The Starting Line

1613: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Vegans don't want to be thought of as 'missionaries', nor as being too mild-mannered to speak out. We want to be taken seriously and have what we say considered constructively (whilst not sounding too dogmatic). We want to be seen as showing respect for the integrity of any person who is willing to listen to what we have to say. We don't need 'agreement' - especially if that means you go home and promptly forget what you'd agreed to and just slip back into old habits.

Imagine I'd been talking to you about Animal Rights and Veganism. You'd nodded at what I'd been saying (perhaps to give the impression of agreement because that's what you thought I was after). It's not about my getting you to tell me I'm right, however. I don't need to be humoured in that way. In fact, I'd rather have disagreement and a robust debate! I want to 'devils advocate' issues without sounding too high and mighty about your being seriously misinformed or uninformed. But (and I stress) I'm not out to win converts; only to get people to start thinking afresh.

The trick is to tread a fine line between informing you and maintaining an equal footing between us; not about me being the 'know-all' and you being the 'know-nothing'. I don't want you to think I'm pouring much needed information into an empty vessel. I realise you have arrived at your present position (that it's okay to be using animals) after a lifetime of thought. As soon as I rubbish your point of view - I've lost you. In the early stages of our dialogue, I'd be wanting you to think that I'm more interested in guiding information past you, on what might be a long journey over a very rocky and resistant road.

However 'smart' my approach, however 'slick' my arguments, however 'nice' a person I might seem to be; I know that I represent just one side of a debate that has been going on for a long, long time. As much as you might think my only interest is in persuading you to my side; you should also know that I do have an interest in learning something myself by listening to the other side of the argument. We all prefer to be right; but that in itself creates an obstacle to communication. It's very off-putting to be with someone who believes they're right and that any differing view must therefore be wrong and ripe for altering.

I might believe my position concerning animal use and plant food nutrition to be morally correct; but this doesn't give me the right to earbash anyone whom I believe is morally incorrect. So if I'm given the chance to put my point of view across, out of respect to you, I should try to be short and sweet. I doubt that it's at all useful to initially go into any great detail. You might want to hear something about Veganism - but not everything. At first, you'll want to establish a few important matters as to whether I'm a fair-minded person, an interesting person, or indeed if I'm just too boring to listen to!


 My aim would be to show you that I am patient and open and willing to share all my views when you, the listener, is ready to hear them. Much the same way that the reader is only ready to read when the book is opened. At first, I have to concentrate on making sure you know clearly where I'm coming from. My opening gambit has to be the central premise of my argument: that I believe we should not be touching animals at all. This is the start of it all. If this isn't established first, you might think that all I have to say is a lead-up to promoting a vegetarian diet (with something extra thrown in) as if it were a position which has no broader philosophical bases.