1033:
Some of us vegans rely too heavily on speaking with great emotion
- we forget how that sounds to others. This
subject ignites passion but it also stirs up confrontation. So a ‘yes’ for straight talking, as long as we
leave space for opposite opinions to be aired.
We’re most of us amateur communicators - we aren’t trained
to see ourselves as others see us and adjust accordingly. Our stand might be admired. People often
express how much they genuinely admire the stand we make, and they half want to
take our side, but mostly they want useful information from us. What they don’t want is a heavy lecture.
Information: if we outline our arguments half of what we say
might be ‘handy tips on vegan diet’, the other half is why we are vegan, and is
about what is happening to animals. Which
is where we have to be careful with details. We need be strong on verifiable
facts and less strong on subjective comments which might be construed as ‘back-door
insults’. If we say that all animal
products are unhealthy and cruelly produced, we need examples and references in
case we are questioned. And likewise, if we draw an association between animal
products and certain ailments (“Meat causes cancer”) we must be able to back
that up. It’s much easier to cite cruelty with details of sow stalls, battery
cages and the biology behind milk production, or indeed what happens at the abattoir.
Animal Rights is always a provocative subject - we’re telling
people why we are outraged, implying that they should be too. We’re commenting on the morals of ordinary
consumers. There are a LOT of consumers consuming a lot of animal products; it’s
as routine as getting up or going to bed. Most people think that everyone does
it, so it can’t be bad. So, from that vantage point, no one feels obliged to
listen to straight-talk from vegans. Although the truth is plain enough,
perhaps we have to find a way of saying what we need to say without falling
back on slogans condemning the public’s compliance with animal torture.
No comments:
Post a Comment