Initiating discussion

565:

If we vegans insist on being Society’s judges we need to be prepared to weigh all arguments like a judge. We must even listen to the carnivore’s arguments in order to know precisely what they’re thinking, but mainly we should be listening out of respect for discussion itself.

            By showing how we value the process of discussion we give our own arguments a better chance of a hearing. Their argument might be that killing animals is within the law and so the killers can kill and the consumers can consume. Our argument might be that the law protects humans and doesn’t protect food animals. I’d suggest that these positions can’t change until the whole subject is properly discussed. The subject is crying out to be discussed, and until it is, fully and frankly and in a friendly way, agreement won’t be reached and boycotting won’t catch on. Really, what vegans are driving at is the need for agreement about acting for the greater good and not solely for one’s own comfort.

            Once there’s agreement about that all the rest will follow, or at least the rest of what we have to say will be taken seriously. If that altruistic slant isn’t emphasised by us then it’s doubtful if the rest of our arguments are going to be considered. To bring about even the most basic agreement, vegans must be seen as neutral if only because we can then be seen to be genuine as people who are not struggling to win kudos or plump up our ego. I think all vegans are genuinely wanting to be of service. If we can win respect from non-vegans, that will help when introducing any of our arguments. Omnivores won’t give us the time of day if they see peace-loving people looking like fanatics who just hate ‘meatheads’.

            If they want anything at all from us they want us to be ‘educational’ not ‘judgemental’. Personal identification with us comes before being impressed by what we say. We can’t win approval just because we’re protecting animals, because there’s a lot of suspicion around; we might be protecting ourselves more that the animals, we might be needing to be taken seriously so badly that we project an image of how we want to be seen, rather than how we really are. Probably most of us vegans want to be admired for making a stand. And that stand springs from another deeper need, to see progress in the movement for Animal Rights. Most vegans I know have a vision of the future, where animals are no longer exploited, and that’s a strong driving force for us to bring this about.

            If we want to allay the many suspicions about our motives, if we don’t want to be seen as self righteous, then we might have to back pedal on the high moral ground when we speak. It might seem like a contradiction to suggest that, but isn’t that usually why vegans aren’t given the chance to put their case? We can so easily be seen as sermonisers.

            Vegans are trying to reach those who seem to be so far away that they can barely hear us; maybe they don’t want to anyway. For their part, they can’t face the idea of a vegan food regime let alone face us in discussion about it. Our right-ness, our healthy bodies, our sharp minds and clear conscience can well be our greatest downfall. Omnivores don’t necessarily disagree with our facts and figures but they find our ‘glow’ a bit off-putting. We aren’t approachable when we foist our opinions on people. Whenever we do we’re seen as invasive ... to put it mildly!