Self deception

1829: 

Even if we don’t actually take part in the grisly act of murdering animals ourselves, we give tacit support to those who do, despite feeling sad for the whole sorry business.

         

It seems that some humans are able to hurt animals without a second thought, whilst others can’t. However, most ‘kind-hearted people’ do stand-by and let it happen. It's rather as if they're watching the school bully beat up a small kid in the playground, and pretending not to see. They look in the opposite direction, in much the same way we do watching an ugly news items on TV. We regard it as a story. And we can’t afford to empathise too closely for fear we'll find it too depressing. We separate from it, as when reading fiction.

Imagine watching an animal being slaughtered at the abattoir. That's at the nub of things. Question: "Do I find it disturbing to be sharing the animal's pain or am I simply disturbed by my own guilty passivity? If we do imagine, or actually see-live, the pig imprisoned then slaughtered, we'll notice the nub. When the creature is facing it's helplessness, and showing terror. At this, we might feel outrage. But also, a nasty prick of conscience when we try to deny it or look away from it.

Eating meat is such an ordinary event. And yet now, knowing about the cruelty involved in the production of meat, everything should change. But it doesn’t. The surprise is that we can still eat meat and animal by-products, and still justify it. Any old way will do. Anything, in order to lessen the guilt and maintain maximum eating-enjoyment.

When there’s no honourable way out, we resort to self-deception, which involves a complicated negation of our most sophisticated bits and pieces, but in so doing crush our very spirit. 

Meeting resistance

1828: 

What sort of people are vegans speaking to when we do get the chance to speak? We always hope they will be compliant and eager to learn. But often, we're faced with ‘reluctants’.

We have to bear in mind that many people don’t feel badly about behaving badly. If they do know about the suffering of animals, it might not matter to them, and therefore eating these animals won’t concern them either. It seems as though nothing will get them to pull back on their animal eating. They will only change their food-eating patterns if they have reason enough and want to badly enough.

We can appeal to their sense of right-behaviour, to their health, to their compassion but if animal-eating is legal and if most other people do it, there’s no argument in the world that will persuade some hardened carnivores to change, especially if they aren’t afraid of the effects of animal food; it is their usual food after all. But just in case they have been troubled by what they’ve heard, they’ll try not to let their mind rest on the subject of Animal Rights, let alone consider changing their diet as radically as we are suggesting.

For all of us, our favourite foods each play a part in maintaining the equilibrium of our mood. It’s the one consistently satisfying material we have access to. Continuously, throughout the day, our body needs topping up to satisfy hunger as well as our emotional needs. We usually go for ‘eatables’ which make us feel good. We all know from an early age the exact pleasure in the taste of things. So, an ice cream will be an instant gratifier, or a chocolate bar, a milk-shake or a steak. Gaining access to foods and drinks that will guarantee pleasure is something we all know 'how to do'. It's a most familiar pursuit. We know what we like, and make sure we get it. We need a very good reason to avoid any ‘satisfier’.

However, if we want to take up an ethical reform of our lives, and if it were as all-encompassing as veganism, then we are going into the business of confronting our food addictions. That might prove difficult enough for ourselves as we wrestle with our senses and try to take control of our decision-making. But it will also be disturbing for our friends and family; going vegan is a bit like committing social suicide, in that we would be eating differently to other people.

Vegans, as most people realise, acquire a different perspective to non-vegans. And in attempting to persuade people away from their usual food regime, we are often met with reluctance or hostility. We speak of animals having rights and we see people’s eyes glaze over. Our 'words of wisdom' will meet either indifference or outright dismissal. So in the face of resistance, we need to work out how to initiate some form of communication on the subject of animal-eating and attitudes towards farmed animals. Once there’s talk there’s hope!

Judge and jury

1827:

We are better-informed these days. We’re starting to get all the information we need make the links between ethics and personal choices. With a computer and a few mouse clicks, we can be our own judge and jury on the major issues of the day. Then it's just a matter of prioritising things. And if the animal issue is prominent then, by being as fully informed as we can be, it helps to make our own life easier, and for us to become more effective as animal advocates. We can switch away from poor quality and animal-based foods to whole, plant-based foods. And by eating more intelligently and ethically, it puts us in a better position to take up the work of communicating animal rights issues to people, and stay healthy while we do it.

The Cost of Being Acceptable

1826: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

As soon as we start to view animals (any animal) as being of 'significance', as being 'sentient', we have to think seriously about how we 'use' them in our daily lives. Once the flood gates open and our thoughts and feelings have been stirred, there's no going back. If we can pass on from the fear of all that implies, we might feel an uplift in knowing that we are a long way from where we once were. It's risky and potentially transforming and it can mark a change in our relationship with our own souls and with the many enslaved animals presently on Death Row. The change: To no longer consort with The Abattoir.

When we embark on a plant based diet and throw away our woollen clothing and leather shoes for something better, we pass the point of no return. This is often considered as insurrection or treason by people from whom we once sought approval. We are seen to be disassociating ourselves from the values of the society to which they conform. We are deliberately moving to a different source for our consumer goods, somewhere where animals haven't been tortured just to make things for us.

But there are obstacles along the way. It's not always as straightforward in practice as in theory. There are many influences holding us back. We might still consider that we belong to Society, where in so many other important ways, we want to conform to certain standards of behaviour. All of us want to be accepted and liked and decisions have to be made when we enter adulthood concerning this matter of 'acceptable behaviour'. We are actors on a stage, putting on a show for those from whom we seek approval and love. We are inculcated with timeless values and the right and wrong ways of doing things. It's here that we face the temptation to compromise when it comes to our responsibilities. It's here that we find reasons why we can't fulfil them (but sounding good when we do) and refining it to an art. The upshot is that we 'sound good' but 'do nothing'.

We have a choice - and it's not an easy one to make. If the people we love don't agree with our convictions, do we persuade ourselves that their acceptance of us is worth more than sticking to our own (perhaps newly discovered) principles?

Good Moods/Bad Moods

1825: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Would you like to win approval from a pig? Whilst humans can communicate feelings between each other easily, pigs and humans don't have a language in common, therefore communing with them is difficult. Nor do most of us ever get to meet a pig so our interest in them is usually low. We might pity them. We might empathise with their plight or even imagine their feelings, but most people choose to just not think of them at all. Do they empathise with us? Probably not. Humans must surely be regarded by them as their enemies, tormentors and gaolers. It's been this way throughout the generations - because people like to eat pigs!

Communications between fellow humans is different from human/animal communications. When we are admired and 'approved of' by other people, or when there's a social rapport, it makes us feel good. There's nothing quite like it. And if there is mutual good feeling being communicated in a subtle or overt way, it can be the 'food of love'. Whether it's through eye contact, a smile or a show of affection, it can lift one's spirits to the point of exhilaration.

But it's likely that our ethical principles and our ability to empathise with 'the pig' would not bring much in the way of admiration or approval from our fellow humans. In fact, it could endanger our relationships. The omnivore would be bewildered by our 'pointless empathy'. They wouldn't understand. It happens quite frequently when vegans socialise. When we eat with others and it becomes obvious that we are NOT sharing the same food, there's a withdrawal of mutual approval. The very act of not eating something with an animal connection, becomes a statement of difference in values. And that can spell danger to any human relationship. To the animal eater, it's as if the vegan has dampened an otherwise pleasant mood around the dinner table.

I suspect that 'mood' is our main master. When something affects our mood, we notice what it is. Once a difference appears, e.g. someone eating and enjoying meat and someone showing their disapproval by refusing to eat it, we become conscious of a change in atmosphere. Moods shift. Differences become confronting. Mutual good feeling disappears.

In contrast, the presence of 'good mood' feels like strength. We feel it when we're in love, in a state of high energy and good health, or when we're happy, inspired or admired. But, depending on the origin of this 'good mood', if we feel empowered by it, we might decide to ride the wave and go exploring. We might dare to step beyond, momentarily leaving part of our old self behind and pursuing an aspect of a new self. And if that means we are raising our consciousness a notch, we might then begin to uncover a new set of challenges, which, if tackled, can bring us to a heightened state of sensitivity. 

But when this touches on our use of animals, as inspiring as that may be, we also know there will be certain implications. At first we become more conscious of some of the foods we've been eating. We become more aware of what we've been doing all our lives - using animals for food! The more we empathise with 'food' animals, the more the matter of 'sentience' comes into the picture. We consider the feelings they have. We have to admit that they are not all that different to our own companion animals. If the family dog can show loyalty and affection, there's no reason why a farm animal (like a pig) can't have the same set of feelings. But unlike our companion animal at home, there's nothing being communicated between us and the farm animal. If we ever do come into live contact with one, the two-way flow is unquestionable. No sooner do we regard the animal as sentient (like ourselves) than we begin to think differently about them. This marks the very great difference between vegans and omnivores. 

Health horrors

1824: 

Surely the Western educated and well-informed person has twigged by now that the decline in people's state of general health is related to the ready availability of tempting food items that are disastrous for health. If it's finger-lickin' good you can be sure that's as good as it gets. Fast foods are conventional animal-based foods notched up for taste. They've become a daily assault on the body, and represent today's worst eating habits. Consequently, we are far less healthy and far fatter than we need to be.

Surely the connection is obvious, between the large numbers of sick humans and the animal-based foods being eaten. The meats and dairy-egg products come from unhealthy animals, pumped with dangerous chemicals and largely fed on unnatural foods. Because the consequences of our food choices are not immediately evident, our bodies seem to tolerate chemical abuse over many years. The progressive effect on the body is slow enough for us not to notice the tell-tale, incremental changes, and since people become addicted to these foods they don't want to notice. They think they've 'got away with it'. Throughout childhood and on into adulthood, we prize our freedom to choose what we eat. We continue eating the same foods for many decades, until the body starts to show the accumulated effects of those thousands of meals and snacks we've consumed. But by then it's too late to undo the damage.

If we realise anything at all, it is that we've been manipulated, tempted, addicted and numbed to the cruelty behind our food. It's a case of ethics and health being sacrificed for free-willed decision making.

Animal-based food - the consequences

1823: 

If vegan food seems grim, if it has that image, then our job is to show that it isn’t. We have to learn how to prepare it, cook it and discover ways to ‘wow’ people with it. Alongside that, we should find ways to restore our own personal image, as people to be looked up to. We are dealing with animals and people, both. Which means our approach to both should be warm and instructive.

Animal Rights advocacy starts with awakening an attitude of kindness towards animals, which flows on to a kindness towards people, along with a certain sense of kin-ness. This is not to say we shouldn’t be bold and challenging at the same time. Perhaps there’s room to stir things up, just to get the juices flowing, just to get people thinking about the absurdity of what they do by eating animals. And then we need to clear up any misunderstandings about why vegans are vegans.

We may do a lot of talking about food, but obviously there are deeper reasons for being vegan. We’re mainly concerned about animal slavery. Look at any one animal on any farm and we can see an individual animal in a state of great suffering. They, like their human counterparts of many years ago (and even today in some parts of the world) are prisoners. They have no real life, just a forced existence. And because we are so far removed from their situation, we never think about it. If we did think at all, then no one could deny what terrible suffering we inflict on these creatures. The sentience of the animal screams for freedom and a return to a full life, but we hear no screams; we pretend it isn't happening. And worse, we may know of it but most humans have the belief that we shouldn't feel guilty about it. That’s quite a stretch of credibility, especially since the ‘keeping’ of animals is not necessary for human life. The human species, acting as one, have let things slip into a comfortable acceptance of animal slavery. In the process, as animal conditions deteriorate and human health worsens, so those who eat these tormented animals and their by-products have endangered their own health. And brought the heavy weight of hypocrisy down upon themselves. 

Rushing to the rescue

1822: 

Obviously boycotting animal products isn't easy, especially at first. Our addiction to many products on the market is entrenched. And yet we know, as a species, we're highly adaptive and that change isn't really as hard as we think it might be.

         

Many of us want to be rushing to the rescue. We know this will mean giving up many things we’ve been used to, particularly food. We’d be making a big statement, and for that we need to make the necessary practical changes to our lives, so that we can back up our words. It’s not only our own private food tastes that need to be changed, it’s also the collective mindset shared by almost everyone we know.

What are we most up against? Perhaps in the case of using-animals for human convenience, we face a majority attitude of pitilessness. The lives of domesticated animals tests the pity in us, and if we can’t feel that we’ll do what we’ve always done, what everyone else does. If we do feel enough empathy, however, we know we’ll have to make some difficult, personal lifestyle changes. Hopefully it will take us into a level of altruism that is kinder, 'greener', and of course in line with vegan principles. But this 'vegan' thing, even if it weren't about animals or health, it would still be the most logical and intelligent way to go, spiritually.

By being vegan we are, to some extent, in a state of self control over our food and consumer habits. That in itself is empowering. But there’s a bonus from choosing plant-based foods – they’re energising, they’re an aid to thinking, and give us a perspective that omnivores can’t possibly have, to be able to see how to make repairs.

         

One might be saving forests or saving starving children or saving exploited creatures, but one’s initial drive is always on the need for urgent repair. Of course, we can't start any big, new initiative without first repairing the damage already done to ourselves. So, in the business of saving animals we have to get things sorted out, by being vegan first off. Then, and only then, after making this essential personal repair can other repairs be made possible.

         

But ‘repair’ sounds like such a dull and unrewarding business. Unless we see it as the ‘new creative’. Creativity is perhaps what we need most. This makes ‘doing the right thing’ less of a duty and more of an adventure. And without it, repairs will just be for show, and won’t last. It seems obvious that, to vegans, any small gestures, any non-lasting repairs, would be a waste of time and effort.

Once you ‘go vegan’ you do it for life. If repairing our own attitudes concerning the use of animals weakens and we go back to our old omnivore ways, we’d feel foolish and shallow, as if our ideals had simply been wishful thinking or boasting. Once our attitudes shift (and in accordance with them we become vegan) then there’s no reason, other than weak will, to abandon them.  

Judgemental talk backfiring

1821:

When we are discussing things, you and I, how much do I value good feeling between us? Do I try to defuse things when I sense things getting out of hand? How do I pull back in time? How do I let any bad feelings blow over, especially within that vital microsecond, before things go too far?

Surely it comes back to not judging another person’s values, despite the fact that they believe they have the right to attack the very animals you spend so much time defending. It comes down to resisting the temptation to become antagonistic towards someone because of the attitudes they have. When things begin to get out of hand, we should observe a code of conduct; by having such a strong belief in non-violence, vegans should surely avoid inadvertently touching the most raw nerve in an adversary. And when it comes the other way around, when we're being cornered, it’s important that we don’t get hypersensitive. It's up to vegans to set the highest standards both in food choices and in behaviour with others.

Communications on this subject of Animal Rights is fraught with dangers. As soon as we feel entitled to get our point across no matter what, we will surely fail. As soon as we go for broke, show we're not scared of getting rough, we run the risk of losing mutual respect or even whole friendships, over our differences of opinion.

I’ve found that ‘going for broke’ never wins the argument. So, it comes down to this - do I really think that the issue of Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly terms with someone? Perhaps I’ll argue that I must be true to my role as animal-advocate – I must rigorously defend them under all circumstances. But what if this approach is doomed to failure, because the collective mindset is so well established? To the omnivore it sounds as though we are saying, "Eat what I eat or we can't be friends". Put that way, it sounds as though we're keen to make enemies of omnivores, rather than trying to educate them.

Maybe vegans shouldn't be trying to win arguments, since there mostly IS no argument, nor any disagreement being reached, nor any real discussion of issues. It never quite gets that far. Better perhaps to establish that, as vegans, we are following a non-violence policy. This can impress and even win over the most hostile adversary, because this value is applicable not only to the food we eat but the non-judgemental basis of one's relationships.

If we come across as clear, fair and confident without becoming personal, it makes us seem less scary. It makes us approachable. It allows a person to put up a counter argument without the fear of being shot down.

More is achieved by showing mutual respect than anything else. As an example of non-violent principles, vegans can show humility by not being easily sucked into a fight, even though it means leaving our true feelings on this subject undeclared.

But, you might say, is this honest? If we have strong views surely we shouldn’t be afraid to lay them on the line. And why should defending a position strenuously have to go pear-shaped anyway? Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, is stimulating in itself. Surely we are mature enough to break through barriers of politeness in order to uproot old fashioned attitudes? Surely a frisson of tension makes an issue come alive, even if that makes us feel uncomfortable?

This ‘Animal Rights’ subject is a classic divider, even between close friends. The vulcanologist never knows when or how big the volcanic eruption is going to be before it happens. Similarly, we never know exactly what will set another person off, or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them?

What’s important here is surely not about our own human sensitivities being bruised, but the possibility of ‘blowing it’. Let’s not forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently on Death Row. Surely our own sensitivities pale into insignificance when compared to the suffering of domesticated animals. Surely passion outweighs politeness - a little bit of aggression is excusable in order to demonstrate our outrage? Isn't it time to move on from being Mr Nice Guy?

         

But this is all about perception. The emotion behind whatever words we use is the thing that's noticed. If it's aggressive, it's ugly - so we are seen to be ugly and our arguments therefore dodgy. Passionate advocacy can only coexist with non-violence when the emotion of non-violence is present. And then only if we have an invitation to speak freely should we confront others' attitudes and values, and even then we should moderate the confronting emotion out of respect for others’ feelings.  

Fixing dinner

1820:

Animal Rights is the ultimate confrontation. It is social justice put to its ultimate test, arguing the reasons why animals deserve rights.

People are reluctant to discuss it because the society we know and accept is built on our right to exploit animals. Without our licence to kill, abattoirs would close, and meat, milk, eggs and cheese would no longer be legal food. Is it any wonder that people are reluctant to lose these ‘goodies’ and the thousands of edible items made with animal derivatives?

Plant-based diets seem so radical. An ethically based plant-based diet is not only radical but a life-long commitment. This means never again will you ever taste an omelette, milk chocolate, cheese sandwich, let alone rump steak or chicken breast - one might then presume a vegan diet based upon vegan principles would be difficult.

The very thought of restricting one’s eating to foods from the plant kingdom is likely to be unnerving. But from a practising vegan’s point of view, it doesn’t seem that way at all. Once the safety of the diet is established and some of the ‘replacements’ are discovered, ‘going vegan’ doesn’t need to be such a big deal. We save animals and promote ‘veganism’, hoping others will do the same. It follows that the more who go vegan, the greater the variety of vegan products will appear in shops, thus making it all becoming that much easier for people to make the transition from omnivore to herbivore.

But none of this is likely to happen until vegan ingredients stop looking like war-time rations, especially these days when food has come to be regarded as a comforter. The health-only vegans might mean well but their emphasis on whole foods, raw foods and plain eating might be off-putting (although to seasoned vegans this is not how is seems at all) whereas ‘wicked’ vegan food, which is ‘good-tasting’, might serve as a better transition.

In this highly pressured society where we seem to need a release from daily stress, our security blanket is very often food. Which is why it has to be attractive, and be attractively tasty. That can be quite a challenge for home-cooking. It’s not just at the restaurant, with all their facilities and variety on offer, where we can enjoy vegan food. We must be able to knock up attractive meals at home, where our foods rival omnivore’s cuisine.

For most of us, food means preparing our own, and that means every night’s dinner with a looking-forward-to feel about it. Only then will ‘being vegan’ be something we link to ‘indulging’ in attractive food. 

The wall

1819:

When you see our society through vegan eyes so much becomes clear about our habits - the selfishness, violence, stupidity and weakness of humans. Habits developed early in life lock us into later ones, so primal taste sensations in childhood, urging us to eat what we like eating, continue into adulthood; there’s nothing in the food-eating experience itself to make us want to change. For almost everyone, this means a whole lot of animals are killed in order that we can have the food we want. This settles into a lifetime of eating habits that lead to ill health, and that eventually lead us into ‘old-age’ diseases. Elderly patients visit their GP complaining that they feel unwell all the time. The doctor says it’s just getting old and we can expect it. We believe the doctor. No changes of lifestyle habits are prescribed. We spend a lifetime eating poisonous foods and developing a guilty conscience for conspiring with animal violence, and we can't expect any good to come out of it. Vegans aren’t immune to illness but they just don’t suffer in this way, because they are eating plant foods which are conducive to good health and a good conscience.

Learning the vital information about plant foods is done quite easily today. Nothing can be kept secret. The animal industries are exposed. But that's not to say that we want to be looking. We may be content with the way things are, afraid to move on, intimidated by the massive propaganda wall we would have to climb over. This wall has been built in our minds during our formative years and most people accept the attitude that animals are safe to eat, and that it isn’t wrong to imprison them and kill them.

If we’re suspicious of what we’ve been taught and have enough rebellious spirit in us, then we might go exploring. And once we dare to climb that wall, the mind starts to change. Instead of avoiding information we start to look for it. And to our surprise, we find it easy. We come to see what life’s like on the other side.

Young people (and a few older ones too), using technology to access information, start to take control of what they learn, and thereby learn different values suited to a different lifestyle. Traditions and conventions and authorities and mass media will attempt to scream their opposite values at us. But in answer to that, we are now strong enough to disassociate from their dark, violent world. We become more optimistic about our own future as well as wanting the best for the planet. Simply by eating plant foods we radically alter our previously conventional attitudes as well as defend the innocent, exploited animals.

We swop foods, swop attitudes and eventually notice we’ve also swopped body chemistry. I’ve even found that my own small brain functions better when not weighed down with animal foods. And feeling unwell, catching colds, having too little energy - it’s all a thing of the past.

For young people especially, the great advantage of having read about Animal Rights and vegan diets gives a new perspective on life. Now one is more self-confident. One feels better educated. And one is less manipulated by no longer living in ignorance of important issues .

As soon as we move on, we’re already half way to solving Earth’s main problems by being less wanting, less selfish, already repairing damage, and leading our society towards becoming  more optimistic. 

Young Vegans vs Old Vegans

1818: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Vegans have given the matter of "Animal Rights" a great deal of thought and make a huge statement for the non-use of animals in the way they choose to live. The bases for our arguments against animal cruelty are so simple, honest and truthful, that vegans usually feel confident discussing this subject with anyone who is willing to engage us in fair debate; but few do. This can make vegans feel frustrated and disappointed - which is just how non-vegans want us to feel. It gives the impression of being 'abandoned'.

This is how a 'vegan image' forms and how the Animal Industries conspire to win loyalty amongst the consumer masses. By dint of that loyalty, vegans can be denigrated, even pitied, along with their bag of arguments. There's a major difference in opinions here regarding the use of animals. Non-vegans consider them 'for human use only' - not as sentient creatures deserving lives of their own. Older vegans are generally put-down by the majority because, in their perception, we are too ready to abandon anyone who is NOT vegan. Friends, family, even innocent bystanders, can all be scorched by us. 

But cutting through all this comes a healthy, happy bunch of 'new vegans' - in their teens and twenties. They seem to be unwilling to get tangled up in quarrelling on a personal basis. They believe that one's vegan principles are one's own private framework upon which a sound vegan lifestyle is based. They make no attempt to change others - except by example. They have no interest in winning arguments or shaming others about what they eat or do. They realise that 'carnism' is too deeply set into the collective psyche to attempt to force it out. Force, heavy persuasion or emotional blackmail represents the failed techniques of the past. The 'young-who-get-it' understand that if anything significant is going to happen at all, it's going to be by way of a slow fashion change where people come to veganism in their own time, without being pushed by others.

But what about animals in the here and now who are suffering mutilation, languishing in cages or being transported to abattoirs? Who is helping them? Who's in their corner? It brings us back to the free-willed individuals populating the planet by the billions who are legally doing something that we vegans consider immoral and wrong. It brings us back to the essential understanding of WHY. Why are otherwise good people, adult, older people, blind to all of this? Until we can study the reasons WHY individuals are not thinking for themselves; why they are ever willing to just follow the majority and give in to the sensual experiences of eating animal products, we won't get far convincing the majority of meat eaters that they are playing a dangerous and evil game.

Fighting talk

1817: 

If I’m talking about things with fellow animal advocates, I’m encouraged to speak boldly; we will be in agreement that the animals need vigorous advocacy. But things are different when I argue my case with an adversary. On this sensitive subject, where there are few strong arguments to be made for animal use (enslaving animals, in other words) there’s a reluctance to discuss it at all. So if the subject arises, and I intend to say anything at all, I’m having to work hard simply to get permission-to-speak. I can debate my case patiently, but I might not have the go-ahead from the person I'm talking with, in which case they’ll turn off, and I’ll be talking to a brick wall.

What is it like being in your shoes? I have to be sensitive to how much interest you have in this subject, so I should watch carefully, be alert to signs of your attention wandering, your eyes drifting off my face, even notice if you’re beginning to feel negatively about me. I’ll be asking myself if I’m going on too long, becoming too locked-on to my own point of view to allow you to say something. On a subtler level, I should be all the time monitoring my own tone of voice, in case there’s an aggressive edge creeping in, scaring you off.

If I miss any of these signs, it’s likely you’ll start to give out signals of your own, trying to indicate that you only wanted the subject to be touched on lightly. Not wanting to be cornered into agreeing.

If you and I do get to discuss this subject seriously, it’s likely major differences of opinion will appear. And if things get heated, what then?  Do I try to ‘bring it on’? Or do I step back, to prevent things getting out of hand? And if so, that would be a plus, since I’d be showing how non-violent I really am. Or rather how respectful I am, by stopping myself before I stray into the personal or become aggressive.

It’s frustrating for vegans when we get a chance to speak, to have to cut short before we've even got going. But that's the reality when dealing with this particular subject. We might have to ask where this determination comes from, to establish my position, even to provoke someone in order to get a reaction? We need to look deeply at our motives, and to what extent we value another person’s free-will and their right to disagree. We need to question why, when things aren’t going our way in a discussion, when we've been unable to sound convincing or have the appropriate facts at hand, we can resort to being confronting. Or if the shoe is on the other foot, and we're being confronted, how that might make us feel and how we will handle it. 

Avoiding fighting

1817:

To avoid an exchange of views turning into a fight we must examine our motives. I have to ask myself just one honest question, regarding any conversation I have - was it intended to be a casual chat about whatever arises spontaneously or was I manipulating it? Did I start out a seemingly friendly-enough conversation with an agenda? Was I trying to steer the conversation towards this one fundamental difference of opinion, in order that I could make a speech? Did I ever consider how the other person might feel if I confronted them? Was I, in fact, looking for a fight?

         

If I wanted a show-down then, however good my arguments might be, I’d always be intending to put the other person on the defensive. In return, they’d be wanting to burst my bubble. Even if I’m not a bully, even if I’m as nice as pie, this subject (ethics of using animals for food and clothing, animal husbandry and slaughtering) is not a lightweight subject. It’s about one’s deepest, most profound outlook on life. It points to how kind-hearted we are or how cold hearted we can be.

If people feel generally okay about their own life, if they see themself as a kind person, they will expect others to recognise that in them. So, if I come along and suggest that they are not at all a nice person, then my tone alone will give me away, making whatever I say sound like a personal attack.

Perhaps that’s not what’s going on in my own head. I’m probably saying to myself that if my arguments are water-tight, then surely anyone hearing them will have to agree. But no. It’s not likely they’ll pick up this ‘good idea’ of mine just because I’ve hit them over the head with it.  People have learnt to stand up for themselves and stand firm against anyone who is perceived to be attacking them, however correct their arguments. They’ll be searching around in their heads for the sharpest words, to defend themselves. And that’s a long way from constructive dialogue, exchanging views and learning from each other.

I’m right and you’re wrong

1816: 

If I think I’m right it doesn’t bestow magical powers on my arguments. Just because I’m fearless with my words, it doesn’t make everything I say impressive; it’s more likely to be irritating. Perhaps I like to see myself as radical and outspoken, as brave and admirable. But it’s likely, anyway, that what I’m saying will be disagreed with by others, if only for them to save face. And one more thing. When I try to make people feel ashamed, they remember that and avoid me in future. They see it that I’m boasting about my own achievements, and that will cloud everything else, with the result that they won’t be picking up the information I’m trying to get across.

         

I might enjoy chatting about my favourite subject, but I run the risk of my being regarded as a bore, especially when I show no interest in what the other person might want to say. As soon as I start ‘going-on’ about eating meat or animal cruelty, it might be seen as one big yawn. And it’s taken personally, as if I’m being purposely offensive. They’ll want me to stop, and if I don’t stop there’s likely to be a flare-up. So, a light hearted chat between two people with opposing views may be, on any other subject than this, stimulating. On any other subject we can agree to disagree, but not with this subject. This is between two entirely different values, the one seemingly selfish, the other seemingly unselfish. Disagreeing on this matter of indulgence versus self-denial can soon enough turn into a full blown fight. 

Force

1815: 

If we make veganism just about health and a cruelty-free lifestyle we sell it short. It’s an attitude more than anything else, which can stimulate a whole new way of thinking. It produces a new flow of energy. It broadens our view, so that we can examine opposite views without feeling like a traitor to the cause.

Because it feels right, being vegan, you don’t have that immediate defensiveness when being questioned about it. Vegan principle is broad enough to stimulate original thought, turning conventional ways of living upside down and yet allowing people to come to their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

It might be my aim to promote a radical change of attitude but if I use guilt and fear to strengthen my argument, I won’t succeed. If I seem too persuasive it’s as though I don’t have enough confidence in what I’m saying. And if I get aggressive it will seem like an ambush; just one slightly raised eyebrow when I say “I’m vegan” is enough to give the wrong impression, as if I’m a little too safe, too right, too boastful. Just by feeling the tiniest bit morally superior is as obvious to the person we’re talking to as it might be unobvious to ourselves; I hardly know I’m doing it - when the tone of my voice carries with it a disapproving value-judgement.

I might have a lot to say about the wrongness of animal exploitation or the wisdom of living a non-violent lifestyle, but before I start to speak out, I might need to unravel a lot of my own attitude before I can start to talk productively and effectively on this subject.    Just because I think I’m right doesn’t mean my approach is right.

Hardened humans

1814a: 

If I believe there’s any trace of hard-heartedness in me, then I’m on my way to being barbaric, or something similar, which makes me afraid that I’m not heading in the right direction. It’s a fear of making no progress. When there are so many animals not safe from us, then we may say that we are dangerous beings, and I for one don’t want to see our species like that. On a personal level we most of us want to save our souls, and not have to conform or be held back by the bad behaviour of our own species. We know we have a reputation for violence, and if we aren't completely self-satisfied, then we're probably haunted by what we know that happens on our behalf.

         

Fifty billion domesticated farm animals who are alive today are currently on Death Row. None of them have any quality of life. None have any reason to live, since none have any contact with the natural world. If not consciously, then sub consciously, I’m sure people are aware of the ways they are involved in all of this.

I’m sure our own happiness is linked to wanting others to be happy too, whether they be humans or animals. Conversely, our unhappiness is undoubtedly linked to our attachment to those commodities extracted from animals who are being treated cruelly. We humans are social animals, we like to be with people and win their approval. But we also want to win self approval and don’t want to be weighed down by and become implicated in other people’s mistakes.

In the most sober and non-judgemental way, we can accept that we are all much the same under the skin but just at different levels of awareness. I’m fairly sure that our greatest differences are superficial. We can bring ourselves closer to each other by assessing and mutually agreeing about what is important and what is not? But if there is one big barrier stopping us getting close to one another it is the loss of discrimination between what is obvious and what we deliberately choose NOT to notice. This allows us to be led by those who provide us with products we want who happen to be the main perpetrators of animal cruelty. If we don't want to notice what they do then we can't be truly close to those who have noticed and have chosen to boycott their products.

The block against vegan-thinking is deep

1814 : 

   

One person eats meat and thinks nothing of it. Another would sooner die than touch the stuff.  That sounds like a big difference, but is it so large?  Here are two extremes of view, arrived at via two different reasonings.

         

It’s no good giving up eating meat if you hate the idea of being vegetarian. If you’re forcing yourself to eat food you don’t like you will either be ill or die. All of us know we have to feel good about our food choices, or at least not feel bad. If you are a meat eater then you’re going to have to put out of your mind what they do to animals on factory farms, or any sort of farms. You’ll have to see it as an ‘unimportant matter’ and not give it a second thought. And do quite a lot of pretending to convince yourself you aren’t being what you’d rather you weren’t.

For many of us though, it’s different. We need to develop a sensitive conscience because we suspect we are in the greatest of dangers, in that our minds are in danger of being manipulated.

We are an emulating species. We look up to those who are cleverer and more good looking than us. The well appointed actor in the ads looks happy and is doing or eating or selling something that looks attractive, implying that we can be just like him or her if we follow their advice.

For those of us not so easily fooled, who are far more cynical, we are perhaps more interested in seeking an independent mind. Do we not fear manipulation, blind conformity, allowing persuasion to work on us to convince us that what makes them look so happy and appealing will do the same for us? 

I’m very suspicious of my fellow humans, because I’ve seen what they are capable of, especially when they’ve turned off their discrimination, and followed commercially inspired advice, especially when that involves food, and attractive food at that. We all know, when it comes to those especially attractive animal products, that some vested interests are employing out of work actors to spruik their goods. They are the chief animal exploiters, and have picked on the weakest sentient beings, and taken advantage of their weakness.

           

My concern is that certain habits are entrenched so deeply that, even if change is possible it won’t be implemented, because people are just too comfortable with their existing habits, particularly food habits. It’s as if there’s not enough get-up-and-go in people to even address let alone tackle important issues, such as our consumer involvement in the unethical and unnecessary practice of using animals for food and clothing. They prefer to perceive these practices as unimportant, and consider veganism too high a price to pay for peace of mind. “We won’t consider it, won’t even discuss it. We won’t take it seriously”. 

Making Things Better for Animals

1812: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

If living conditions for farm animals are made better, it's a plus. Trouble is, by emphasising 'improvement', it lends a respectability to the whole business of keeping animals for food. Or, to put it another way (as my friend CJ says, referring to the recent ACT outlawing of certain intensive farming practices) "the improvements will make the ordinary consumer feel okay about eating meat/eggs because the poor creatures are in better conditions”. CJ fears that this “will only make things WORSE for the animals”.  I agree.

Unless we stand firm about the NON-USE principle, it will be swamped by those who represent the easier-to-implement, compromised position when it comes to animal use. I think we should appeal to the highest and most generous aspect of the human spirit and encourage people to think that it's not enough to merely improve animal welfare - we should have nothing to do with ANY of it! 

What's needed is a new perception of farm animals so our relationship with them can never again be watered down to suit human convenience. Because they are sentient and sensitive, because they run away when attacked, because they develop social groups and care for their offspring (just as humans do) animals should never be objectified. 

They are NOT inanimate. They are distinctly different from carrots. They cannot be regarded as mere commodities any more than humans can. The shift in how we perceive certain animals, e.g. pigs, chickens, fish, cows, sheep, etc.  involves seeing them as irreplaceable, sovereign individuals. Those who are enslaved in captivity with no control over their lives, who are fattened for slaughter or groomed for other forms of food or clothing production, NEED OUR HELP! If animals are to be released from slavery, it will only come about when humans begin to think of them as they might an abused child who needs a permanent safety base.

There are too many people in our present society who will not see animals in this way and who are willing to do almost anything to make a living out of using/abusing them. There needs to be clear priorities regarding animals. Firstly, DON'T EAT THEM. Secondly, help release them into a protected environment where they're no longer 'bred' or 'farmed'. This requires a radical change in the way we perceive animals and this will only come about through human generosity of spirit and empathy. 

True liberation

1811: 

These days my passion is for non-violence alongside a concern for farmed animals. I’m looking up ahead. I’m seeing that animals and humans are inextricably linked, their fortunes and ours are directly dependent upon our becoming protectors of them.

         

We humans have always been violent and exploitative towards animals and now the time has come for us to atone for wrongs done and become their guardians. They need our laws to make them safe, and we need to learn from them how to restore our own sensitivity. It’s a two way road - the need for human liberation is even more urgent than animal liberation, if only because by observing of the peaceful nature of these animals, we will learn where to start. Humans are the violators and therefore it’s we humans who need to change. The 'domesticated' animals don’t need to, unless we can help them recover their true wild natures. If that is unrealistic, then at least we can try to help them gain liberation and protection from us. And for that, we non-animal-abusers first have to prove we are worthy to be their representatives.

         

My feeling is that if things don’t work out well for the animals, things won’t progress for any of us. Humans, having such a long tradition of treating animals barbarically, seem like true barbarians in every sense of the word. But that’s not how I want to see myself. I want to see the humanitarian side of me. And I think others might want to see themselves that way too. But it’s going to need a change of attitude towards animals, by a lot of people, all of whom would no longer be wanting to use, keep or eat animals.

Until at least 50% of the human population realises there’s an animal problem, the animal problem will remain. And we will remain a barbaric species. We may eventually get the worst abuses fixed, we may swing over to becoming vegetarians but that will still be a long way from true liberation, for animals or for us. 

On being a bit over the top

1810: 

When I was still buying unethical products, I knew that I was collaborating in the very thing I wanted to see changed. Ideally, I wanted to promote sustainable systems; I wanted to show my concern for the planet as well as the animals; I wanted to ease my conscience; I wanted to see myself for who I thought I was, namely a non-violent person. I wanted to conduct myself with dignity, not by being mild or passive but by way of dignified outrage! For that, some big change was needed. And so I changed my omnivorous habits, and I was going to change everyone else's. Oh yes!!

         

My approach to animal abuse was direct. It was the only way I knew that might work, namely to protest against the violence to animals. Surely that’s unarguable? But no one seemed to want to talk about it. It was very frustrating. I would get quite aggressive towards non-vegans. I was almost proud to act without restraint. I became intense in order to get my point across. I thought it was okay to be pushy, since it was for a good cause. I had a duty to be forceful. I didn’t realise at the time how close that was to ‘fighting violence with violence’.

         

Animal Rights activists believe we have won significant welfare reforms for animals by being non-compromising and sometimes outrageous. By using this approach we’ve brought issues to public attention and ended many of the worst abuses of animals. But it hasn’t convinced the majority of consumers to change their eating habits. They may have caught our dirty looks but they haven’t felt the opprobrium of anyone else. They haven’t felt the urge or the responsibility to change their daily habits. The collective conscience hasn’t been tweaked. And all the time the consumer continues to provide the Animal Industries with financial support, nothing will change. So much for me changing the world!! Why hasn’t it worked?

         

This is what I think has happened – many people have had a similar negative experience with an animal activist. They’ve heard us talking passionately but found it hard to identify with us.  On an emotional level, people want to disagree with our arguments not just because they love their animal foods but because they can’t identify with the sort of person who can get that angry. One might want to listen to a passionate advocate but it’s like listening to great music on a radio which is picking up a lot of static interference. It’s an uncomfortable experience, it jars on the nerves, and you just want it to stop.

         

Over the past thirty odd years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, we’ve unfortunately built an aggro, ‘in-yer-face’ image. I speak for myself when I say that I’ve handed people a golden opportunity to dislike me and therefore dislike what I’m saying. I’ve lessened, not increased, my chances of being able to discuss important issues concerning animals. A low key, informative chat with me is unlikely. I’ve seemed like a person who is only interested in others agreeing with me. When I’m around there’s little chance to state your own opinion.

         

In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to education. As a spokesperson-for-the-cause I look exactly like the wrong person for Animal Rights education, especially if my arguments are powerful. Perhaps I need to believe that the animals’ story would touch the hearts of people without my prodding. Perhaps I don’t have enough faith in ‘vegan’ being attractive, or Animal Rights being exciting enough. My message sounds hard and uncompromising. It’s off-putting. And as for the issues themselves, well, the consumer has enough to think about already, so they might consign ‘animal issues’ to the back burner or the too-hard-basket. And consign the likes of me to wherever it is they prefer me to be - out of sight and out of mind.

The rounded individual versus the imbalanced

1809:

In practical terms, of course, empathy is modified by the inconvenience it causes. If you empathise with animals you have to suffer the inconvenience of never using anything made with animal products. And then, to speak to others about this, might make you seem to be too righteous for your own good. So, there are traps and obstacles for the enthusiastic vegan.

         

I’ve got a list of don’ts to start this off: I need to avoid the temptation to harangue people, or to trap them into agreeing with me. It’s too obvious and clumsy to simply hit people over the head with ‘veganism’, especially if it's too bizarre for them to contemplate. Even if they want to agree with me, give me encouragement, make me think I’ve got through to them, they may be simply trying to shut me up, rather as if I'm a smoke filled room and they're struggling to breathe some fresh air.

Once adjusted to the subject of talking Animal Rights, there is some sort of understanding of the unfamiliar. But I find that even the most friendly listener will usually slip back into old habits after I’ve left; they never really intend to go along with what I’m saying. People aren’t stupid. They value their life, their safety, their lifestyle, their social life with friends, eating together and especially not standing out like a sore thumb. Sure, there's an attraction in being individual but not too much so. Becoming vegan is a big step.

         

I’m not trying to guild the lily. I know I mustn’t hold back on the many personal and practical implications of being vegan. For you to be swapping to a new normality is a great leap away from the security you’ve always known. So, I usually fall back on one thing - that you will eventually see the value of one brave decision over the easier status quo.

The most obvious life-comforts might be: clothing, social links and taste in food. But a bigger comfort involves self esteem, and if that is being eroded by the guilt of being involved in a system we'd want to disapprove of, then the value of good self esteem might be too important to ignore. It comes down to what value we place on having a clear conscience rather than a chronically guilty one.

Many people today do feel guilty about a number of things they do.  One example: giving support and encouragement to those who pollute the environment; most of us want to ‘do something about it’, so we recycle, we buy ‘green’, we conserve energy. And of course there is more guilt elsewhere; being over fed while so many are going hungry; having well appointed homes while so many are without homes. If you feel overwhelmed by guilt, perhaps you won’t want to add more to the mix, by being involved with the exploiting of animals. So, you try to ignore this one.

         

I would suggest that this is the next layer of guilt to be stripped away, to feel better about our imperfect selves. We can’t fix up one issue, like 'the environment', first before addressing the next most-important issue. It surely doesn’t work that way. Instead, by gradually raising awareness of each issue, and seeing how it affects our own lives and the planet’s, the necessary repairs can be carried out simultaneously and incrementally.

All I would say is that to totally ignore animal issues means we are certainly afraid of addressing this subject. Ignoring it won’t make it go away. If anything, the daily involvement in the exploitation of animals will make us feel ever more out of kilter, as if we feel advanced in some ways but held back because of another. In this case, one's inability to address animal issues or to change one's eating and clothing habits according to our innermost principles.

The communication game

1808:

       

Once we can clean up our act at home (establish a vegan kitchen for example) it’s a good start. It’s good for the kitchen, for the body, for the mind, for the animals, etc. But the trap is ready to spring shut on ‘me’.

I consult the mirror, and what a fine image I present - a complaisant vegan, ready to climb into the pulpit and tell everyone I meet what sinners they are, and how I’ve seen the light, etc? What a great figure of fun I’d be, if I tried that stunt.

If we want to be taken seriously, any hint of that must disappear. Preaching and pontificating is exactly what others expect; they might want to see vegans as old-time evangelists, open to easy mockery. It’s much harder to ignore someone you like and respect, who isn’t tub-thumping.  So, there’s a balance to strike here. Our aim, as vegans and advocates of animal rights, is to be likeable, genuine and capable to field ALL questions or accusations. Then we can be direct and even a little self-effacing, yet come across as being clear about where we’re coming from. If we can strike the right balance, it will show in our confidence in communicating. Naturally we want to talk about animals, food, abattoirs, as well as our dreams for the future and fears for the present. Naturally we’ll want to share what we know with anyone who’ll listen.  And ultimately we’ll be aiming to build a strong support base for animal liberation.

But here’s the rub – that sort of support is not going to be easily won. It can’t be sped up. It can’t be disassociated from the exponent. So we must therefore balance our passion and outrage with compassion and patience.

This isn’t simply about passing on information, as if we were explaining the mechanics of a car engine. We are speaking to those who idealistically opposed to everything we stand for, and have to be to maintain their very lifestyle.  Today, we have to recognise that the punter is sceptical, immune to information that might well be misinformation.  You can’t blame people for being suspicious, especially when they know the whole of the world is thoroughly linked to the use of animals.

Which is why, at this early stage in the development of a new consciousness, we must speak simply and be transparent. If we have anything serious to say, our ideas should be based on facts that can be easily checked.  And in that regard our opinions will be fairly black and white, requiring a simple agreement or disagreement. But in the end it comes down to an emotional exchange, and as presenters of arguments we must try to be likeable people. With whom others can easily identify.

Self-development

1807:

When I get to thinking about my own self-development, what I’m really trying to do is create the person I want to be. And that involves undoing some things to make a clear space for other things - two things especially. I want to be doing something big for myself and something for the greater good.

Both need self-discipline (which sounds uncomfortable) but as changes start to take place, they begin to take on the feel of a new enjoyment.  The nearest comparison I can think of would be ‘keeping fit’, to lose weight or tone one’s muscles. I’d take up some training and end up proud of my effort, with a better body to show for my efforts.

         

Working for the ‘greater good’ is just an extension of this ‘training’. On the face of it, it seems a bit grim with enough good intension to scuttle one’s initial motivation. But there’s reward here too, when one discovers that one’s efforts are selfless at first but self-benefitting later. The breakthrough comes with one single realisation that putting out energy in the cause of ‘the greater good’ sets of a self-generating machine; it starts as good intention (what I want for others is what I want for myself) and ends up as a transcendental bonus, in that what I do for myself benefits others at the same time.

This is the prelude to altruism, which is neither me-centred nor you-centred, but striking a balance between common interests. Nothing is wasted, neither motivation, good intention or selfish desire. It’s the most intelligent way of organising things.

Like the buzz you get after the initial shock of jumping into the cold sea, in order for altruism to work you’ve got to make that initial decision to dive in. For it to be experienced we must be willing to try it. It is an act of faith, after all. And part of that faith is optimism along with the positivity of mind that says to us, “So what if all this damage has been done.  What’s done is done.  It can be fixed”. 

Optimism ‘ups’ energy, which in turn ups one’s chances of being successful. And if success isn’t to get caught up in ego and self aggrandisement we need to know that we’re heading towards something worth reaching. That intention and motivation and altruism are all locked together in one meaningful thing, which is the most meaning-full thing I could be doing for myself and therefore the most ultimately satisfying.

         

‘Satisfaction’ and ‘meaning’ are the big drivers here.  As soon as we think we might be making a difference, even only a tiny difference (in this case, ensuring that no animal will be killed on my behalf), we take a mature and compassionate step in the right direction.

If that makes me happier about myself, then I can go on to encourage others to go about doing things this way. And specifically, ultimately lead the majority of people to want to liberate animals. 

The Conceited Self-Image

1806: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Question: "Since the inception of 'veganism' seventy years ago and after forty years of media-flooded accounts and images of animal cruelty on farms and abattoirs, why have so few people been outraged enough to convert to a vegan lifestyle?" Could it be that most people are just not intelligent enough to see the great advantages of a plant-based diet?

I get the impression from some vegans that they think non-vegans are just 'beyond the pale'. They think they're either selfish, don't care about animals, or too stupid to make the connection between what they eat or wear and the cruelty involved in using animals. It's a neat, one-dimensional way of viewing others. These vegans think that 'going vegan' is a simple decision to make and everyone should do it simply because - they should! And you really can't argue with that logic. But I think this overview is simplistic, as are the slogans that often go with it, e.g. "ANIMALS ARE NOT PROPERTY", "MEAT IS MURDER", "A CARNIVORE'S STOMACH IS A GRAVEYARD FOR ANIMALS", "MEAT EATERS ARE A WALKING REPOSITORY OF DECAYING ANIMAL FLESH". These slogans are all true enough, but not helpful. Slogans create hostility and when repeated ad nauseam, they tend to become stale. Perhaps some of us don't realise what an interface problem we have with animal-eaters/users.

The question of WHY more people aren't sympathetic to Animal Rights is complicated. Omnivores are generally not bad people (or stupid) so why aren't they 'on the move'? Perhaps the stay-as-you-are decision is based on the strength of one's self-image. If you feel okay about yourself, you aren't likely to be doubting your beliefs or feeling defensive. If friends think you aren't stupid, then you never feel the need to question your own intelligence. Similarly, if you're kind to your children, pets and friends, you won't think of yourself as an uncaring person. And this means you won't be beating yourself up for eating what almost everyone else around you is eating. Is this conceit or simply unselfconscious confidence?

Other issues can draw off our energy, depleting our self-image by questioning our kindness and/or intelligence. A diversity of opinions exist concerning the big issues of the day. It doesn't matter if people disagree with your point of view. You can still do a good job of defending your personal views and basing arguments according to your values, which tend to solidify as one matures.

Most people I know will discuss just about anything that interests them. They'll take risks with their opinions and are able to accept defeat, not always willingly, but not necessarily feeling personally threatened by counter arguments. But, for omnivores, there's one subject where this all goes awry  - ANIMALS. On the subject of the animals we farm, use and eat, they effect a non-interest. They choose to not think too deeply about it and relegate it to a status of un-importance. Just as a person who hates football won't consider the finer points of the game to be important.

In the 'free speech' world, discussion is not compulsory. Avoidance of a subject is acceptable and if someone isn't keen to talk about something, it's impossible to start up a conversation. The exception is with those people who are keen to talk just to bring on combat. That's when 'animal issues' get an airing, usually with those who hold diametrically opposite views to vegans. Things soon get personal and descend into quarrelling. It's the classic trap many vegans fall into and it's what we vegans need to avoid. When it comes to discussing Animal Rights with 'opposers', there's always a no-holds-barred determination to win the argument. And so often, spoiling for a fight and winning it, stops any serious attempt to communicate at the heart of things - just what the meathead apologist intends.

There are usually important people in our lives who at one time or another, have shown some hostility towards us (vegans) during conversations about animals. For some of us, making any headway with non-vegans is blocked because in the early stages of the discussion, our relationship becomes 'shipwrecked'. It's almost impossible then to restore any mutual warmth or to progress with sensible discussion of the topic. It all comes back to a major values difference concerning a disagreement about how animals should be treated by humans.