Quarrelsome talk

641:

If five years olds accept meat-eating you can’t blame them, if a fifteen year old still accepts it you might be more worried, and if a 25 year old is still ‘doing’ it, well, even then perhaps there’s still a chance they’ll change but by then it might be too late. They might have recently left their parents’ dinner table and started shopping for their own food, experimenting on all sorts of levels, ethical eating being but one of them.

Older carnivores are probably beyond the pail. Things have gone too far, with too many worldly pressures and commitments bearing down on them. And later still, radical food changes are even less likely.

            To older people vegans are probably just weird. This makes it doubly hard for us to persuade them. They may see veganism as nonsense and prefer watching drunks throwing up on footpaths than having to listen to vegans. If they did have to listen, they might be disturbed enough to go rushing to the fridge for a pick-me-up (the fridge acting as our own kitchen drug store, full of remedies for soothing and satisfaction). Older people usually have settled views on this whole animal ‘thing’ and won’t willingly enter into any conversation about it. They’ll steer away from all animal talk (or divert it to ‘pet-talk’) in order to avoid the trap of talking about animal husbandry or veganism, with a vegan.

On a personal level I’ve never felt any open hostility, but others have. We might not be liked or even being talked with, not about killing animals for food anyway. To them this is a taboo subject. 

As vegans, if we attempt to barge through this barrier we can alter the whole basis of our relationship with someone. Mentioning our obvious differences (of ethical perspective) is like making a physical attack. An omnivore might talk about anything, reveal the most personal secrets about themselves, but they’ll usually refuse to go anywhere near ‘personal eating habits’ when it refers to any diet based on ethics. The mention of compassion involves powerful emotions - mention it too much and it intimidates people. I’d say it’s less destructive the less it’s mentioned.

What? Keep silent? No, but understatement can be more powerful than too many words. In one way, silence can be valid, since we’re dealing here with 'truth-force' (satyagrahya) and it has to be handled with care and respect. It means that we, as vegans, should practise compassion on all levels, on people too. It’s too easy to offend people and for them to be ‘once bitten twice shy’.

Every day the world eats meat and there are billions more deaths, billions more animals being purpose-bred to suffer. There’s been an  accumulation of insult and damage inflicted on animals. Cruelty is now routine, and carried out almost unconsciously. It isn’t perceived by the mass of the population because it is all hidden away – the worst happens in the hell holes they call ‘farms’, or today referred to as ‘operations’; as farming intensification increases they are known as ‘intensive operations’ and less referred to as ‘farms’. 

What is so insidious is that these factory farms guarantee to feed vast numbers of people at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. The law allows the governments to protect the owners of these places, to ensure the population is fed.

For us, as advocates for animals, there’s no point in blaming the farmer or the government or the overseas competitor. The only constructive thing to do is promote a boycott and encourage ‘cruelty-free’ products to come onto the market. But to generate that momentum we need to promote that idea of actively boycotting. And for that we must talk, and talking might just be the problem here. This is where we most often shoot ourselves in the foot. So, sometimes it’s best we hold back, or rather, work quietly.

It’s a complex mixture of approaches (a little teasing here, ignoring the whole matter there, sometimes stirring, sometimes ending a conversation as it gets too close to the edge – it’s a matter of pushing forwards and pulling back, of taking the initiative in each situation.

We’ll only be taken seriously when we can show as much sensitivity to the human as we would expect from them towards the animals. If one instinctively thought it inappropriate to discuss this subject, then changing the subject might be best; it might lose ‘an opportunity’, but we can respond appropriately to a non-opportunity. Sometimes I terminate a discussion because I don't want to encourage talking about this in a half hearted or light-hearted or frivolous way.

Each approach has its right timing and a variety of approaches keeps ‘them’ guessing, and hopefully keeps what we’re saying interesting and not too predictable.

I always feel that I can say anything I want to say, as long as I’m being compassionate with the person I’m talking to. My own compassionate nature should stop me wanting to hurt another person. What I really want is the others’ trust. Get that and I can talk more freely. Obviously, trust has to be earned, and if I screw up on that, if I fail to get permission-to-talk, it simply looks like I’m squaring up for a quarrel. And they will not only shut me out but when you come along they’ll shut you out too.