yes, our stand might be admired, and people might show they genuinely admire the stand we make. But if they are listening to us at all they want useful information from us. They don’t want a lecture.

            Information: if we outline our arguments, half of what we say will be handy tips on vegan diet, the other half is about what is happening to animals and how animal products harm health, and those details we have to get right. For example, if we say that all animal products are unhealthy and cruel we need references to back this up. The association between these products and deadly illnesses (“Meat causes cancer”) must stand up to challenge. If we haven’t any well researched references at hand it’s probably best not to make sweeping statements. The same goes with the cruelty of animal farming. We need to be able to provide details of, for example, the details and prevalence of sow stalls, battery cages, mutilations, etc. And if we are going to talk about milk and dairy cows then we need to be familiar with the biology behind milk production. Similarly with details of what happens at abattoirs.

            Animal Rights is always provocative - we’re telling people why we are outraged, implying that they should be too. We’re commenting on the values of ordinary consumers who don’t like listening to straight-talk about compliance with animal torture.