Softies

792: 

If I, as a vegan, wear my heart on my sleeve, if I’m thought to be soft-hearted, then how does that go down with non-vegans?

            Perhaps it’s like wearing a misfit-badge. In our society, life’s difficult for softies; the softy is constantly being put down. Softies attempt to win admiration for being gentle, etc, but in doing so we only slide deeper into the trap. All the time we spend trying to achieve difficult things seems to be wasted when nobody else notices. I imagine that music bands are always looking for that, and are rarely satisfied playing just for the sake of making the music they love. Similarly, vegans who aren’t recognised for what they are doing are rarely indifferent to being ignored by others. If no one is listening to us or talking with us about something we feel strongly about and which we proudly practise, then maybe we start to boast about it (“shame on you - look what I am doing”). These are the tactics of the desperate. Pushy vegans and boastful vegans always fail to make an impression.

            It’s probably indistinguishable to the outsider, boasting and being pushy. It’s such a big turn-off. (In Australia, rule-number-one is to never ‘big-note’ yourself). It shows a lack of self-assurance when we’re boasting, as if we do it to get noticed, and then to be approved of. In this way, when we try to force approval, we get the very opposite. We seek recognition and wind up ‘milking’ a compliment. Our need for others to recognise us, praise us or even emulate our example, whether by way of blackmail or persuasion, is too obvious.

            There’s a central principle at stake here. However much we want to touch a person’s heart or mind, if we have no permission it won’t work. In fact, no amount of self-justification is a ticket to enter. The biggest danger is that when we’re rebuffed we might resort to insults.

            If, in the public perception, we are ever to amount to anything beyond being food freaks, it will have to be for our contribution to peace-making, and that comes with our having the courage of our convictions. No one’s going to say “You’re doing a great job”, especially if they’re not vegan themselves. If we have a problem with our morale needing a boost it’s probably going to have to come from within.

            Look at it this way, we’re lucky to have stumbled on this philosophy-of-the-future, we’re lucky to be outraged by social injustice, and we’re exceptionally fortunate to be sensitive and empathetic towards enslaved animals. That must be enough for us, because we can never expect to get admiration for who we are from non-vegans.

Vulnerable

791:

We have a world dominated by hard-nosed attitudes. Vulnerable people, who fear change, take on the hard-nose way of looking at things, emulating the tough-guys who run the show; one of the ways people can demonstrate their toughness is by upholding the status quo. We are encouraged to accept the violence in much of the food we eat and the clothing we buy. Vegans may be vulnerable too but at least we’ve made a break with the tough-guy fashion-setters. Our vulnerability comes from being too much ‘out-there-on-our-own’.

            I think we must show that the ‘tough’ attitude is a cover for cowardice. No one is truly vulnerable or should feel alone, and by showing this without using value judgement, it gives hope. There’s more courage and more company out there than many of us realise, and we discover this when we start talking with others about the important topics of the day. When we’re engaging with one another we connect. And when it comes to this particular subject, whichever side one might be on, the place of animals in human society is something which fair-minded people can discuss. The incentive for these discussions would be our common wish to show up the futility of tough-think, and to see how un-vulnerable we all really are. And yet vulnerable is how many of us still feel. And there is a positive side to it too. The more vulnerable we vegans might seem to be (out-there-on-our-own), the more likely we’ll be able to empathise with other ‘vulnerable people’. The key interface here is the amount of empathy we can feel - introspective thoughts concerning our own selves alongside thoughts about others. In a world of hard-nosed attitudes we each feel separated from one another, each trying to out-hard-nose the other. In an egalitarian, co-operation-based world, even if the vulnerable look a bit weak at first, later, when we validate vulnerability, we become more interconnected. Empathy-awareness belongs to the coming future. In the future we’ll surely be displacing the hardened, carnivore-minded people with those of a gentler disposition.

Although the hard-noses are on the way out, today we’re still identifying with them. We feel trapped by our own hard-nosed-ness: and we might have to stay that way for a while yet, especially if we’re attached to the status quo. One of the worst aspects of this is our justifying of the use of animals and eating them (it’s tough to kill and then eat our ‘kill’). By having a contempt for certain animals, we can continue to draw a certain comfort from eating them.

But, as soon as affection and intimacy become more fashionable amongst humans, so the hard-nose will fade into obscurity, and then the real dialogue can start.

Affection and vulnerability

790: 

I suppose most of us like to be liked. If you are promoting a particular argument you’ll want that argument to be liked too. However, if we have a nasty side, once the ‘game is up’, once it’s spotted, there’s both a drop-off in affection for us and confidence in us. We ‘peace-loving vegans’ can get angry and ugly, given the right circumstances, and that’s how we can lose people.

            Meat eaters and other animal users may also have a nasty side. With them it might be a ‘hard-nose’ attitude. But whether it’s my attitude or yours, our unattractive approach helps feed fear, fear-of-change. As a vegan, my main concern is the fear that causes a hardening of the heart, which turns people away from ideas that are associated with soft-heartedness.

            Although most of us have a nasty side, a contemptuousness which we use to shock people with, we must learn to deal with it, to keep it under control. And just by doing that I begin to ‘work’ on myself as well as ‘work on The Animal Campaign’.

The combination of my wanting to contribute to the greater good, while at the same time unafraid of my shortcomings, works well - it lets people NOT take offence, from what we’re saying.

Impossible odds

789: 

If we find it hard to make an impression on reluctant meat-eaters, then how can we impress? For starters, everything we believe in must be reflected in our own daily lifestyle, otherwise we’ll be seen as false. No one likes a hypocrite. And no one respects a person with a nasty side, who is aggressive or attacking. What counts most in our favour is that we show that we’ve researched our subject and are confident in our views. If anyone shows interest, they won’t listen unless we seem to have looked deeply at the issues and that we are likeable to them, as people.

The personal example illustrates the point – we represent ourselves as ordinary, acceptable people, who one might possibly want to know. We also represent a cause, which is why we need to be doubly aware of how we present; each of us represents others who live by the same principles, so we’re responsible (to others connected to the cause) for how we come across. If I show a nasty side to my nature that will be remembered and taint the character of other vegans, simply because they are “probably like him”.

For instance, my being homosexual lets me support the aspirations of fellow gays; I want to come across as an acceptable advocate for gay rights … but that doesn’t mean I have to approve of all gay people just because they share the same sexual preference. Some gays are completely acceptable, others are just ‘nasty queens’. And likewise, my being vegan lets me support vegan principle, but I don’t have to like the righteous or aggressive vegans just because they eat the same sort of food as me. It’s because of them that I try to counter the image of that sort of vegan, so that the overall message isn’t muddied.

It’s likely no one emulates another person’s behaviour if they aren’t likeable. For a cause such as ours, it isn’t hard for me to let myself (and others) down. Some of us, who are still dealing with our ‘aggro agendas’, serve the Rights Movement poorly. Perhaps, we use it for our own ends, whatever they may be.

The big problem with those of us who have a ‘hard side’, is that we forget to keep it under control. Discussing Animal Rights is tricky because there are so many issues to learn about and talk about. And if I find myself on dodgy ground I’ve noticed that I sometimes don’t back away when I know I should, just because I don’t know how to answer the point being made; I’ve noticed myself (and others) forcing an argument just to save face, by falling back on making a moral judgement of anyone who doesn’t agree with me.

When I do that, it means I’ve no real interest in being open or helping to increase understanding or being friendly. When I do that, it shows. When people walk away, and I get upset, I should know this happened simply because I showed my ‘nasty’ side. 

The abolitionist

788: 

We have a tricky subject here in Animal Rights because the subject can be seen from many different angles. The majority believe that we should eat them and enjoy eating them, use them, keep them as pets, wear their fur and hair and skin, etc. The minority think otherwise. Vegans, like me, think we should make no use of animals at all.

            Imagine the trouble some of us get into when we propose that eating meat and eating any by-product or wearing animal-fabric is not the only thing to stop doing; we should neither give in to the temptation to imprison companion animals in our homes nor condone the killing of other animals with which to feed them. No zoos, no animal circuses, no experimenting on animals, etc. It’s all just a logical extension to the much milder views that many vegetarians espouse - use some animals but with less cruelty.

            Those of us who might call ourselves ‘abolitionists’ feel that humans can never be trusted around animals, because humans have such a poor track record. We have always, and therefore probably will always, deny the sovereignty of animals. Those of us who believe this are not generally understood, let alone agreed with, but since we are so few in number no one feels the need to listen to us. We are thought to be hostile to the whole idea of animal-human relationship. And it follows therefore that we see that no good has come of it and that we are ungrateful types who don’t appreciate the great strides humans have made. It’s as if, so the logic goes, that we do not respect the legacy of human achievements from which we ourselves have benefitted.

            Our being so extremely far away, from the common perception of human-animal relations, we stand little chance of being heard or listened to. So, would it make more sense to soften our views? If we were less extreme we might be putting forward less indigestible views, as the ‘welfarist-vegetarians’ do, who don’t disapprove of some use of some animals. The welfare organisations usually can attract large numbers of subscribers, but the downside is that they water down the whole Animal Rights message. Their milder stand seems to let the vast majority of animal-abusers off the hook.

            So, what hope is there for the ‘abolitionist’?  Despite our watery colleagues, we still need to get the essential dis-enslavement message through.

            We, finding ourselves on the back foot, can only get people to listen to us by extraordinary feats of maturity; we must be impressing them, by being first and foremost okay-people. The onus is on us to show we are fair minded, that we are capable of learning and listening as well as sounding off. It’s to our credit if we are ready to admit being wrong if we are shown to be. And, most importantly, that we are self-controlled enough to handle whatever is thrown at us - to field insults without becoming aggressive in reply, since peace-lovers just don’t do that.

            In general, we don’t often find anyone able to intelligently debate issues from ‘the other side’ of the argument. It’s likely we can only expect crude responses to what we say.

Strong arguments

787: 

Vegans have some pretty watertight arguments, but they aren’t being recognised; hence vegans resort to moralising to make their arguments have an added touch of being frightening, by showing disapproval of those who disagree with us.

            We face a big head-in-the-sand problem, in that discussion isn’t taking place on this subject. But discussion can’t take place until those who want the discussion (mostly people on my side of the argument) stop engaging with people on a predominantly emotional level, in order to achieve recognition or even to be taken seriously. People will only start to listen or engage when they know we aren’t on the attack but that we’re mainly interested in trying to encourage an exchange of opinions. We don’t have to win the argument to make progress, we only have to want to learn from others as much as we want others to learn from us. It will never matter that we have good arguments if we can’t get anyone to hear what they are.

            

Land

786: 

In this whole debate about the ethical uses of animals we face some arguments which aren’t easy to answer convincingly. Here’s one concerning the use of land, where answers aren’t forthcoming for lack of full and fair discussion.

             Question: How, precisely, is the World going to feed a predicted nine billion humans in 2050, unless plant-based foods are promoted and unless animal-based foods are dropped? It would seem absurd to breed billions of animals and feed them valuable food, only to eat those animals when the food we feed them could feed us. The land used to grow fodder crops could be used for growing plant-based foods.

            There’s one snag in this argument and I think it’s not being addressed by either side - some land is not suitable for agriculture, which is land that has been traditionally used to graze animals. At first glance, making use of marginal or semi-arid grasslands would seem like an efficient use of otherwise un-usable land. It makes sense perhaps. There again, we know these days that the competitive market requires animals (mainly cattle) to be fattened in feedlots, to bring them to weight, to make them economically viable. For that they must be fed grain. And that grain could be better used to feed humans.

            Now this is perhaps a simplistic argument to what involves a complex economic problem. But the problem itself, in relation to whether we should or should not use animals for food, is not being. Why? Perhaps the answer isn’t as clear cut as most of us would like?

            Certainly, in poorer countries where subsistence crops were grown on available land, that same land is now being used for fodder crops for export to wealthy countries, who use it to feed their animals. The people of these poor countries are being left to starve. Once again, we the consumer, if we were not eating the animals in the first place, would not be supporting the production of fodder crops on valuable land (which could otherwise grow plant-foods for humans).

            It’s not so much that we face problems of how to feed people but that we are not willing to frame policy or look at problems from the point of view of those who are presently suffering needlessly, and in the end that includes all of us. The debate, if ever there is any, doesn’t centre on the far future nor on ways to feed people more efficiently. It only concentrates on the here and now, shoring up failing businesses, most notably the animal-raising businesses, when their ultimate failure would be to the overall benefit of the majority of people and the future in general.  

Agreeing to disagree

785: 

Animal Rights isn’t a subject which comes up casually in conversation. Most people studiously avoid it, which is why we need to find ways to bring it up without being too ‘over the top’ about it. It’s much easier if we are aiming to discuss the welfare of farm animals. It’s much harder if we aim to talk about the wrongness of using-animals altogether.

Of course, since most people use animals for food and clothing it isn’t likely they’d immediately swing our way and agree with us about this ‘wrongness’, especially of animal-based foods. Even less likely agree about co-products like leather or by-products like milk. There are too many reasons why most people are reluctant to talk about any of this, whereas vegans do want to. We feel an urgency to talk about it.

I see the destiny of the world linked to this very subject, because there are so many global problems I would associate with animal farming. So, it comes down to this: your reluctance versus my eagerness.

            I don’t regard this as some cosy subject for intellectual debate, or a subject we can politely agree to disagree about. The bare bones of the way I see it is civilised-human versus barbaric-human. You might not agree. So, whatever outrageous thing I might say, it just seems to you that I’m attacking the ways of the world.

            Two opposite views concerning the right humans have to use animals. 

The Hit-Out

784 

As a vegan, I focus my attention both on myself and ‘the other’ - that’s surely the idea of being vegan, being passionate and concerned for ‘food’ animals. But in other people’s perception my passion reeks of zealotry.

            All too often I can only succeed in making zero impact on omnivores. They can’t trust me (perhaps any vegan, come to that) and worse, they don’t like me (perhaps any of us), and that helps justify their disliking of what we say. It fits neatly into maintaining the status quo - the traditional attitude.

            Vegans no longer follow the ‘eat-what-you-like habit. We don’t indulge in the luxury of easy choices. Instead, we set a difficult example. We can’t afford to be seen as hobby-advocates. And particularly, we can’t have any double standards. If veganism is about nothing else, it’s about that.

            But if this sort of exemplary behaviour is difficult to keep up, it’s not because of restriction-of-food choices but the constant seething feelings we have, about animal cruelty. Almost 100% of people in our community don’t seethe, certainly not enough to boycott animal products. They are able to turn a blind eye. And if we bring anything to their attention they can also turn a deaf ear.

When I sound off about ‘cruelty to farm animals’ I’m ignored, they thinking, no doubt, “Here he goes again, on about the same old thing”.

            With this level of predictability, I have to be in control of what I say - I need to be able to get close-in with people by being professional, civil and affectionate, and not showing too much emotion. I don’t want to let my face or body language reveal too much passion, so that I’m not just being identified by that. If I want to get people to sit up and listen I won’t do it by annoying them. Instead, I’d rather let them know that I’m on their side, as well as the animals’. I want them to see that I appreciate their difficulty of ‘not being there yet with ‘this-animal-thing’. I don’t mean getting ‘pally with the enemy’, I merely mean to oil the communication-machine.

We have a long way to go, for many decades to come; at this early stage, vegans need to be establishing a good example as people-worth-knowing, and set some good communication standards. 

            Our cause, our fight, our arguments, our trying-to-grab-attention, whatever we identify ourselves with most strongly, as much as it feels right to us, we have to remember that anything truly right can also be open to misinterpretation.

            Do we, as the father asks his pregnant daughter of the boy in question, have good intentions? If so, that is what we must project by way of a ‘most convincing approach’. If I’m looking for a fight, to show off my superior values and knowledge, if I want to stir you into disagreement, if I just want to be right and hit out, it might be understandable. But it’s not productive and does no service to the animals on whose behalf we are surely trying to advocate.

Bullying persuasions

783: 

For all the time I’ve been vegan I’ve been fighting demons. The demons are in the lifestyle (and therefore the attitude) of my fellow humans. The demons inhabit the mind of the omnivore, who might sense them but can’t quite believe they exist, and so aren’t afraid of them. Vegans are free of these ridiculous attitudinal lodgers but nevertheless have to live in what seems to be an alien world, made up of people who observe the very opposite of vegan principle. The strength I need for ‘the fight’ definitely comes from the clarity of this central vegan principle (harmlessness), but to become vegan one must be a bit of an outsider. We have to learn to accept some level of alienation because of our marginalised lifestyle.

On the one hand I’ve found that being vegan gave me a lot of leverage in the form of justification. Being vegan allows me, even tempts me, to flex my muscles, show my passion, and sometimes even to steal the show. It’s fun to do that and, best of all, it shocks people. It surprises them. I must admit I like to ‘get passionate’ about animal liberation, but there’s a fine line between my being passionate and my being offensive.

            In order to get people to trust me (enough to listen to what I have to say), I need to show that I’m fundamentally a kind person. I might do a lot of talking about feeling compassion for farmed animals, and of course I’d like to see that same compassion amongst others. But I don’t have to be pushy about it. In general, I like to think that people are kind and have plenty of compassion to go round; there’d be many who would come to the rescue (of farmed animals) right now if they knew how to. Something is missing though; it’s sad that they can’t make the connection between the need for rescue and stopping their support of the Animal Industries.

            Because there are so many animals ‘in trouble’, that’s why my own sense of compassion is so strongly directed towards them. In wanting to demonstrate my feelings for them, I like to think it makes me a nicer person (but I might be wrong about that).

            The reason I put it that way is to suggest that ‘a nicer person’ doesn’t try to make other people feel uncomfortable or guilty’; they, instead, try to explain what’s involved in leaving the omnivore world and becoming a herbivore, and that’s all. Obviously food is on the mind of most people, concerning taste, cravings, restrictions, health, safety, economics, etc., so food throws up several difficult things-to-be-dealt-with. What we eat and don’t eat is central to daily habits, and it follows that many  people think that a vegan diet would be too restrictive. Such a diet shouts ‘discipline’, and that’s a big downer. And yet, once it’s experienced and practised for a while, it’s the up-side that shows – the benefits become obvious and the difficulties diminish. In fact it becomes so attractive that almost anything could be given up for it.

            Vegans are in a unique position. Just by being vegan, it allows us to argue a watertight case. Right now, it may not be the optimum time for collective consciousness to be changing, not in this way anyway, but when the time comes ...

            When the time comes, the vegan argument rings far too true for it to be ignored, despite the kicking and screaming of the vested animal interests.

            In the meantime, for us, we must all go looking for a few graciously-given seconds to speak, to be heard. If I had 30 seconds to present a case for being vegan, I think it would go something like this: (1,2,3 ...) Life is safe solely eating vegan food. Animal cruelty is wrong. Farming animals is cruel. (15,16,17 ...) Humans are natural herbivores. Plant-based food are delicious, healthy and energy producing. (23, 24, 25 ...) They are planet-saving, greenhouse-friendly, and it’s good to feel that much empathy (... 30).

The ultimate regimen

782:

My decision and daily reinforcement of that decision, to boycott everything from the animal-based food production line, is based on what I once considered an uncomfortable philosophy. But as soon as I started to live by it, it all turned into something entirely comfortable.

            I didn’t realise that the magic of something so simple (in this case a plant-based food regime) could make me so confident, to willingly re-make this one decision, every day. Ever since I let my membership of ‘The Killing Club’ lapse I’ve been able to dance and eat at the same time.

            Surely, the most happy feeling anyone can imagine is being in love. But isn’t that feeling just part of a whole family of feelings, part of which includes no longer hurting animals just to enjoy certain foods. That set of unselfish feelings is possible for us in the West, simply because we are lucky enough to have choice. With the benefit of education we know about good nutrition and we have the choice of what foods to eat and what regimen to follow

Vegan is magic

781: 

My ongoing, never-ending pursuit of the omnivore-mind continues to be frustrated. I never seem to grasp what it is that eludes the non-vegan. There’s some barrier between my mind and the ‘meat-mind’; I have an instinct that it needs lifting, and that it might need a bit of magic, to help transfer what’s on one side of the barrier to the other side - to transform the feeling of being-vegan, from a mundane feeling into something special.

            I like to attach the word ‘special’ to the attraction of ‘being vegan’. But can I, or can you, ever succeed in projecting what it’s like to be vegan, to someone who hasn’t experienced it? Can what I say ever be picked up by non-vegans? And if it can, can it be seen as an ‘attraction’ by them? (And not as unattractive or even a threat?).

            Attraction: for me, the magic is within the attraction. It lifts me up and puts me down into another world. Vegans are in another world in so many ways, by virtue of lifestyle. That ‘other world’ has a different frequency, an almost magical quality, just because we’ve come to look at food differently. Suddenly, things become attractive that weren’t before. Food takes on some greater significance than being just a sensation or an energy source or a stomach-filler. It’s a combination of responsibility mixed with pleasure. Guilt-free food is quite different from the indulgence in something not-quite-right. A plant-based diet drives so many of our daily activities, like food-shopping, like food-preparing and cooking food. To me, nothing is as important as the fact that my food is ‘harm-free’. That seems to me to be all the magic I need, to transform mine or anyone else’s life from a sort of nervous pleasure into a confident appreciation.

Taking care or using force

780:

Lack of change or improvement suggests life won’t get any better than it is at present. Our comfort zones hold us back. It seems that without crisis or explosion we don’t have enough ‘oomph’ to break out of our familiar behaviour patterns.

            As a vegan, I might attempt to cause an ‘explosion’ in what I say (on this subject of animal abuse) because I see no other way of bringing to the reluctant consciousness of the general public, but I meet my match when I attempt to force attitude change when it comes to food. This attitude permits one to continue a habit that’s been familiar to every day of one’s life. It is so entrenched that, when pressure is applied to it, heels dig in. On this matter particularly people will not be moved, let alone pushed around.

            Vegans need to remember in their own past, when we ourselves resisted, when it seemed like an impossibility to abandon animal products, and when all talk of the bad treatment of farm animals was denied. “They may suffer sometimes but not always...”. To bring people across this barrier, this reluctances, this hostility or just indifference, we need a non-confrontational approach. Otherwise, people will never modify their attitude, and that would be a tragedy for both humans and non-humans.

Over-stepping the mark

779: 

What mostly keeps vegans and omnivores apart is that one side knows what the other doesn’t. The omnivore knows there’s no other way of living than by using animals. Vegans just don’t understand this. So it figures that, to the omnivore, any information about not eating food-animals and adopting vegan diets makes little sense and will be pushed away. It isn’t that people want to perpetuate cruelty to animals but that is the unfortunate part of reality which “just has to be”. Pragmatism. And, like an irritating fly buzzing around one’s head, vegans are irritating. No one likes a bible-basher who is pushing unwelcome information. As free-willed adults, living in Western democracies, people don’t like being told what to do, especially what to eat.

I find myself being a bit of ‘basher’ - “You have to hear what I’ve got to say, for your own safety”. Omnivores question my authority to say this and reply, “You have no right to push me on that point”. They think I’m  trying to lead them into deep, chilly and dangerous waters. 

That’s not the way I see things. There is so obviously another way of living, without any use of animals. Omnivores just don’t understand this. So I figure I can make sense by arguing my point. I’m careful though. I can corner someone (whilst staying just inside the boundary of acceptable pushiness), thinking to do some good for the animals. But what a risk! gambling on the chance of a sensible, low-key discussion of the issues, tempted to gamble on a lucky strike. I’m so used to having my views put down or ignored that ‘pushing a point’ seems the only way sometimes. And for me, doing that feels good. It feels courageous. It’s satisfying to tell an ‘insensitive omnivore’ what I think of their arguments. I say to myself that I owe it to the animals, to enlighten the omnivore. And with that in mind I will go in boots and all. But perhaps I should wise up. I already have enough problems of communication without provoking people.

The omnivore doesn’t need to convert us. They have enough people on-side without worrying about a few crazy vegans. Vegans, however, do need to get as much support as they can, since we are still so few. But perhaps more importantly, we are concerned for non-vegans who have no idea how much danger they put themselves in. I need to turn around my own attitude to them, from confrontation to having sympathy and compassion for them, for the tight spot all omnivores are in. They are possibly very reluctant to change their lifestyle and diet but aren’t necessarily comfortable, as I’m not, with the cruelty of animal farming.

My view is that I need to stop being ‘insistent’. Even though it’s a significant issue for me (as it is, of course, for the animals themselves), it isn’t an issue for most others, who believe that animals are here for us to use. Human beliefs are as change-proof as reality itself - things are as we believe them to be, and many believe life without hamburgers is no life at all.

To carry someone across, from their belief to our own, is a big challenge. It’s likely that people are aware of what they are doing, but their need for their favourite foods is uppermost in their minds. I’m sure most people these days are well aware of the poor effect animal products have on one’s health, not to mention the effect on a sensitive conscience, over what’s being done to animals. But those favourite foods! Changing to a vegan diet for the sake of one’s self-esteem might seem a high price to pay (and in fact most omnivores have never seriously considered vegan principle). 

I know that even if they tried a vegan diet that they wouldn’t stay vegan for long if they’re still hankering for something that’s ‘off the list’. That has to be turned around if they are ever able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. There has to be a greater goal they’d be aiming for, which goes beyond taste bud satisfaction and a lack of interest in animal welfare. It has to have the promise of a less haunted future.

NOT knowing

778: 

I know omnivores have arguments of their own but they aren’t that keen to say what they are. I do know that vegans have opposite arguments, and I know what they are based on, which makes it all the sadder when I see how people have sold out to easy living. Their outrage is almost non-existent. Societies everywhere in the world have allowed, participated in and encouraged outrageous cruelty to farm animals, and meat-minded customers have been silent about that.

After about 1945 (almost a lifetime ago) they came up with a few diabolical cruelties tailored to increase farm animal production. At the very same time science showed that animals were not necessary for food, and that human life could be sustained on a plant-based diet. These two factors were then, and still are, the main reason for veganism to exist. Early vegans tested the new nutritional science, began to thrive on plant-based diets and soon realised they could detach from the violence surrounding animal food. It coincided with what was happening in India at the time, with Ghandi showing the power and good sense of developing a non-violent nature for mankind.

We in the West were emerging from the ultimate violence of war. And here we had peace and food possibilities which we could have taken notice of but didn’t. We weren’t yet ready to abandon old-world thinking or end our war against animals. We weren’t then and still aren’t ready for deep peace. We chose to NOT change our collective nature. The cruelty of warfare might have been ending the cruelty in our nature was still there; the first of the great modern cruelties against animals showed up in the form of the battery cage. Keeping hens locked in cages with three or four others, with no room to move, that was a violation against Nature if ever there was one. And later, other animals were to be subjected to other equally horrifying cruelties. And if these cruelties made meat and eggs cheaper and more abundant it was to show just how far the customer would turn a blind eye for the sake of economic benefit.

This was the last straw - veganism sprung up and vegans began to show that it was possible to live without eating any violence-based foods. The first animal rights advocates would go on to prove that a vegan diet worked well, and were predicting a far less violent human species-to-come. In other words, vegans were suggesting a radical change in human nature, by any individual making a stand and demonstrating that non-violence could enter the kitchen.

There’s resistance to non-violence of course. By following the advice of the meat and dairy lobby, we lose our greatest freedoms, particularly our freedom to think for ourselves and freedom to speak for ourselves.

Today, people want to live their lives to the full. Which is why eating has become an adventure into animal-based food territory. Cruelty issues, regarding farm animals, are off-limits. Dinner party conversation never centres on the ethics of eating animals, in fact people are not ashamed of their ignorance when it comes to how their animal-based foods come to them.

Pretending to NOT know things has become as important, to some people, as knowing things.

‘Vee-ghn’

777: 

Are you put off by holier-than-thou people? I am. We vegans might seem like that sometimes. The name doesn’t help. It isn’t nice-sounding - ‘vee-ghn’. It’s too easy to mispronounce (often deliberately – getting it wrong to show how unimportant it is for you). But does it matter? By now, most people know what it’s about – animals, lifestyle, food, ethics. For some, the idea of it is a thorn in their side. It stands like a brick wall between old-think and new-think, between a life-spoiling idea and a life-saving idea. And vegans do want to be savers but therefore might come across as purists, unfortunately.

On first hearing about veganism, it doesn’t sound credible; the omnivore sees it not only as self-denial but a threat to safety and happiness. For an established vegan it’s the opposite, and probably been the best thing we’ve ever done for ourselves.

For us, veganism is a long term solution to many of the world’s problems, but since there’s such an aversion to anything long-term it’s the short-term solution that usually wins out. To push long-term solutions, especially where moral issues are concerned, is seen to be confrontational. It isn’t helped by both sides believing they’re ‘right’.

A vegan’s radical departure from the norm is based on being right, and we think that’s good enough for converting omnivores. The reason it doesn’t show up the other way round is that omnivores aren’t out there trying to convert us back to the fold. Since vegans are the initiators in this debate (over animal use) we have to deal with the sluggishness of people. But we also need to develop patience in the face of short-term thinking. We need to be thinking long-term. We need to fix on how things are going to be in the far future. Even if we have motivational problems due to the absence of any sort of recognition from our society, we have to make sure about our own conduct in our campaigns. Since we’re the one initiating debate, we have to be the ones setting the standards, practising what we preach about non-violence. Since peace is at the heart of everything a vegan says, eats and thinks, there are great self-expectations, being peace-lovers. Anything unpeaceful about us leave us with no credibility at all.

Once the quarrelsome element is taken out of the picture then a proper discussion is a possibility. When there’s no simmering threat on either side we can each trade theories and move towards some sort of consensus. Or at least show mutual respect for a difference of opinion, even when it’s as important as this particular difference of opinion.

The impact of what we say

 776: 

As an animal advocate, I try never to get nasty or insistent. The seriousness of the (animal) issue isn’t necessarily shared by everyone, so I keep any coups de grace tucked up my sleeve, in reserve. However, we can’t avoid the details of the issues involved, however ugly they may be. We have a duty to pass the truth about animal husbandry onto those who know too little about it. The details are important and it’s these details people don’t know about. Or say they don’t.

If I do get the chance to say something, what should I mention? There’s so much to say but it’s a matter of timing - the more impact we make the greater the risk of shocking, or then being totally rejected.

But if I ever do get to the details, here are three areas I think are worth expanding on:

1. Sentience - there’s a similarity between humans and animals, in the way we each feel and suffer pain. Even fish have a similar nervous system to ours, so when they are dragged out of their water-world and left to suffocate, they’re often crushed to death by the weight of other fish, piled on top of them. Ordinarily, fish suffocate in the air over a period of twenty minutes, a detail lost to most anglers. Whether creatures die on decks of boats or in abattoirs, every one of them suffers a terrible death. Each of us (who eat them) plays our part in these deaths. The ultimate detail is held in just one number – 250 – the number of animals the average person is responsible for putting to death, the number they consume, in one year.

2. Human health - the long-term health effects of ingesting animal products is not fully realised by people until it’s too late. The foods and chemicals fed to farm animals, together with the fatty, high protein content of the food itself, makes animal-based foods unsafe, health-wise. The Animal Industries wouldn’t agree, of course.

3. Environmental impact - animal farming isn’t good for the environment, with soil erosion, waste run-off and emissions of greenhouse gas. And, the food fed to animals which are then fed to humans is a highly inefficient waste of energy. It is more efficient for humans to be fed directly from plants. This waste is an insult to the millions of people around the world who are starving for lack of any sort of protein.

For all these reasons this subject is rarely talked about. Clouds of obfuscation wash over this subject so that none of the important details ever get discussed, since discussion of them is regarded  as a social taboo. By not allowing free discussion and by pretending the problem doesn’t exist, we erode one of our most valued freedoms – free-speech. You and I might disagree about Animal Rights but, if we never have the chance to discuss it, we end up having a much bigger problem on our hands. If we aren’t free to learn new things or talk about certain things what does that say about us? That we are frightened of the truth coming out? If we’re silent on this subject we are voiceless, just as the animals are. And that would be embarrassing, to stay quiet when we should be exercising our freedom to speak out.

Our animal slaves on the farms have no freedom. I think that needs to be talked about and objected to. We’ve taken their lives away from them so they have no reason to live.

While animals can’t do anything about their loss of freedom, we humans can, since we have freedom of thought and personal decision. But even for a free-thinking vegan, how much right do I have to speak freely when this subject is so off-limits. I’m expected to skim over the surface but never to touch on any significant details. I can’t get ‘down to it’ with omnivores because I know how touchy this whole matter is for them. 

Conduits for better understanding

775:

The main job of an animal rights advocate is to impart some bare facts, but package them in such a way that they respect the person we’re talking to, so there’s more chance they’ll take what we say on board. I’d like to think that anything I say to anyone about these matters can be taken away and thought about in the privacy of their own place and in their own time. No one likes to be hurried or hassled over important new ideas. I know, for my part, that I’m suspicious of anyone who seems to be talking from a point of authority and especially if they try to get me to sign on the dotted line as well.

            Vegans only need to inform or answer questions, but without any trace in the voice of disrespect. We might be at different levels of understanding of the issues involved, but no need for any authoritarianism. We just need to be clear about what we are doing (communicating), clearly spoken (or written), and clear of any atmosphere which smacks of judgement. It helps by having a quietened-down face and with the shrill tones kept out of our voice. 

Superiority versus equality

774: 

By being a vegan, perhaps the greatest danger for us is believing we are right: violence is wrong, violence against animals is very wrong and eating these violated innocents is even more wrong. I doubt if anyone really disagrees with this, but all that sense of being-right comes across whenever we declare we are vegan, to those who are not. If I take the advantage, by insisting that I am better informed than you and therefore in a better position to judge things more accurately, I not only sound ‘right’ but come across as superior. By implication, you are made to think ‘the thought of admitted inferiority’ - you think that I think I am better than you. This point of difference and separation causes a breakdown in communication or conversation: if one person thinks they are brighter, more qualified, better educated than the other, they will assume the right to expound. From that advantaged position it’s likely I concentrate on one aspect of my set of principles, ‘one quality’, to puff up my self image.

            I might feel superior to you about one ‘important thing’. Okay, so this one thing is something I feel most proud of, about myself. But it makes me feel superior; alongside this One Good Thing there might be a whole string of not-so-good things, which I try to ignore for fear of spoiling my day. I try to forget all of these things and bring the One Good Thing to the fore. My ‘good day’ depends on my ‘good self-image’. But the less-good-things, which could bring me down to your level, I never weigh against my best attributes. I only admit to and show the things I’m proud of. I hide the things I’m not so proud of. So you get to see one side of me, the side I choose you to see and the side which allows me to feel superior. And it follows that I’m entitled to expound, and you, feeling less adequate, will have to listen and learn.

            I don’t think communication works like that. It stands a better chance when certain fundamentals are established, when we insist that we are ALL level pegging, when there’s no competition and therefore no need for the accusing of others, directly or by implication.

            Which is why it’s so important that we vegans don’t ever get high handed about our veganism and vegan principles, because they might not be fairly or honestly balanced with our less-good bits. Which is why the first thing we should have in mind when speaking to non-vegans is a sense of equality.

Fears

773:

In the ongoing attempt to find ways of making contact with people, about the plight of farm animals, I keep meeting resistance; people being reluctant to start the ball rolling or even allowing this subject to open just a crack.

            Talking about animals (farm animals, food-animals) brings on fear, distaste and discomfort - the fears are strong enough to make most people want to switch off whenever this subject is mentioned. I suppose there’s fear of losing the enjoyment of eating our favourite foods, and I suppose shame must come into it too, supporting ugly farming practices. Another fear, that one’s sensitivity has been blunted by the daily habitual use of animals that provide us with food. There isn’t much that can be done about these fears - so long as animals are being used to feed us. But it isn’t the job of those who advocate for animals to encourage ‘the thought of inferiority’. (I’ll return to that theme in the next blog)

            If we, as vegans, care for people at all, we don’t need to generate more fear; fear hardly helps communication. If we are trying to get across the extent of suffering of animals, we know that it doesn’t take much to trigger all these fears in people. Ideally we want people to find out what is happening ‘out there’ and decide for themselves how important that information is and what they should do about it, if anything.

            Our job is surely to act as a conduit for information, to ask people to listen to what we have to say, and to trust that we aren’t trying to attack them.

            We want you to draw near; any threat of accusation makes people want to run away.  

Platefuls of guilt

772:

Guilt is wrapped around our food today, guilt that it’s making us fat, guilt that it’s linked to animal cruelty, guilt that it’s killing the planet. But we have to eat; we eat what is there; we trust what tastes good IS good. Because food is so routine and seductive we want to eat it rather than think about it. We cut down on the rich foods if we don’t want to put on weight, but otherwise foods aren’t usually avoided if we like them. That is, until someone suggests that some of our foods are tainted. No one’s suggesting the Government sprinkles zombie-dust in the water supply or feeds animals hallucinogens that pass onto people, no, but ‘tainted’ in another way. You know what I mean. So you may be faced with the question: the table is laden with yummy foods but should some of them be boycotted?

            What a killer-of-joy I can be. Imagine our friends are getting married, and as the one vegan at the wedding reception, I’m avoiding ALL food since none of it can be trusted. At weddings and catered events there’s usually nothing reliable to eat. Whereas at home we eat well, yet only things we agree with.

            If you aren’t vegan then you will probably enjoy the wedding feast, sample the exotic dishes, eat your fill and all without the need to know any details about the food. But, as you are tasting everything, eating pleasurably, suddenly a dark cloud passes across your sun. Whilst eating, you look up and notice someone standing aside from the crowd, and certainly not holding a plate. You recognise me.

            I recognise your face, walk over, start talking but I’m now trying NOT to notice what you are putting in your mouth, I’m trying hard NOT to draw attention to the disparity between us; me pointedly NOT eating, while you are trying to stuff as much free food into your mouth as you can whilst still chatting. The matter of food has to come up (“Not eating?”). How can I not explain why?

            Here you are, were, attempting to enjoy yourself, and now you’re being reminded that some of the items on your plate “once had a face”. That’s bad enough but the more you talk, the less you can eat, and the less you eat the more is being snatched away by others.

            Here we are, standing together, trying to have a conversation, and you all the time thinking that I’m judging you, for eating crap at this wedding feast. But in fact I’m struggling to NOT think that way, because I’m much more interested in observing the whole scene; discussing Animal Rights at a wedding reception is pretty much inappropriate. If I want to talk animals I’ll leave that for another time. I often wonder how other vegans get on with animal-eaters at social events. I really can’t hazard a guess.

            If I’m making any judgement at all, which I’m trying not to do, then it’s nothing to do with you as a person. It’s nothing to do with the way you talk, the way you dress or anything else. Nothing about you makes me feel awkward. No, it’s not anything about you, just what’s on your plate and I’m trying not to make mention of that (let alone smell the awful smell of it, or the look of it). It’s more likely that you, not I, will feel compelled to mention the food. It reminds me of the situation I once found myself in, being with someone with a facial deformity and trying to pretend I hadn’t noticed, because any allusion to it would be gauche. So, here you are, at this wedding. You are eating in public and showing, by doing that, how well you fit in with others. If there’s a vegan lurking about (who might know you), then you might be in trouble. But otherwise ‘enjoy-enjoy’.

            Unlike the food you eat at home where there’s no one else to see, eating in public is another matter. Here it’s what’s showing that might cause problems. That plate of food shows. So, by eating what you don’t necessarily agree with, you think my seeing you do that will make me want to attack you for it.

From my point of view, I need to keep one step ahead of ANY of this happening. Certainly I don’t ‘do’ attacks on anyone. Certainly not when I’m a guest somewhere. I suppose I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d be better off not attending, and therefore not having to eat or not-eat in public, at such events as wedding receptions.

People empowering the food producers

771: 

I don’t know how sensitive you are about the human-animal relationship. I obviously think it is completely out of hand, and something dramatic has to happen if humans aren’t to be unstuck by it. But who thinks that far ahead? However sensitive a person is, it must be tricky when facing this particular moral question, as to whether one should be using animal-based commodities, when just about everybody is using lots of them every day.

            If you are troubled by a moral question, in this case condoning cruelty to animals, out of that could come a mixture of fears: confusion, guilt, frustration, addiction and social exclusion. Since guilt helps to make our brains numb, my interest is to get people to think for themselves, use their brains, and escape from guilt feelings if only because it stops us thinking. Most of all, I don’t want you to think of me (or other vegans) as people who are wanting to attack you. I don’t know how to make anyone believe me when I say that, but IF you aren’t sure about that one thing about me, then you and I can’t do much communication on this important subject. You’re likely to guess this way: that I think you are too guilty to listen, that you are part of the crowd and that you don’t think for yourself. That isn’t necessarily true at all. I can only speak for myself, but I know what it’s like being accused of acting like ‘sheep’, with everyone doing what everyone else does. I want to avoid all that sort of judgement, because it kills communication. How do I know what pressures you’re under, which make you NOT think what’s behind the food you eat. Perhaps you don’t buy much food but have it prepared and bought for you, or your friends eat together and you don’t want to be excluded from that group, or your partner would find it too difficult if you started to make ethical choices about your food, or traditional food dishes are too closely associated with your lifestyle. There are so many factors involved in choosing what to eat or what not to eat. It’s probably beyond the imagination of most people to see how one could ever be satisfyingly fed on plant-based foods alone. Vegan diets sound positively dangerous.

            But food (mainly but not solely food) is something that costs money; we eat food each and every day; we give little thought to the way we use our power (money) to empower others (by spending it with them). With a lot of money and very little thought, much power is given to the Animal Industries, by us. And that brings us into contact with some very ugly events.

            I can see all this and want to avoid the effect of guilt on you, but I can’t get this across, whilst you can see all this and want to do the right thing, but you find it not so simple. These are some of the difficult dilemmas facing us over food.  

Don’t shoot the messenger

770:

It’s convenient to use the ‘I’ and ‘you’ form here, but it doesn’t mean, if you’re reading this, that I’m assuming anything about you personally, that you’re not vegan.

            I know that when I talk about animals having rights (the right not to be used by humans), that if you still use animal-based foods, then you possibly feel some guilt about that, by supporting the Animal Industry. That makes you feel uncomfortable. It might even make you feel hostile to the messenger.

            So, when I’m talking to you, even about something unrelated to ‘animals’, you’re afraid I might go there. And, as an opportunity opens, I do start to work out how I’m going to get there, but at the same time I’d be wanting to work out an escape clause for you. The one thing I don’t want hanging over our heads is guilt, which seriously gets in the way of communication. I want to stem your guilt factor. Because you know I know.

            I’m not comfortable about mentioning the fact that you are poisoning yourself and hurting animals too. That’s all the vegan message is. So simple and yet so insulting. So, my question is this: how can what I need to say be said without causing offence? Big cash prize for the right answer.

Animal Rights

769: 

I wonder about what would be the least unfriendly way to open up this subject, knowing that it isn’t the subject of choice for most people. Things would be entirely different if it were ANY other subject.

So let’s say we’re discussing another subject - the kids’ recent bad behaviour. And say, I suggest, “This behaviour is due to eating ‘violent’ food ... or fast food or sugary food; food which manifests violence or frustration. And then I go on to suggest The Vegan Diet, that it gives kids the best opportunities in life, gives them something to work for, gives them good energy and gives them a great body image. THIS is what vegan food does, for anyone”.

What have I done here? I’ve gone from ‘kids-behaving-badly’ to ‘vegans and animal-food’. I’ve basically changed the subject, and I’d probably do the same, with anything I felt passionate about. Perhaps I’d do it if I were talking about war, bringing the same cure-all into almost any subject, by suggesting the power of a vegan’s ‘harmlessness principle’. If you talk about the environment I can point to the damage animal rearing does, growing crops to feed animals to feed humans. Whatever you come up with I can counter, vegan-wise, which, I attest, proves all the best reasons to go vegan. I can drive almost any conversation around to these entry points.

But should I?

You and I are talking, about you-know-what. Instead of you submissively taking-in my ideas and considering them, it’s likely your defences will go up. You notice what I’m trying to do. You read the sub text of what I’m saying, to establish the next line of conversation, about ‘Animals’ and ‘Your attitude towards them’. I’ve strayed into something that is nothing short of personal criticism, since I’m saying that the problems of the world won’t be solved until they’ve been seen through vegan eyes. And however you interpret that sort of message, it’s likely you won’t like it, and you’ll be wanting me to leave. And in future, hoping you don’t meet me again.

So what can any of us Animal Rights advocates do? To sidestep our predictability, to steer around misunderstandings? If we vegans always bring conversations around to this subject, it’s because most of us think we should. Most of us try to wake others ‘up’ ... if only for the animals’ sake. Some people would consider that approach, namely my interference in their private life, intolerable.

A person’s attitude-to-animals is a fixed star which can’t be reached or altered. But for those of us who see things differently (and the worst of these are the rabid, evangelical, proselytising, wannabe-vegan preachers like myself), yes, we do face problems concerning our approach.

For those with an in-yer-face style of approach, in the end, we’ll be intolerable. But if we got our act together it could go the other way, where we’re in a future society where it’s politically incorrect to denigrate plant-eaters (known as ‘veganaphobic behaviour’). And by that time, omnivores will have been brought to account - one element missing: no more animals being used (as slaves for humans). The prospect of that surely  excuses some of our intolerability.

I, and all of us, have the right to speak, but that’s no guarantee you’ll let me in, and my greatest risk is that you’ll shut me out. Animal activists have to set their own standards of behaviour, here. But after that, it’s all to do with the entertainment business. We have to learn, as a stand-up comic learns, how to test the audience, how to spontaneously follow your nose, even if it’s just one person we’re speaking with.

I think this works: I attempt to be half entertaining and half educating, because most people respond quite well to that mix. I try to be useful but, more importantly, interesting. But even so, the line of this subject is predictable and a dud, interest-wise. I might try to seduce your interest but that doesn’t mean I’ll get you thinking, not about animals, anyway. We would be better off encouraging you to think about one question to ask, next time we meet.

I suppose our job, as animal activists, is to do battle, but without any moral-judgement attached. It isn’t that sort of battle. More, it’s about showing fair on a level playing field, where no one is righter than the other. Moreover, it’s not about scoring points. It isn’t a very familiar situation for any of us to find ourselves in, inside such a potentially important conversation. What we do have to struggle with is that old perception about vegans, that you think I’m after converts and I know I’m not. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking this way. I simply want to get people thinking for themselves.

Be your own judge and jury.

768: 

It’s not the first time I’ve mentioned this subject, with people I know. It’s not the first time I’ve used emotional blackmail to get them to listen. You have the right to stop me speaking. To make up your own mind in your own time.

            But not everyone is so obviously resistant. Not everyone I blackmail. I don’t need to. But just because you seem willing to listen doesn’t mean I’m really getting through to you. Your main aim is to stop me speaking, because it’s always going to be uncomfortable to hear what I have to say. But you are subtle. If you can’t accuse me of being pushy or rude, then you’ll need better justification to stop me speaking.

            I seem reasonable enough. And, in truth, the subject isn’t totally ridiculous to you. You let me speak. What I say about animals, you sort of agree with but you can’t afford to encourage me. On the one hand, you respect my values, you aren’t trying to belittle my beliefs. You show that by listening. But here’s the trap you set for me, to stop me.

            I mistake your permission-to-speak for actual interest. Conveniently, I forget that I’m a walking, talking insulter; whatever I say will always imply criticism for what YOU do which I don’t do. Whatever I say is tinged with moral judgement. You’ve said, “Go-ahead”, and I’ve foolishly thought you wanted to hear more. I’m the eternal optimist - I’ve seen what I wanted to see, namely your readiness to be converted to veganism.

            When the penny drops and I realise you were just trying to humour me, I know I’ve gone too far and said too much, and need to retreat. But here’s my point. Vegans should go back to first principles. Not just with more talk of food and diet and animal cruelty and unhealthy lifestyles but to look carefully at equality, between humans and animals. One sort of respect for the sovereignty of animals, another sort of respect for the fellow human, for where they’re at. Perhaps I shouldn’t try to seduce your interest. It only makes you search for something to defend yourself with, or make a comment to knock me out. It isn’t a very real situation for either of us, because you think I’m after converts and I’m not. I only want you to think for yourself.

In your own interest, avoid vegans

767: 

Enthusiastic vegans like me, don’t do ourselves or the Animal Rights Movement any favours, by being passionate and then force-feeding facts to people who don’t want them. You can never be sure if it’s necessary anyway. Most people are aware, essentially, of the main ‘animal issues’. However, they often pretend to now less than they do. They choose not to let on. They know enough about farm animals to have reason to stop eating them, but still they eat animal-based foods. So most people know, but choose not to act. If I try to lecture them they get irritated. Their first port-of-call is to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about. I say, “Meat will kill you”. And they say, “Oh yes?”.

We vegans have authoritativeness in our voices (... to make us sound more confident perhaps?) Certainly we should know our facts. But who’s listening? I don’t get as far as explaining anything in detail, because I’m not allowed. When YOU don’t want to listen you have the right not to. You don’t have to listen or agree or discuss any subject you don’t want to. But that has the effect of making a person, who wants to talk, feel shut out. What I’m saying is so ridiculous to you, that it doesn’t warrant discussion.

Now, if that triggers frustration, even aggression in me, it’s understandable. But not excusable.

Follow my approach: I’ve gone from enthusiastic to aggressive. So, all you have to do is ignore me. I’ll soon show my true colours. Vegans, non-violence, gentle? Huh! When I get rebuffed, I step over the politeness-boundary. I persuade. You claim your rights and raise your hand, and stop me in my tracks, “I’ve heard it all before”.

You are saying, a) It’s none of your business (shutting me out), b) You don’t know what you’re talking about (shutting me out), c) You are being OTT (over the top), d) You are getting emotional (therefore dangerous).

My approach is failing with you, so I never find out why you won’t talk. You literally stop me speaking. You are uncomfortable hearing about cruelty to animals when you still eat them, and therefore pick up on my behaviour, to avoid the discomfort of me speaking. You accuse me of becoming over emotional, irrational, predictable or even aggressive. You have justification.

It’s amazing to think that all this strategy is worked out in moments, as soon as a person is confronted by a vegan.

Vegan facilitator

766: 

Vegans want to know how they’re seen by others, and want non-vegans to see them in a non-judgemental way. And we are always trying to get a fair hearing ... and it’s never granted! So, we resort to the blog to say things lie this: ‘Vegan’ isn’t just about food. And it isn’t just about animals. It’s setting standards of attitude, high standards. The first and most obvious lead vegans have taken is over food and clothing, but I hope we lead with equally high standards when we talk, as in ‘initiate debate on ‘animal-use’’.

Acting with high standards is one thing, keeping them up is another. Keeping standards consistent too. But standards are supposed to flow from within and colour our actions. It’s reverse-engineering discovering ‘new reasons’ to be good. I’d rather be with a liar and a cheat and a thief than be deceived by a show of goodness which turns out to mix with a few low standards in other areas. It’s safer to feel part of a big mix with no temptation to judge values, if only to avoid the much greater danger of feeling superior.

When we look at attitude, we have to look honestly at this superiority thing. If I consider myself better than others, because I’ve made a particular stand and they haven’t, I’m in trouble. Unless I’m deliberately hiding it, it will show. It shows in the pride when we tell someone something good about ourself. “We’re helping to save the whales”, or “a forest”. That information is harmless enough. Unless we look superior, or bragging - by taking that delicacy into account we can pass across information but may need to neutralise its impact by and offhand remark which takes the pressure out of the atmosphere. If we boast we look foolish. And vegans surely want to look wise!

The notion of ‘superiority’ is best kept out of our thinking. But how can we keep thoughts like this at bay? Especially when we say to ourselves, “What I think is private, so no one will know”. It cuts both ways, people approving of me for the stand I’ve taken or people disapproving of me for the stand I’ve taken. Perhaps there’s a happy ending to this. We train ourselves not to need or cultivate approval. If someone is fishing for compliments it’s like vegans mentioning their vegan diet. It could bring us insults but more likely it will bring a compliment, “Oh, I don’t know how you can do it”.

What shows most, observing the subtle interplays, during a conversation. Unaware of your own familar give-away signs, we are much more easily seen-through than we think. The trouble is, we’re so busy trying to ‘see-through’ other people that we neglect to cover our own tracks, in that regard.

competitive. No me versus you situations.

I only ever want closer contact, with sympathy and empathy specifically enabling people to take ‘animal-issues’ seriously. I want the contact to facilitate discussion. I’m not interested in converting people.

You do it, so shall I

765:

In the face of greatly differing views between vegan and a non-vegan, we each seem implacable; vegans are ‘in judgement’ of non-vegans who, in turn, are in judgement of us, for whatever reasons. We each have fixed views, and today, where Perception Rules, views stay fixed.  

In all matters of food, there are still many omnivores who support the status quo out of fear of boycotting things. Boycotting food items could EASILY lead to a huge daily inconvenience. Many omnivores would say, “Where does it all stop?”

Omnivores are not far wrong – it is inconvenient, trying to be consistent all the time, about what and what-not to boycott. But of course it gets easier as time goes on. But (perception rules!), that’s not how it’s perceived by non-vegans who haven’t, by definition, experienced the surprisingly easy the switch-over is; for the omnivore it will all sound too difficult to even contemplate. (And let’s face it, Society still spreads the idea about vegetarians, let alone vegans, being psychologically challenged!!)

By the time we’re adults we’re getting used to decision-making; we know life’s a matter of fitting-in; if we don’t fit in to the way others do things we’re out, caste out, seen as whacky and NOT to be taken seriously; of us, “They take things too far”

It’s evident, to most people, that vegans want to alter things - but why? A trained omnivore will go for the jugular, and say vegans are people who want to deny others the simple pleasures of life. Or they might say, “You can’t talk to a vegan”, as being obstinate to common sense. To non-vegans, we’re the ones who “just don’t get it”. Number one, favourite is: “I mean, how can you object to cheese, when it’s something so familiar to daily life? What’s so wrong about a cheesy pizza or a quiche?”

            It’s only that people haven’t thought too much about (cheese versus cows, quiche versus hens). So, for starters, vegans need to point out (if we ever get the chance to open our mouths) that the way people perceive animal-based food is ill-informed or misinformed. Ultimately, it’s down to us, as vegans, to better inform people.

But, for that, we don’t need to frighten them. That’s the tricky bit.

I think we should get to know as much as we can about the connection between animal products and ill health. If any questions are going to be asked, this is where they’ll start. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to dwell too long here - it’s so easy for people (like me) to scare the bejesus out of people, in order to get them to ‘go vegan’. By telling people that they’re all going to die horrible deaths isn’t such a good idea. However, from my point of view, I need to know about animal husbandry, know the ‘the connections’ (cheese is cow), and know about basic nutrition. Any animal activist needs to know this, perhaps better than the oncoming omnivore. We need to know it, in store, even if I don’t actually get to mention it. And so often, it can be finer NOT to mention a whole heap of it.

This connection between eating animal protein and contracting heart disease, cancer, diabetes, poor circulation, loss of leg power and (with the worry of all this) dementia - all this is very likely to be ‘pay-back’ for being so laid back about what food we eat and have eaten. The fear of body-crash, arising from using these foods, is high on a vegan’s list of arguments; for us it is all too tempting, to use the fear angle. Unless, like me, you are NOT trying to convert people. And then I think it’s better to use material sparingly.

 Instead of a fear-impelled change (coming about in people) I’d rather see some energy going into ‘perception-eering’, looking for clues on how our omnivore friends perceive things; indeed, how we all trick ourselves into seeing what isn’t there; and how we appease our taste buds to ease our addiction-worries.

I want to understand one thing: how do some humans take up great ideas, and others push them away; I want to know why some people (with brains) think for themselves and why others (with equally good brains) don’t, because they less often think about the big issues; nor then act.

I imagine the more insecure one is the more one wants to fit in. It’s almost primal, complying with fashion and saying that because you do it, so shall I. Instead they could be speaking ‘vegan fire’.

Our friends are not for shocking

764: 

Because animal exploitation concerns me so deeply, as a vegan, I’ll talk to anyone on this subject; it’s me who wants to get a conversation going, so if I bring up the subject, then, effectively, I’ve upped the ante and I must be responsible for what happens next

Living in a free country, you can believe what you like and I can say what I like, but there are dangers. I can’t always trust myself when it comes to ‘turning nasty under provocation’. When I feel anger, defensiveness or ‘violence’ coming on, I should know it’s time to leave, or to change the subject. My ‘passion’, my ‘beliefs’ can seem like boasts. When I say, “I’m vegan you see ...”, it can easily look like bragging or seem to be brutally confronting.

Being in the company of a vegan shouldn’t be something to dread. But as soon as I start getting passionate I often see fear, as if I might mention ‘that subject’.

Being confronted by a zealot, who only wants to tell people what they may or may not eat, is disturbing. But there are practical reasons too why people, like me, shouldn’t confront meat-eating friends without permission. Being asked a question shows I’m trusted, so if I’m ever asked to supply an answer, I’m careful not to give out too much. I have another agenda - I’m observing, I want to see what happens. I’m waiting. I’m wanting to hold back a bit. I know it might take some time for the penny to drop, for a person to realise what I’m moving towards.

Why would I be taking such care? Because there’s a danger that as soon as it’s obvious to them what I MIGHT be heading towards, down come the shutters with all the familiar resistance-attitudes. I guess it’s an ingrained distaste for the idea of ‘going vegan’, a distaste for the impact it would have on one’s social life.

Communicating with friends on any serious subject has to start somewhere, and for me I don’t want to start out ‘heavy’. Normally when I meet a friend we might kid around and maybe say something risky or rude, just to confirm we’re friends, as opposed to our being less intimate acquaintances. Then, if it feels safe, we might slip into more ‘serious talk’. Hopefully, you and I will try to ‘keep it together’, for the benefit of our friendship. Mind you, isn’t that how things should be all the time, about anything, with anyone? By not observing that rule, it’s surely why people from different cultures end up tearing each other’s throats out in war?

I hope that today we take a more civilised approach to our differences. Isn’t that why, today, we’re more likely to confront our differences by ‘workshopping’ the issues we disagree about? Over this difficult subject of using animals for human convenience, it’s up to those of us who initiate talk on the subject, to remind ourselves that even the most ardent carnivore is speakable-with. No one has to be ‘impossible’ to talk to. Even me!