Behind closed doors

1439:

Some activists break into vivisection laboratories to rescue the animals there.  Judging by what they have to do to get in and what they find when they get inside, their actions seem both commendable and brave.  They not only want to rescue the animals but want to expose what they find there by filming what they see and showing it.

But, on the receiving end, when shown, people don’t like to look.  If visual evidence appears on TV they go for the remote and changes channels immediately.  They don’t want to know.

Our society gives tacit approval for what goes on in these places because, for selfish reasons, we have been led to believe that scientists will discover cures for major diseases by way of animal research.  The public like to think of vivisectors as being altruistically determined to rid the world of the scourge of disease, and some may be doing just that, but it can never be justified if innocent creatures are going to be tortured and sacrificed in the process.

Here’s where good intention steps over into madness.  The scientist is dishonest too, when they talk about their ‘work with animals’.  They speak as if the animal is voluntarily conscripting itself, in its zeal to help the human race with their medical problems.

If the public are sold on the idea that pharmaceutical safety must involve animal testing, then it’s no surprise that they condemn the animal rescuers and praise the vivisectors.  By giving these trusted, white-coated scientists the go-ahead, to use anything (including animals) to fight disease, they give them approval for their 'noble work'.  No mention is made of the details of experiments which cause animal suffering.  Animal laboratories are closed to the public, just as intensive farms or abattoirs are, for the same reasons.  Obviously there's a lot to be kept hidden in these places

I find it hard to accept the lack of support we get from the public.  Certainly, it disgusts me, the cruelty of farmers and scientists.  But why has all this not yet registered in people’s minds?  It’s infuriating when people don’t respond to the stories they hear about animal treatment, whether in abattoirs or farms or in animal research centres.  They may be softies and generous to their own kind but when it comes to the fate of these animals, their indifference makes them appear both hard hearted and selfish.

 

Converting

1438: 

I prefer NOT to try converting friends who’re already aware of my interest in ‘the animal-thing’.  Perhaps they expect me to have a go at them, that I won’t be able to resist a dig.  If I try to persuade, somewhere in my words or tone of voice, there will be a little pressure added, some moral overtone, some value judging, some guilt-inducing or shame-making.  It's almost impossible to avoid this when talking about any form of cruelty.  If I don't choose my words very carefully or if my timing is out or if I don’t round things off properly, it will go down badly, particularly badly with close friends.

Friends - I personally don’t have enough of them to lose any.  Animal Rights is especially dangerous in an ‘if-you’re-not-with-me-you’re-against-me’ sort of way.  If I'm talking 'animals' I prefer to talk in the public arena.  Because I'm not facing-off with anyone in particular, I can speak more freely.  I can accept being knocked down by people who aren’t close friends, who aren't afraid of making me sound like a fool.  This is where true interaction can take place.  It’s good for getting my ego hardened-up.

         

Everything vegans stand for (the principle of plant-based diets, animal rights, non-violence) is purposely down-played by Society.  It is given minimal press coverage.  If we try to bring issues to public attention we’re prevented.  We have to stand by, in silence, allowing blatant misinformation to mould even the minds of our closest friends.  After forty years of substantial exposure to Animal Rights, I can’t see much momentum building.  I don’t see any real sign of people questioning or challenging what they’ve been taught about humans having the right to use animals.  I get nervous about that.  It seems zombie-ish to me.  It makes me especially nervous seeing sadists near an animal whose mind is in a state of terror.  For domesticated animals there’s nothing and no hope, unless from those who want to save them. “Good luck!”, I say, for luck might prove more reliable than good nature.  Good, nature may be in general, but it is asleep on these issues, which is why Animal Rights has to speak up so insistently about slavery, captivity, killing and in some cases animal torture.  We shouldn’t have to.  But it’s all happening so routinely and it's so tacitly condoned by almost everyone, that it has become accepted.  It’s thought to be a matter of pragmatic reality.  The Animal Industries do the deed.  Then, at one stage removed, the compliant consumer supports it.

And if the humans need medicines and demand they're safe for use, then again, animals to the rescue.  At the vivisection laboratories, animal cruelty is even worse than down on the farm, but it affects fewer animals.  Again, a blind-eyed compact exists, where the tick of approval is sure to be given by the consumer, such being the need for safe pharmaceuticals.

         

It makes me wonder why I’m saying such things.  Perhaps it's because I expect more of people than they’re capable of.  I know that people are likely to be so weighed down with junk food, so chronically unwell from eating rubbish over so many years, so groggy with tiredness from eating too much of it, that they can’t any longer face-up to a major shift of consciousness - let alone conversion to veganism, however beneficial they may guess it could be.

Having said that, I realise that beyond the 98% of whacked-out consumers is the big problem posed by the remaining % - the human monsters, the most outrageous of whom profit from harming creatures, as if they don't care and as if the animals themselves don't feel the harm being done to them.  For example, someone who takes an immobilised and terrified rabbit and squirts corrosive chemicals into its eye, to test shampoos for eye safety.  This animal doesn’t stand a chance.  They can’t do anything to protect themselves from this sort of torture.

         

Whether the suffering takes place on a vivisector’s slab or on a farm or in the abattoirs, the coldness with which animals are treated is a frightening reflection on human nature.  What routinely happens to billions of them is something no sentient creature should have to experience, and no human should be capable of doing.  The perpetrator is not only insane to do it but dangerously insane for trying to influence ordinary people to think that what they do is acceptable.

Loose Talk

1437: 

The reason one might feel angry with the human world is because people are insensitive to the violence and cruelty of the Animal Industry, in that they support and won't question it; people are so reluctant to change.  But why should we expect fellow humans to be more than they actually are?  They continue to eat rubbish foods, continue to get ill, continue to hold violent attitudes, and it seems such a waste of personal potential, and that’s what makes me exasperated.  But it’s an exasperation with myself too, for my almost wilful refusal to understand the minds of my fellow human beings.  I can be unreasonable in that I've had more opportunity and freedom to change, never having had to be responsible for anyone but myself.  I've had time to pursue my interest in non-violence and all its implications on daily life, whereas others have had less time and freedom.

Vegans, who are active in promoting Animal Rights, invest time in a great cause.  And because there's often a big investment, we look for results.  And in this field of endeavour results are few and far between.  So, when I think I’m getting somewhere and hit yet another disappointment, it hits me hard.  I never seem to get used to it.  And most surprisingly, I never see it coming.  Overall, the most depressing thing I experience is that it often seems as if no one is taking notice of what we are saying –the axe murderer has the axe poised, ready to strike and you refuse to believe it could happen.  It’s a type of deafness, but more closely related to reluctance.  It's a reluctance to even talk or discuss the matter of animal farming and animal food - why  would one risk walking into such a contentious discussion, or speak ones mind on this subject?

Beyond all else, everyone values affection and friendship.  Intimacy allows good friends to talk freely about anything.  Once, we only avoided talking about religion, sex and politics but that's fair game now.  Today, the big taboo subject is ‘animals’, notably the confining and killing and eating of them.  It's taboo because most people are eating them, necessitating the all the rest.

Other than talking about the cute-and-cuddly variety, animals are not a recommended topic of conversation.  This is a subject known for bringing up deep issues and passionate views.  Getting into talk about the use and abuse of those animals which produce so much of our food is dangerous.  On the one hand, the carnivore has very little ethical argument to justify their eating habits, and on the opposite side, our arguments are often razor sharp.  Just by talking-animals carries with it the risk of blowing a whole friendship through over un-thought-out ‘animal talk’.  All it takes is one comment.

No False Stops

1436: 

Everyone ‘vegan’, happier people, resources saved,

food (once used for animal rearing) now used for feeding malnourished humans,

no more exotic eating habits amongst wealthy Westerners,

no longer overfed children living alongside children who are starving,

no longer parents growing exportable animal fodder instead of crops for the family,

no more conformity to popular food habits and junk food,

a recovery process, repair, nothing left to chance, everything repairable,

parents no longer 'going hard' and frightening their children with dead animals as food, parents with protective attitudes, extending out to fellow humans and to other beings,

us all being consistent in sensitivity to all life forms,

no difference between how we treat a son, daughter, cat, dog, pig, cow, tree or river,

carnivores edging towards vegetarianism, edging towards veganism,       

the beginning of peace - needing less approval and love and comfort, 

all altruistic by way of having a consistency-of-approach. 

Cake World

1435: 

I’d like to say this: altruism is the answer to everything.  But I mustn’t, because it sounds too unrealistic.  However, in a way, that’s what veganism is, an altruism translated into daily practice, a panacea to modern living.

Making a start to being altruistic, by becoming vegan - even that is regarded as too unrealistic.  It might look good on paper, but in reality it seems too impractical, too 'selfless'.  Strangely enough, it doesn't quite work out that way, since the benefits far outweigh the inconveniences.  So, if you can ‘do’ it, then two things stand out above all else: the food's better and the whole daily practice is invaluable for the well being of the soul.

Like many people, I sometimes converse with my ‘soul’.  I have these little chats, but I struggle. In theory I like the idea of ‘saving animals’ and avoiding crap food but I'm still drawn to what excites my taste buds, like those unhealthy but yummy foods most people indulge in.  I'm tempted, even though I know they are bad for the body and very hard on the soul if they contain ingredients from farmed animals.

By becoming vegan I deliberately paint myself into a corner.  I live in a society where a great variety of foods are on sale, most of which I choose to avoid.  Before I became vegan there was no cake shop I didn't enter and come out with something; there were virtually no tempting treats I wouldn't buy.  There was no sense of needing to avoid things, unless they were costly or exceptionally unhealthy.  But once vegan, all that changed dramatically.  For instance, there’s no way my conscience would let me go into a cake shop, because now I know what they do to cakes these days to make them attractive.  They are laden with sugar and fats and made attractive with creams, chocolate, fillings, toppings, crunchy-soft textures and sweet flavours, much of which is heavily laden with animal by-products.

In the world of cakes, the experience of biting into one of those delightful confections is unforgettable, leaving behind a craving for more of the same.  And with over indulgence, the rich cake leads to fattening and overweight and even diabetes.  But more importantly, money spent on these items profits the cake-maker who is a major customer of the producers of milk-egg-based by-products that come from farmed animals.

As a vegan, by foregoing all of this, we miss out on this world-of-cakes-and-desserts.  At home, we might not have the time, the skill or the inclination to produce fancy cakes and sweet treats, so one does without.  For a cake-aholic like me, the effect of standing aside from the commercial cake-world is my way of making a bold stand against the cruelty of the dairy industry.  And of course, the great benefit of avoiding all this delicious crap (let's call it 'non-food') is that as vegans we relieve our bodies of the clogging-up effect that is the basis of so much ill health.  The further benefit is the altruistic boycotting involved in denying this ugly dairy industry our dollars.  In this way, it lets vegans lead more altruistic lives.  And that’s what I want most, even more than the exquisite if short-lived enjoyment of today’s rich and varied cake-world.

Taking the initiative

1434: 

In one way particularly, we humans have lost our way, or as the moralists say “lost our moral compass”.  With its no-touch-animals policy, I think veganism helps people get back on the path.  By ‘no-touch’ I mean ‘exploit’, and I put it that way because it’s simpler to understand.  It’s a clear starting point, using the principle of harmlessness to affect every major attitude we hold, about animals especially.  It’s a force for good, not only because it’s a personal stabilising force but because it acts as a reference point; when we get confused and lose our bearings, we can always go back to the principle of harmlessness.

         

This principle governs the food we eat and the relationships we have with others.  It starts at home with setting personal standards that let us be not so difficult to live with.  Doing things harmlessly, gets us past our worst blockages with people.  It leads to good communication and an intelligent way of tackling many of today’s global problems.  As an all-purpose panacea, it’s something any of us can practise from home - by setting high standards of harmlessness.  It's likely that the most constructive changes-of-the-future will come out of this basket.  And therefore it follows that the impetus to take on a vegan lifestyle comes out of a conscious attempt to eschew harm.  In that way vegans set standards.

         

It’s no good waiting for others to do it first.  And surely, short of some catastrophe forcing their hand, no government is ever going to take bold initiatives, like the closing down of abattoirs. And with the abattoirs remaining open, humans will continue to have closed minds.

         

Minds can open simply by being ‘turned-on’, by inspiring behaviour.  When ordinary people stop indiscriminately believing what politicians, academics, churches and media tell them, they’ll start to think for themselves.  And feelings-felt mixed with an instinctive self-trust will change attitudes, after which we'll be free to discover the solutions we need. 

Useful, Practical Help

1433: 

Specifically vegans need to offer help, and our advice should be given with no strings attached.  We shouldn’t expect too much in return.

First up, we need to be concise and interesting, never seeming to want to recruit.  Animal Rights doesn’t need followers, it needs individuals who have come to their own conclusions, who are able to be their own judge and jury.

Vegans need to be exemplars of non-violence.  When we get a chance to speak out for the animals we have to set the example of not trying to clobber our opponents, especially if they make it easy for us.  We shouldn’t seem like bullies.  Even the most ardent opponent of Animal Rights should be regarded as a valuable challenge and potential colleague.  Despite opposition, we should try to reach everybody.  We’re not merely after thousands of supporters but billions of them, so it’s best not to fall out with anyone, unnecessarily.  We might want quick results but it’s likely to be a long journey.

Ingrained and Forgotten About

1432: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Ingrained and Forgotten About

Using animals (in all the many and varied ways they've always been used) is usually exonerated by humans.  We believe we can use animals, rear and kill them, and totally get away with it.  It almost feels like we have the right to do so, especially when no one complains.  Why would they, when animals are so useful in everyday life?  We don't hear any objections, because the worst abuses go on behind closed doors.  Few of us ever see animals being ill-used or killed, and that suits our sensibilities just fine.  In school or higher places of learning, the student is rarely taught about the inhumane practices of animal farms and slaughterhouses.  'The System' encourages students to study anything but this.  The Animal Industries remain unexamined so they enjoy a sanitised image.

Unlike any other area of human damage (where there's usually some public outcry) with animal abuse there is virtually none.  Almost everyone is a tacit supporter of the abuse because of what they themselves buy and use.  Protesting against common husbandry practices is limited.  Animals can't protest on their own behalf and humans won't for fear of losing valuable benefits.  This is why the ingrained habit of using animals isn't being widely questioned and why it continues uninterrupted. There's nothing other than the faint whisper of conscience that could bring us to account.  Our lifestyle defines us and we would find ourselves redefined by any dramatic change of lifestyle.  Cutting out all use of animals from one's lifestyle would seem like such a radical change.   We believe we'd never to be able to adjust to it, let alone keep up an avoidance of animal-based goods for the rest of our lives.

Animal-use habits usually start at a very early age.  Kids are habituated into using animals and maintain what they are accustomed to throughout their formative years. For example, some children may be used to having a dog in the house and feeding it with meat.  To not do so, or to not have a dog in the house at all, is unthinkable to them once they're used to having a family dog.  Our children walk out of the house in the rain, so they must have waterproof shoes.  Of course, rubber boots sweat and look clumsy and canvas shoes let in water.  Leather shoes, however, look good and keep feet dry.  When it's cold, children are dressed in warm clothing.  And none warmer than woollen jumpers (with no thought given to sheep freezing without their natural body covering)!  Kids play football - in leather boots.  They play cricket - with a leather ball.  Their favourite fast food  - a burger.  The treats children love are almost always laden with animal products.  There are many examples of children becoming habituated in these ways and they wouldn't take too kindly to a parent suddenly decreeing a 'no-use-of-animals' policy - unless the child has been brought up as a vegan from day one.  Once children are familiar with animal products, their acceptance of doing without them becomes ingrained.  They grow into the routine of not even thinking about what they use, whether it's the eating of food, wearing of clothing or NOT watching rodeos!  Children aren't expected to analyse these matters for themselves.  They simply do what they see others doing, do what they're told and copy what grown-ups do.  This is how habits form and why people, as they grow out of childhood, find it so hard to change their habits, even when they know, intellectually, that a habit is a bad one.

It's only when young people start to think for themselves (in that narrow time corridor between youth and adulthood) and can display enough innocent courage to follow a principle to its logical conclusion, that they have the time and inclination to question big issues.  It's then, with great resolve, that they might dare to break habits.  In this early transition age into adulthood, other pressures can bear down however, sometimes drowning out any 'rebellious' ideas.  The young adult, although making independent decisions, is nevertheless sometimes forced (mainly by peer pressure) into social conformity.  This almost always involves some form of animal-use.  These behaviours become ingrained, the 'no-use-of-animals' habit is set aside and (regretfully) largely forgotten about.   

It's Ingrained

1431:

Edited by CJ Tointon

We are so used to doing some things, that we don't even think about it.  We don't want to think about it.  Comfortable habits are hard to shake - especially the bad ones.  A classic example from the past is the way in which men got so used to women doing all the work at home (bearing and raising children, shopping, cooking, cleaning, etc., etc.) that they didn't want this comfortable status quo to change. There was no reason to anyway, since men controlled most things and women were kept powerless.  Women were regarded as a useful facility, providing what men wanted.  Gradually this is changing.  But the same principle still holds true.  The abuse of those beneficial 'facilities' doesn't call for any unnecessary questioning. Until the habit is challenged, it doesn't even enter one's head to question it, let alone change it.  A lifestyle-habit that works for us, becomes ingrained.  It makes no sense to 'fix what isn't broken', whether it be diet, clothing, relationships, a clapped-out car that still moves - or shoes!!

Let's discuss shoes.  From work boots to fashionable footwear, we take the wearing of them for granted – feet need protection.  They are often items we take care in choosing and can spend a considerable amount of money on.  Very few people ever think about them as being 'unethical'.   But that's the strange thing.  Everyone knows they're made of leather, and everyone knows that leather is the skin of a slaughtered animal!  But that's a long way from thinking about this substance as an abattoir item, or even worse, that this skin is of an animal that might have been raised primarily for its skin.  (This is why leather is often less a by-product and more a co-product, coming from an animal whose skin is more valuable than the food value of its carcass).  The ethicality of this is something we definitely do NOT want to be thinking about, because leather is so useful.  It's hard wearing, waterproof and can be shone up with polish to make our footwear look smart.  Shoes made from leather last for a long wearing time.  Almost everyone has worn leather shoes or boots at some time.  We've had shoes for best, shoes for walking and boots for playing sport.  Maybe we wear leather gloves and coats.  Maybe we sit on leather seats in the car or on leather sofas at home.  Our belts can be made of leather.  In fact, it's difficult to find shoes or belts that aren't made (at least partly) of leather.  It's difficult to imagine life without leather.  Leather is a good example of how we tend to by-pass the analysis we'd normally subject a product to when we determine if it's an economic buy or a healthy product.   This is evident when we examine how 'vegetarians' operate.  Some vegetarians (who would never eat meat)  think nothing of wearing animal skin.  Leather is a good example of how superficially some humans think about animals and the ethics of the things they buy.  There are even some vegans who still wear leather shoes whilst swearing they'd never eat anything from an animal. 

So this is all about how clearly or deeply we think about the things we use and how carefully we craft how we wish to be seen.  If we (vegans) are seen to be contributing to making improvements to farm animals' living conditions, we are so proud of this achievement, that we can conveniently forget that we are actually against keeping any animal in captivity for any reason. 


The bottom line here is that veganism isn't just about food or clothing or products.  In fact, it isn't really about commodities at all.  It's about animals being exploited by the food and clothing industries and it lets us reflect on the way convenience-oriented humans think about the products they use.  Most people think of animals only in terms of what can be usefully 'gotten from' or 'made from' them.  They keep their brains hardwired to avoid difficult questions - especially those concerning ethics. Ingrained habits take over the control of their freethinking.  This doesn't bode well for those animals that some humans find so 'useful'. 

Check the talk

1430: 

In any conversation on serious issues such as Animal Rights, all the time I’m checking myself, to be sure I’m not becoming too volatile, or that the conversation isn’t becoming too one sided (too much of my stuff, not enough of the opposition, or vice versa).  If a person’s opinion is mocked or ignored, they’ll feel put out or feel like they’re being lectured at.

Conversations about animal foods, about animal farming and killing, need to be interesting and worthwhile, disagreements notwithstanding.  It can be stimulating for all concerned, whenever one is exploring the pathways of thoughts and beliefs.  Without the moral overtones that this subject usually brings with it, wherever our discussions take us can be fascinating.  And as with a conversation on any serious topic, in the end we are surely all aiming to leave it on a positive note, so that, if necessary, we can resume it at a later date.

For vegans, Animal Rights is a deadly serious subject, and it can be grim at times.  But for us there is an up-side.  Taking this subject to heart brings meaning into our lives, and it follows that for us to pass on what we know, we need to become proficient in talking about it.  Ask any animal farmer, and they will admit animal husbandry is a complex subject, so for us who simply study it from books, we can't know everything pertaining to this subject.  Animal advocates usually try to learn the most interesting parts.  And sometimes, it’s only our own interest in learning the complex details of animal farming that keep us from losing impetus.  If we can absorb enough to enable us to talk competently, we can, in theory, change people’s attitudes.  And from there, we can bring them closer to understanding the main issues involved in Animal Rights. But there’s a danger here.

Becoming knowledgeable and learning how to talk informatively, leads towards a belief that one is RIGHT.  And it seems that as soon as we think we are right, we get careless.  We come to rely on our arguments too heavily and then lean too heavily on moral imperatives, trying to shock people into a quick conversion.  We drift away from the difficulties of human habit-change and begin to apply pressure, with horror stories about ‘conditions on animal farms and slaughterhouses’.  And sometimes that’s what is needed to tip the scales and get people thinking.  But it doesn’t always work, and even when it does it doesn’t get them thinking too much further. Often, our persuasions have a ‘Will o’ the Wisp infatuation about them; the impact of ‘our truths’ soon fade.

The fact is that entrenched eating habits are not easily or quickly changed from the outside - the true resistance to vegan ideas is so fierce that clued-up people won’t tolerate any sort of moral battering.  So, it depends on what we say and how we say it.  We might make a mild mannered mention of milk; what happens to cows and calves in the process of producing milk.  Or we could be mentioning the details of some grotesque animal torture.  What is appropriate to speak about depends on how we gauge the atmosphere; when to go into any sort of detail, we must recognise when to let it rest; when to resist the coup de grace of going in even harder.

By not becoming too rabid about this subject, we can show that we’re not trying to win personal kudos by promoting it.  By caring  about how we’re coming across, when talking to someone, we live to fight another day.  We might not stand much of a chance of being understood, but we can win some respect for what the Animal Rights movement is trying to achieve.

People may not agree with us, but people are our business; they are the customers of the Animal Industries who we hope to persuade to become non-customers.  These are the ones with whom we need to keep on side.

Embarrassing dinners

1429:

What is involved in the art of talking, if it’s not just tossing ideas about and keeping them afloat for a while?  And these ideas, we should be keeping them interesting and entertaining.

Perhaps the problem with most Animal Rights ideas is that they don’t have much ‘toss’ in them, and they aren’t entertaining.  For those who dislike the subject, it’s the very opposite of interesting.  It’s more like cringe-making.

         

It gets seriously embarrassing when conversation moves onto the matter of animal slavery and the need for its abolition.  For the ‘abolitionist’ it’s abolition or nothing.

         

It seems that the subject either provokes outrage or un-interest.  You’re either involved in it up to the hilt or you're wanting to sweep it under the carpet.  You’re either vegan or not.

The reason for such extreme opposite feelings, and the reason the subject is so contentious, is that it’s so very personal.  If you’re a vegans you’re implacably on one side of the fence and non-vegans, by dint of what they eat every day, are on the other.  Animal eaters prefer not to give the matter much thought, animal-eating being so habitual.  Every time they go food shopping or eat a meal, they pointedly avoid thinking about ‘this subject’.  If pressed, they’d be forced to admit that animals are not worthy of much consideration.  But this is more like a non-thought connected to a daily practice than a deeply held conviction.

Imagine a gathering, one evening, seated around the dinner table.  If there’s a vegan present there’s going to be a plate of different-looking food in front of the vegan.  And then it’s much more difficult to sustain this ‘non-thought’, because it’s so literally ‘in your face’; there’s obviously different food being eaten, that to comment on it is virtually unavoidable.  To comment or not comment; to risk an explanation and the possibility of that being discussed - who wants that at dinnertime?  Food, or rather the ethics of choosing to eat certain foods, is not a favourite topic of dinner conversation.  And unsolicited, it would be thought the height of bad manners and insensitivity if the vegan were to make an adverse comment about the food others were eating.

But often that is exactly what does happen, if not around the dinner party table then around the family dinner table.  A vegan making adverse comments about the food, and mentioning the ‘eating of corpses’, is hugely resented.

Other than complimenting the cook or praising the quality of the produce, food is not normally analysed too closely or adversely, in order that the enjoyment of eating isn’t spoiled.  The provenance and origins of the animal foods (likely to be leading to the reason for vegans being vegans) is avoided.  But whenever these matters are approached, especially when instigated by said vegan, it is probably going to be remembered.  So that next time, at any similar gathering there is one notable absentee, the vegan.

Meat eaters don’t like inviting vocal vegans around to meals.  In fact there’s no time when the meat eater wants to run the risk of being assaulted by a vegan’s views.  So if I ever get an invitation to eat amongst a bunch of meat-eaters, and if the subject of why my plate is different comes up, then I keep any discussion lively but short.  I don’t look for agreement, and I often make some self disparaging remark to soften the impact of what I might have said.  I keep things informative and non-value judging, without things getting personal or threatening ... so that if or when we do meet again, we’ll all still be on speaking terms.

Engaging in conversation

1428: 

If I say you should stop eating animals, I'm proposing a major change in your lifestyle and eating habits.  I’m not only alluding to the wrongness of animal slavery, I’m also saying animal food is crap food.  You don’t necessarily want to hear this, but that’s what I want to talk about.

         

So, I want to stimulate debate, encourage others to discuss these issues.  I want: they don’t want.  This means I’ve got a big job on my hands.  I’m doubly careful that my motives come across as genuine, and that I’m not into self aggrandisement or wanting to score points by being clever.  All I need to do is convince you I’m only wanting to engage you, on this subject, NOT to win an argument with you.  To me it’s only your benefit that interests me.  For me it’s not a win-win game.  I’m not trying to get the first punch in.  I don’t want to force a submission, quite the opposite.  My interest is in listening to people’s genuine concerns and, beyond that, to find out how to talk matters through without too much high emotion.

         

I won’t be coy.  This is an emotional issue.  Therefore I want to see a free flow of ideas and opinions.  Let them come as they may, without too much criticism.  Each idea flowing on, by developing out of the previous comment.  (Surely, any good conversation develops that way).  So, if we’re ‘discussing’ Animal Rights, we’re all learning something.  Importantly we’re also learning how to listen to each other.

         

Since it’s not a ‘win-win’ game, it has to feel a bit vulnerable - for my part, I don’t want to look too alert in case you think I’m eagle-eyeing you, waiting for you to make a mistake, which I can then correct.  No, I don’t want to prove anyone’s opinion is wrong.  And I don’t want you to think I’m just waiting for my turn to jump in to say what I want to say.

         

Even if I’m feeling personally (or we vegans are feeling collectively) marginalised, it’s no surprise, or it shouldn’t be.  We are, after all, minor players with what are regarded as minor issues, in a sea of major players (all of whom are omnivores).  I feel especially isolated when I merely mention the ‘v’ word.  I can feel so utterly out-gunned by the confidence they have, simply by their being in the majority.  For that reason alone I never try to crush the opposition view, because certainly when I try they will fly.  Away.  Because they can. Away to their corner of conformity, because that's the safe corner.

         

Vegans are up against an impenetrable wall of convention-opinion and attitude.  So, we have to be a bit ‘canny’, and not become too pushy, even when, especially when, we can.  We don't have to be too quick to say something irrefutable.  It’s so subtle, especially when we’re talking to a friend, and for them to already know where we stand on these issues.

         

I find in an ordinary, everyday conversation, I’m largely unselfconscious, in as much as I speak spontaneously.  When you think about it, it’s incredible - you say something and before I’ve thought up a reply I’ve already replied.  In other conversations on other subjects, where I’m not so confident, I still need to be speedy for fear that, otherwise, you’ll think I need time to make up my mind.  If I make a speedy response, you will think I 'm confident.  But, if I'm confident and quick, that might give me the impression that I can slip in something I want to bring up - namely 'the animal thing', allowing me to be a bit provocative.

Animal Rights is all-provocation, but by bringing it up or expressing it too hard, I can strain my relationship or friendship with you.  And it works in the opposite way too.  I hate offending anyone, least of all friends.  But I don’t like inhibiting my freedom of speech.  I don’t like walking on egg shells, with everything I say becoming too tentative.  Nothing useful is achieved with timidity.

         

The parent of adult children often has to hold their tongue, to minimise any strain on relations with over-confident offspring - if an argument arises, and the younger person’s defence barriers go up too quickly, the parent ‘smells’ danger and they’re obliged to back off.

         

So, what I’m saying is that it’s rather the same when trying to talk (to the uninitiated) about animal rights or vegan principles.  We get into scrapes. We can easily forget that we're in a delicate position, and realise too late that we must defuse the situation before it flares up.  Especially so, when discussing Animal Rights.

Communicating with a gentle touch

1427: 

When advocating Animal Rights, we need to speak up as strongly as we can but with a soft enough body language, so as not to frighten anyone off.  One hint of a sneer and we’re done for!

         

I want you to see in my face and hear in the tone of my voice that I’m NOT wanting to win my argument at any cost.  From my position, nothing is going to be expressed so emotionally that I hurt another person’s feelings.  It’s likely that the person we’re speaking with has very little idea that anything is so very wrong with what they do or eat or wear.  That’s their perception and it’s entrenched, ingrained and accepted.  However strongly we may feel about animals having rights, we can’t crack their perception with just a few well-chosen words.  Our first job is simply to engage.  Then, by establishing this preliminary (that I won’t come across as an evangelist about to sermonise) no one feels threatened.  It’s possible they might even want to know more.

I’d prefer to err on the side of coming across as a nice person.  I’d prefer to be seen as someone who can talk freely and say almost anything I want to, without seeming to be threatening.  Animal Rights is the most difficult subject in the world - it makes people feel edgy.  Consciously or subconsciously there’s a cloud of guilt floating through the sky, and it’s not as if we’re talking about the weather - this is a storm brewing which is all about the moral code by which we, as a society, operate.

Vegans have what might seem to others as a radical view about why we shouldn’t use animals for anything.  But, personally, I have another view too, about why we should be sensitive to each other.  And that means I don’t want to humiliate you or antagonise you.  I want to be prepared for differences to arise and still show that I'm able to deal with them calmly.  People aren’t so delicate in their words about us as we should try to be about them.  They’ve had less practice, and they’ll be less familiar with the arguments about animal issues.  Nor are they as aware of volatile reactions surrounding this particular subject.

I get extreme responses, where someone is reluctant to agree to too much, because they’ve got more to lose than me.  If they do agree, they fear that they'll be opening themselves up to possible attack, as if they might then have said to them, “So, if you agree, why aren’t you a vegan then, etc.”.

In terms of arguments vegans hold the best hand which we can play to our best advantage.  We don’t have to rub it in their face.  This is not about who has the cleverest arguments. If a person is listening to us (talking ‘vegan’) that’s a big step for them to make, in itself.

It’s incidental that they disagree with us about animal rights and that they are almost certainly still animal eaters - my main concern is for them (and of course for the animals they are eating).  That's enough to impel me to want to talk things through with them.  I reckon I have something that could add quality to their life.  But it's not a one way street.  They almost always will have something valuable to add to mine too; adding to my better understanding the reasoning behind the omnivore mind.

Non-judgement

1426: 

I find that the subject of animals usually arises when you're least expecting it.  We might be chatting about something and up comes this question of animals - using them, eating them, cruelty issues, carbon emissions, etc.

Instead of plunging straight into the issues themselves, I find it best to establish a non-judgemental ‘space’ first.  Because vegans are easily tempted towards making value judgements and non-vegans are tensing up in readiness for them coming their way, its useful to divert away from the expected.  Putting people at their ease is essential, if difficult.  We don’t need to patronise them but we do need to show we’re on the same page; that we’re no better or much different from each other; that I know how difficult the subject is; that I know everyone is at different stages, regarding animal foods, etc.; that I must try to establish a belief that everyone is at different levels, at different stages of their lives; that the Greens are greener than those who haven’t yet joined up; that the Freedom From Hunger campaigners are better informed and generous than those whose attention is focused elsewhere.

And vegans ... well, we have a most important job quite aside from promoting rights for animals, and I think it is in making others feels that no one is ever above anyone else, when all our values are balanced out.

All this fancy footwork has a purpose.  It equalises us and allows for listening, learning and teaching to take place without value judgements getting in the way.  It’s likely people want to know more about us, about our views and our diet.  But as soon as the preacher climbs the pulpit, communication is bound to end.  And it’s so easy for vegans, who have made major changes to their lifestyle at considerable personal inconvenience, to now wish to be admired on the strength of their life-of-principle; for them to be endowed with some sort of authority, as one might admire a monk or nun who has given up worldly concerns to better concentrate on their faith; for us to expect others to then sit at our feet to seek our wisdom.

Once we have laid the ground, and are seen as being approachable, then specifics of animal-use can be dealt with.  This subject is laden with emotion; it’s such an emotive and ego-laden issue.  To discuss anything about animals, it has to be important to first get close enough to trust each other, so that in the event of disagreeing, each is assured that one's affectionate nature will be maintained.  And it's doubly important to show that nothing can alter that, even when one is provoked.  That, above any other strategy, will stop our disagreements turning into a quarrel.

For good measure, I’ll throw in a small display of good manners with a dash of self-effacement, which sets the standard for mutual regard or at least an equal footing.  I find it’s a sufficiently powerful persuasion in itself.  I want to be seen as outrageous and daring, but always affectionate, and always insisting on mutual respect.  I see Animal Rights as being a peace movement where I have a responsibility to establish the idea that both humans and non-humans deserve respect.  As vegans we are in an ideal position to show how peaceful action and peaceful interaction can work, on all levels. 

Part 5 - The Experiment - using Plants for Food

1425: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Enter the VEGAN!  Vegans take a major role in an experiment to use plant-based foods as their only food. They are the ones who have stumbled upon the next stage of human development - the development of a Greater Intelligence. They are the ones who have put two and two together and gone against all social convention and current 'advice' to find out if it could possibly be true that the whole 'food structure' of human society is built on unsound footings. Gradually (generation after generation) plants are seen to be the only food suitable for developing Greater Intelligence. Plants come to be known as the real energy food, the only sustainable and ethical food.  By taking our food from the plant-base, we are living in cooperation with the climate and the minerals of the soil - and more!  As plants are the miraculous transmuting machinery of this planet, turning sunshine and heat into chlorophyll and breathable atmosphere, it would seem obvious that plants are the food for an evolving species.  Vegans have hit upon this idea.  They see great purpose in being able to show the way to subsequent generations of humans who have only a partial awareness of how best to survive and only a partial consciousness of humans' potential-intelligence.

This progress is not easy.  Humans have created a safe niche which has turned into a trap.  They've built-up habits which are attractive initially and they'll dance to almost any tune that appeals to the senses.  Habit will cooperate with and strengthen any destructive force, although constructive habits will also install themselves by way of self-imposed discipline.  Habit will hold hands with the seductress or it will support attempts to resist seduction, according to human will.  A Vegan’s experimentation with plant-based foods and clothing, forms a new habit.  By taking up this new habit and experiencing the feelings of satisfaction and safety it offers, one notices how well it coincides with the whole of Nature's system of sustainability.  This type of intelligence aligns human nature with Nature itself.

But I’m jumping ahead.  This is the realm of potential.  In 2015, the end product is not yet realised.  Humble Vegans are still fumbling along trying to discard the mind-sets they grew up with;  while fellow non-Vegan humans seem to want only to impose their reality on everyone to make themselves feel safer.  By doing this, however, they sow doubt in the minds of those who are experimenting with new ways and who are attempting to break an age-old association with the slave/master model.      


That's where we are right now!    

Part 4 - The Secret Purpose of Domesticated Animals

1424: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

The main purpose of domesticated farm animals is 'transubstantiate'. It's as if they have been 'volunteered' to penetrate the human psyche via the body. As fanciful as it sounds, there has been no other way to get through to human consciousness.  In their enslaved and then lifeless capacity, animals serve their purpose.   It's cumulative however.  

Animals, their body parts and secretions, accrete within the human body weakening various functions until the human is forced into making One Big Decision  - STOP EATING AND USING THEM!  In so doing, these humans arrive at a fuller consciousness of the vulnerability of their own physical condition.  Eventually they come to realise that the foods they've always eaten have weakened them in important ways and damaged their potential for gaining greater intelligence. For those who wake up in time and realise they've been tricked, it's not too late to step into present self-awareness, however frightening that may initially feel.

Reaching ultimate potential intelligence (as opposed to a comparatively primitive development of brain power) doesn't happen overnight.  Greater human intelligence requires a sound foundation in order to achieve the safety and confidence to go further.  It must be built up, brick by brick.  This 'greater intelligence' arrives incrementally, until a point is reached where it is obviously a departure from 'brain building'.   And to leave the relative simplicity of developing brain function in order to arrive at developing a more powerful intelligence, the human must experiment with living intelligently.  This means personal pleasure taking second place to the first-rate pleasure of developing greater intelligence. 

Once this is arrived at, any number of outcomes are possible.  But alas, we can’t foresee any of them because they're in the future.  They haven't happened yet.  So, we go back to the beginning, to the long distant past. We have animals 'volunteer' to seduce humans into becoming slave masters, an offer too tempting for the primitive human to pass up.  The human goes through many centuries of hunting animals, corralling them, caging them, collecting from them, torturing them, killing them, eating them.  Since it appears to make sense to them that passive animals can guarantee a food supply when held captive, they become the main energy source.  This energy (feeding the developing human brain) suggests a logic to the human.  Animals held in concentration camp conditions are always 'on tap'.  If they can be held captive and continuously bred in captivity, it is no longer necessary to chase and hunt them down.


The great fear of the human (as with any animal) is starvation and death from weakness and lack of sustenance.  A strong body and strong brain are the safety factors all animals prize.  Humans, by prostituting their humanity and benefitting from being physically and mentally superior to all other sentient creatures, fall into the most classic trap of all traps - taking on Nature at her own game.  The human allows Nature’s 'recruits' to go to work on their bodies, not realising the damage this habit is causing them.  Nature allows the free-willed human to enter its slave-master role, in order to 'bring them to their senses'.  And those who DO come to their senses and see what is happening to their fellow humans, begin to engineer an eventual change of course for themselves.  If animal foods bring us everything BUT true safety, then a greater logic suggests that the idea of animals being used for food is not such a good idea after all.  Logically, then, the experiment must be made of using plants for food instead of fellow sentients.  

Part 3 - Nature Creates Necessary Tension

1423:

Edited by CJ Tointon

Nature has had to create necessary tension, in order to test the potential of the human.  To this end, she has recruited willing participants (and this has to be seen with the broadest imagination possible) to cooperate in bringing the bigger picture into focus.   Animals playing a main part in the awakening of human consciousness.

However it might be justified, this stage in the planet's development involves the so-called 'domesticated' animals performing an unenviable yet essential role - to get humans past their sensate-only, brutish, carnivorous stage, to using plant-based foods only!  The eating of animals would need to be habituated first, however, in order to then be seen as redundant.  All the cruelty, enslavement and routine mass murdering done to animals is an essential element in the quickening of this realisation.  Nature's recruitment of certain animals to take on this grim role reflects the scale of transformation that needs to take place in this difficult process.

In a nutshell then, my (admittedly) unusual take on things is all about - sentience.  Seeing it as a trap when not understood and a springboard when it is.  Animals are sentient.  They feel, they can sense and they're aware, which makes the human use of animals so significant (in terms of this current millennial glitch in our evolution) and our abuse of them all the uglier.  Sentience provides all animals with a suitable amount of sensitivity and brain power to allow for their physical survival.  It is an essential part of the predatory nature of this planet, essential to the survival of all moving beings, some of whom may be into eating other moving beings!  But the acquiring of sentience is but one purpose.  It isn't all that humans can develop.  In their awareness, humans become conscious of consciousness itself.  We may be urged towards a greater intelligence, but we must first understand the reason why human intelligence must move on.

Humans should know that their potential has two faces - the possibility of either failure or success.  It must be made clear which route leads to which outcome.  This could take some considerable time and be measured in generations.  Which route is the best one for us to take in life is tantalising.   At first, we might hope to shortcut the deal and arrive at 'success' without making too much effort.  But the next stage of intelligence can't be reached by cheating or bypassing essential lessons.  This is the one big lesson facing us all.  And while humans are learning that important lesson, they are still very much in transition.  They are still juggling their options, still reluctant to give up what they have, still afraid of losing out and still would do anything NOT to be shown to be wrong.   But by making mistakes on a grand collective level (the most notable example of which would be the farming of fellow sentient animals) we learn what we have to do to make a break with what is holding us back. 

Meanwhile, back at the recruiting tent, volunteers sign up for Nature's kamikaze work, essential to bring the human to its senses, to bring that species to a point of decision, where personal ambition gives way to wanting to work for the greater good.  The kamikaze's job is to teach humans that their greatest mistake is the use and inevitable abuse of animals.  Only once this lesson is learned, can humans move on. 
At this point, it occurs to the first 'new humans' that there is something more important than just learning how to survive.  Most of us in the West have never been hungry for more than about half a day.  Not having to fret about hunger has allowed us to contemplate other important matters.  We can see in ourselves an awareness that seems at times boundless and if it does nothing else, it suggests the reason for moving forward.  From living a safe, dull, one-dimensional physical existence, we might go on to see something of broader dimension, encompassing survival, safety, growth, as well as an empathy directed at protecting both oneself and others.  It's rather like a parental role, guiding and nurturing the young.  All creatures guard the child until the child can take on the same parental role for their young. And so it goes, at whatever level the sentient being is at.  The route it chooses is confirmed when things are moving on sustainably and peacefully.  Things are noticeably NOT moving forward when there's violence or destruction or corruption or indeed mistakes. Mistakes are central to the learning process, just as long as one is learning from them ... and moving on.


Back to the recruitment tent.  Nature asks for volunteers - namely animals!  Their qualifications involve an ability to submit to the greater game plan, sustaining humans through their initial stages of limited intelligence and confidence then developing their sense of security.  Eventually a generation of  'pioneers' emerges to introduce an essential revolution of ethical thinking for the next stage in human development - bringing about and then guarding a healthier, brighter world.   The animals who volunteer for this onerous role, who become the main source of humans' strength of body and brain, earn their place in history.  They bring with them the Great Lesson, a selfish cycle, showing that "hurt humans hurt animals who hurt humans". From the warped human relationship with these animals (including animal based foods eaten so abundantly by humans) comes a clarity of purpose necessary before humans can strike out towards their perceived potential.  It's tragic that so many beautiful animals have to suffer slavery, abuse and the ugliest of deaths over a long period of time in order to jolt the human mindset from violence to the next mindset - kindness.

Part 2 - Where are Humans Going?

1422: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

What is our purpose, as humans, for being on this planet?  It’s doubtful that we're here just to build factories, pollute the planet and subjugate other sentient beings!  If we do have a serious purpose for being here, it might have to evolve into the consciousness of a more advanced being than we are at present.  Our purpose would be made clearer to us, as we took on a wiser role within the ecosystem, grown out of our 'early' stage of hedonistic and self-centred development.  In other words, humans developing beyond where we use our huge brain capacity exclusively to advantage ourselves.   From this point in a rocky journey towards gaining an insight into our mistakes and our potential, we would then be able to move towards becoming more advanced beings.  But we fear loss.  We might want to move to the next stage in our development, but we don't want to lose what we've so far achieved.

The transition from the earlier 'stage' to the next, involves a broader realisation of where we might be going and the adoption of an entirely different approach to daily life.  It would seem obvious that we start with a respect for other life forms, which in turn would imply a change in the food we eat.  We could then use our 'great brains' for the benefit of the planet to sustain it into the future.  Otherwise, we'll simply follow the dictates of our senses and remain unable to contemplate any other purpose than the one we've always known - identifying ourselves as prime advantage-takers.
So, if there is a logical sequence to human development, it would have to pass through various stages.  The first stage involves exploring our own sentience and creating all the brilliant things our brains come up with.  During this exploration period, life would 'suggest' its potential for anyone caring to pick up on it.  It would  appear as something more than mere existence.  We would become aware of our own capabilities to feel and sense things and thus advance to the next stage. 

It takes a long time for humans to give up what gives them pleasure - particularly animal foods - and to realise the dangers these suspect foods represent.  We have become so attached to this main source of food, that any move away from it seems to threaten our very existence, closely associated with a particular attitude of species superiority.   As ugly and unintelligent as it might seem, our brain power has been used to establish our advantage over other species (and that includes gaining advantage within our own species too).  The next stage (as far as we can see at this time) starts when our brain is willing to see beyond itself towards future untapped intelligence potential.


Homo sapiens haven't yet reached this future 'arrival point'.  It’s difficult to see what our intelligence potential might be or indeed specifically what could be holding our species back;  unless we enter the world of rather fanciful ideas.  It's easier to follow this thread if we consider Nature herself not only as the governing force of the planet, but as the embodiment of sustainability, representing the long-term survival of all life forms, each of whom is an aspect of  'Gaia' or the bigger picture.  Her 'design' allows for the possibility of humans becoming  aware of their own purpose.  This involves humans growing through a primitive stage (like any other sentient being) but having the potential to arrive at a point where 'consciousness' starts to guess at its purpose.   At first, there would seem to be no greater purpose than simply becoming  the dominant species.   But eventually, as the human goes through various stages of development, there emerges something that is more like a greater intelligence.  And the purpose of this intelligence would be to displace our more primitive human urges, in order to become a guardian presence on the planet.  In order to function into the future, humans have to make all the mistakes of an evolving intelligence, going through self-interest, violence, domination, individuality and come out at the other end into the garden of Gaia.

A Transubstantive Suggestion - in Five Parts

Part 1 - What is Animal Rights?

1421: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Animal Rights is about animals having the right to a life!  It's not much to ask;  but humans have stolen this right from them - from certain animals that is.  For many, many centuries we humans have been doing whatever we want to animals and no one's objected.  Most people have learnt nothing over the years regarding animal slavery, animal incarceration or animals bred in captivity.  Some of us, however, have learnt a valuable lesson about the significance of denying sentient beings their liberty and we've decided to disassociate from that practice entirely!  
Over the centuries, humans have practised animal enslavement on a grand scale.  It's been so routine for so long that it now seems normal.  Most people on the planet wouldn't think twice about it.  Animals are simply there to be used. But there's a vicious circle here.  The animals are reared in unhealthy conditions, are killed as unhealthy animals and pass their 'un-health' onto the humans who eat them.  Farmed animals are kept alive by being fed all manner of artificial supplements, their muscle tissue is flooded with adrenalin when in terror at the point of execution and this in turn is passed on to the human body when the animal material is ingested. The integrity of an otherwise healthy functioning metabolism and immune system is compromised, making the animal-eater vulnerable to many serious illnesses.  Using animals for food creates a two-tiered problem.  The first is the ethical problem of denying them their right to a life and the consumer's conscious or subconscious shame in supporting this.  The second is the physical effect of eating the body parts and secretions of unhealthy animals everyday of one's life.  And, like the emperor's new clothes, almost no one dares say a word against the practice because almost everyone is involved.
Vegans consider the practice of  'animals for food' unacceptable, not normal, unwise and fundamentally wrong.  Apart from being nutritionally and ethically dangerous, it presents a barrier to the further evolutionary progress of our species.  Homo sapiens have developed superiority over other life forms.  We are the dominant species.  We have already achieved the survival of the fittest.  But what does "the fittest" really mean in this context?  We might continue to survive by way of dominating other species or any potential predator, but there is no quality to our survival.  Our own evolution is held back, both by our abuse of an enslaved species and our dependency on it, which we're now unable to control.
With our reliance on animal products, our ability to stay healthy is weakened.  But we've also compromised the ability of these animals to survive if they were ever liberated.  Over centuries, humans have mutated and manipulated the animals they've farmed to such an extent, that they would no longer be able to survive in the wild – they’d be easily picked off by any number of predators.  If freed, they would die as helplessly as a babe thrown into a river.  But, unfortunately, the farm gates are unlikely to be opened any time soon.  Animal farms and abattoirs would be the last institutions omnivores would willingly shut down.  Enslaved animals are hardly likely be released from captivity as long as humans perceive them to be their most important food source.

If  humans woke up one morning with a sudden burst of intelligence and courage, or if there were a change of heart amongst us, then the solution would be a clear (if radical) one.  We'd stop breeding animals.  We'd leave them alone and find all our food from plants.  Unless we stop using animals for food and clothing, our species will never be able to move on.

Vegans not-reacting

1420: 

If we are discussing the merits of Animal Rights, the argument-advantage is always ours.  We have a handle on the issues, whereas non-vegans have the embarrassment of holding too many weak arguments.  In terms of point-scoring, we have nothing to fear whereas they do, despite being part of the majority's opinion.  So we shouldn’t be trying to win arguments, rather we should be seen to be encouraging discussion.  For that reason alone, we should be careful, like a card player, not to use all our trump cards too soon, if at all.

Where’s all this going?  Me talking to you, you reacting to my tone, my words, my looks, my arguments.  Do you see me trying to provoke an argument?  Do you see me as being on the attack?

         

How am I feeling in front of you, when I wonder what will happen if I lose my advantage?  Or if I lose control of my ‘vibrations’, and you see through me?  Or if I seem like a book that has an unpalatable story? And how can I avoid you sensing hostility when I bring up the subject of ‘Animal Rights’?

Perhaps I must bear in mind one rule:  I am NOT trying to change anyone’s mind.  I'm observing you but trying my hardest not to judge you, because that's always going to be reciprocated.  It's a neutral starting point I want from you, about me.  If any change of heart is to take place for you, it's something you'll want to do for yourself, in your own time.  All I should be trying to do is get useful information across.  To that end, I should be quick, or at least to the point.  But, not cover issues too quickly, and not too pointedly either.

This is how I see it: talk is a two way road.  I need to convince you that I think listening is just as important as talking, and to show this I’ll listen to you with an open mind and wait till it’s my turn to speak.  If you make a response which isn't to-my-liking, then it's up to me NOT to take umbrage.  If I say something ‘vegan-inspired’ and you rubbish it and my ego gets bruised, it's not for me to feel offended or show that I've been offended.  Hardened animal advocates should be immune to any of these surface tensions. 

         

I like to think of these interactions as Big Events.  However they’re probably not big events to those we’re speaking with, who don’t realise why we’re getting so excited over this animal thing.  They won’t necessarily realise that we’re ‘being urgent’, both on the animals’ behalf and for them too.  They might only think we're trying to get their approval for our being vegan.  Maybe that's not fair, but we should be used to having our motives misjudged.  That we care about people's well-being as much as wanting rights for animals would probably be a foreign concept to most non-vegans.  Therefore, it's unlikely that non-vegans would believe that the vegan-advocate wants to prevent life-threatening dangers being visited on fellow humans just as much as wanting animal liberation.

The logic behind vegan principle is like the enjoyment you get from a good book or a good story.  It’s all in the detail - details we think about when we’re alone with our own private thoughts.  The thread of logic, quite apart from the empathy factor or promoting ethical values or compassion, runs right through vegan principle, from the starting point to a very attractive end-point.  It runs from the eating of healthy food, through animal rights, through non-violence and ending up, one day, to there being a sustainable and peaceful planet.

         

I hope whatever I have to say on this subject will just seem like a good story.  But knowing myself, I'll probably end up coming on too strong.  And when I’m trampling the roses, getting confrontational or personal, that’s when I might start to seem unfriendly.  For any one of us, as soon as we withdraw our affection, it shows.  Every one of us, from babyhood to old age is hard-wired to spot this danger in the other.  We are for ever on the look-out to see if a person has a nasty side.  And that's when we watch out for those nasty value judgements, which ultimately stop people listening and slow down the process of changing-one's-views.

*********************************************************************

THE BLOG NOW continues with A LONG ARTICLE, BROKEN UP INTO FIVE PARTS, starting (tomorrow) Monday through Friday, all of which has been edited by my very dear vegan friend CJ Tointon.  As usual, whenever you notice any good English expression in these blogs, it's usually down to her good work.  It's all done pro bono, and with skill and enthusiasm on her part.  And I'll take this opportunity here to thank her most profoundly for her assistance.

From tomorrow: A Transubstantive Suggestion - in Five Parts

Reaction to Vegan Principle

1419:

You won’t find many vegans who don’t have a lot to say about why they are vegan.  You won't find many non-vegans eager to listen, either.  Most vegans know what it’s like to be misunderstood, ignored or reacted badly to.  It pisses us off.  We might resent our negative reactors, but it's important to bear in mind that this is not about us, our feelings or our resentments.  We are fighting a long uphill battle for animal rights.  We have to do our best to communicate what we think is important to those who think it's unimportant.  Showing how we feel, resentment, etc, runs counter to communication.  We have to learn to swallow our personal feelings in all this.  But it's difficult to hide feelings.

It’s not just about NOT making judgements about people who don’t agree with us, it’s about not showing our judgements.  We must try to seem impartial.  But it’s difficult to seem unemotional, to NOT declare our feelings too strongly or too quickly, especially when we're trying to get something unpalatable across.  And then we are handicapped by people expecting us to be judgemental, and that's mainly what they are reacting to.  Value judgments are expected.  And from our point of view, however unhelpful they might be, they can slip out, in even the slightest tone of voice or raised eyebrow.

The challenge for us is to appear calm when someone proudly boasts about their eating of animals (perhaps goading us).  It’s expected that the vegan would condemn this - it's what’s being looked for from us.  And if we can’t rise to the challenge, if instead we give them what they expect, it gives them good reason to label us as 'Vegan Nazi'.  They have every right to hate our value-judging.  They’re quick to accuse us of being aggressive, however careful we’re trying NOT to be.

So, it might go something like this – neither wants to be hated by the other, but we still both want something robust to be discussed; I’m trying to be guarded, you’re being hypersensitive, we both want something more to happen than just a polite exchange.

Is this sometimes why either side of the debate will attempt to go for broke, to be aggressive, make some small-but-sharp value judgement, not in so many words necessarily, but by implication? (For example, the vegan implying that all omnivores are hypocrites).  Perhaps what happens is that what we mean, but don't quite say, is transmitted almost telepathically.

Whatever happens, however careful we each think we are being in our exchanges, inevitably something in the air can change.  With words, tone of voice, body language or even by our non-reaction and silence, either side is perceived by the other, either justly or unjustly, to be either attacking or overly defensive.  If this is so, then one of the initiatives for vegans is to set standards of interaction and discussion, for it's almost always us who wants to engage the non-vegan, not the other way round.  So it's beholden upon us to be aware of  how WE come across.  More people are put off by our approach when talking on this subject than by the perceived blandness of the vegan diet.