Permission withheld

812: 

If there are no questions asked, no “Please explain what vegan means”, then why volunteer anything if it’s likely to be seen as an intrusion? In truth, I suppose, vegans are always looking for an excuse to ‘bring it on’. To shock. (How can you tell if someone’s a vegan? – wait ten minutes and they’ll tell you).

But for omnivores, when they notice the conversation veering around to this difficult subject, there’s ALARM. There’s a fight or flight response.

            Some vegans welcome a fight, having a devil-may-care attitude, not caring if their ‘bring-it-on’ damages an otherwise friendly exchange. They calculate that with one win it will be enough to bring about a full change of attitude.

            If only it were that easy!

The much longer route is not as destructive or as risky but it offers no guarantee of good results either. But if, in a conversation, there’s trust and open-ended permission, then at least we can get into a gloves-off discussion.

Permission to talk boldly about this subject must be mutual. There are subtle signals given during a conversation, and if they are there they must be sensed by the robustness of each person’s approach.

Vegans always hope to engineer a conversation on this rarely touched-on subject, and they do sometimes get it to happen, but usually only when everyone is sure it won’t get out of hand. It’s more difficult to build enough mutual trust when talking with strangers. But by the same token it’s too easy for close friends or family to back away from taking ‘conversational risks’. You have to ask yourself if there is any point in getting into these sorts of discussions when no one is willing to take a few risks. Why embark on a difficult discussion if there is zero chance of making a breakthrough? A discussion about Animal Rights issues has to be approached on an equal footing. It can never be an evangelical exercise for an enthusiastic vegan.

There’s a slogan which says: “Risk: Take calculated risks ... that’s quite different from being rash”.

            Being rash, as in forcing you, against your will, to listen to me talking about this subject, is about my not caring how you might react. It’s like the bible-basher’s foot in the door, to stop it being shut against them. Everything changes when we’re given the go-ahead to speak freely. Then I have a much better chance of being listened to and me listening to what you have to say in return. If there’s no go-ahead, we get the opposite - “Don’t be ridiculous. Why listen to what you’ve got to say when others tell a different story”.

I always think it’s quite understandable when people find it difficult to agree with me, since the general experience has always been the opposite view, coming from almost ALL recognised authorities, like science, schools or churches. When most people hear what vegans have to say their inevitable comment is, "Why should anyone listen to you?”