The basis of argument

1289: 

Our aim should be to create space and freedom for anyone to talk freely about their feelings, even if it obviously runs counter to our own.  Being in such a minority, it’s likely most of us vegans will try to defend our position, and make sure there’s no confusion about where we stand on the ‘animal issue’.  But if we come on too strong we’ll effectively shut the door to the discussion room.  It’s only when both sides of an argument have a chance to put their ideas forward that we'll get a chance to make our basic arguments clear.

Our basic argument:

There’s a lot of confusion about what it is we are on about, a lot of which is convenient confusion.  So, before anyone turns off or finds a reason to stop trying to understand, we should spell out our position in the simplest and briefest way possible.

They might not be able to agree with us but nothing we say should give anyone an excuse for an easy disagreement.  In other words, if we are clear about our own position and we state it plainly, we avoid provocation.  There's no emotion behind our words, we merely seem to be inviting an equally simple reason why someone thinks we might be wrong.  We're aiming at civilised talk here.

So, if our bottom line is that we are unable to find any justification for any animal use, then that stands as our position from which a challenge can be made, by anyone who might want to disagree.  Discussion can go on from there.  And ideally, both sides can always return to this general point – animal-use versus no-animal use.  Then the details can follow.

Our position is that animals should never be used because we humans can't be trusted not to abuse them.  There are so many examples of ugly ways animals are treated.  When it comes to food and the inevitable slaughtering of animals (either for their carcass or after their food production drops off, like low milk yields and low egg laying rates) humans seem to be incapable of independent thinking or coming to rational conclusions.  It seems that omnivores are captive to their own food habits, and these daily habits can be so deeply entrenched that most people can’t afford to think about such things as animals’ feelings.  This means they can’t complain about their treatment on farms or their method of slaughter, which makes it very difficult for them to argue that animals should be used.

If people are creatures of habit and, on this matter, particularly unwilling to think things through for themselves, then they have to be 'followers'.  It seems that most people will only ever do what they’ve always done; we do what our parents taught us and what we then go on to teach our own children.  This comes down to eating the food we like and side-lining any other consideration, because it has to take second place to something as fundamental as food-satisfaction; we must, at all costs, enjoy the food we eat, and be able to eat it with confidence; and to eat it with a clear conscience if only because it’s the same food everyone else eats.

For all omnivores, this is their most powerful argument.  All that vegans are suggesting is that they question the basis of that argument.