Evangelism re-visited

There’s such a thing as a loaded question, and then there’s the intrusive ‘direct enquiry’, “How do you feel about it?”, or maybe there’s no need for questions at all, since it’s all obvious! But right now, “views” are not the issue, because we’re really trying to test the waters, find out how far we can constructively go, without dipping down into damage-mode.

Sometimes I’ll find myself asking questions, at other times I’ll be manipulating the conversation towards something that interests me (not you, me!) whilst careful not to let you see that that’s what I’m doing. I don’t want it to be obvious that I’m leading you into a minefield. If, at any point it tips, when things turn from casual to stiff and suspicious, then we are exposed. When it comes to the transmission-of-feelings, each of us ‘reads’ them quite adequately enough and, accordingly, evaluates the other person. Our omnivorous friends are not stupid, they recognise how the evangelist operates.

So, am I a proper listener, and not just someone pretending to be interested, waiting for my turn to come in and perhaps attack? All of us, whether vegan or not, should be a ‘consider-er’ of their own and others’ beliefs. By our ‘consideration’, we show that our primary interest is in conversational dialogue (not in conversion). Both sides have equal rights of expression. With the prospect of such a mutually-benefitting and non-violent exchange, why would anyone doubt the need for equal-ness? It’s central to all interactions, and it’s what vegans must be able to settle in to, even when we’re with the most outrageous carnivore, or the most outrageous anybody? We’re equals. But there is a difference. Unlike our omnivore friends, in terms of the Really Good Stuff, we have one great advantage. Apart from enjoying better health we also enjoy a feeling of knowing who we are - identifying and living by a non-violent philosophy. And, what’s more, we undoubtedly derive much of our confidence from knowing that our dynamite arguments are watertight.