Old opinions revisited

. We try to make our arguments non-judgemental and present them non-violently, with those who are yet-to-be-convinced. But people aren’t accustomed to moral matters being delivered in a mild mannered way; important issues aren’t usually put forward that include both sides of the argument. In today’s world we don’t believe we can get ideas across unless we speak polemically. Propaganda, spin, indoctrination, they’re all unattractive but on an emotional level thought to be quite effective. When we’re selling an ethical idea, we don’t usually adopt a reasoned approach. Instead we find fault, then exaggerate it and go in aggressively in order to force people to think about what they are doing. But in matters of personal morality, especially concerning our use of animals, people hate being told what to do so they dig their heels in. And once that happens we’ve already failed.
To prevent this happening we might need to bend over backwards (to show that we realise how difficult these issues are for people) by presenting the pros and cons of ‘the argument’, aiming to have our arguments critically assessed. With animal rights we aren’t looking for plain agreement, we’re wanting to get people to think about issues and arrive at their own conclusions. Often, in the flush of agreement with an idea, we act and then, later on, forget the reasons we had for agreeing. It’s like coming out of a movie feeling pumped by the whole emotional impact of what we’ve seen, and then later on, as the details fade, we can’t remember quite why we were so carried away. With new opinions, if we don’t examine and digest them thoroughly enough, the power of them fades too quickly and we revert back to our earlier opinions.
If animal liberationists can inspire change we need that change to be permanent, and that means arguments have to be introduced carefully, that is non-violently and non-accusingly, so that they come across clearly and stick in the memory. We should promote liberation for what it is, not just welfare reform or incremental stages of granting rights or fiddling with our omnivorous diets but as a clear cut abolitionist attitude from which all other arguments flow. It’s much the same as the great opinion change that took place, that ended human slavery. It was always about outright abolition, so there would be no sliding back into old habits.