Don't Condemn, Encourage,

2052: 

We probably get more aggressive when we look less likely to win an argument. When no one listens, when everyone ignores us, we get angry. It’s a last resort, when we sense we’ve already lost the argument. By not getting angry, we can take time to plan a strategy, and a strategist will bide their time. They won’t weigh in but take the longer way around. No arms flailing, no agitated voice, just a show of being available and accessible.

If we are made to feel unpopular, it’s uncomfortable, but better to communicate what we want to say.

Vegans would be better off making positive judgements about people whenever they can, as if we are observers, watching our society growing up, albeit very slowly. It’s a long way from the business of cutting people down.

We’re seed planters (in more ways than one). After all, the world is dying for the want of positive encouragement, so surely, we should be encouraging good intentions and praising moderate achievements. We do it all the time with kids over their maths homework so why not with fellow adults over their ethical development?

Kicking and Screaming

2050:

All of us hate being imposed upon, whether by illness or authority or fear. For omnivores, there’d be no worse torture than having to live the life of a ‘lettuce-eater’ – that’s the way they choose to see our ‘restricted diet’. For us though, we don’t want reluctant vegans. We don’t need converts who come over ‘kicking and screaming’. And that relieves us of the need to apply pressure.

Vegans have a good case to make and don’t need to fuel up the guilt people already have about their food habits. By coming on too strong, too soon or by saying too much, we waste our best advantage. If we sell veganism with threats we reinforce the worst stereotype.

It might be exciting to get through to a potential convert but, in our concern not to imprint what we tell them, it’s easy for us to get carried away, to over-sell. And to think we might get away with being OTT, since they’ll see we’re doing it for their own good; we’re preparing them with the essential ‘hard facts of life’. Then we reckon, if we speak loudly enough they will have to listen. None of this is true.

‘They’ don’t have to listen to anything, least of all us. They are in such a vast majority (everywhere on the planet) there’s no pressure on them from anywhere. They don’t need to take any notice, in fact they can afford to condemn us for being judgemental (or pushy, or whatever). And damn it, there’s some truth (not much but some) in what they say.

To vegans it seems unfair that omnivores will find any old excuse to ‘cut us off’. Their main aim might be to stop us saying what we want to say and, since they’re in-fashion, they are able to avoid discussing any part of the animal issue if they want to.

To be effective in getting our message across we simply have to offer people an idea that is too good to refuse.

How We See Ourselves, As Vegans

2049:

Vegan to vegan we are not on the nose to each other (there are some exceptions!!). I can’t think of any word to describe the positive feeling we have about ourselves, but it isn’t ‘shameful’ or ‘disappointing’ since we have liberated ourselves from those particular feelings.

From our point of view, of course, how we see ourselves is different from how omnivores see us, both as individuals and as a group. Some vegans aren’t pushy-types and see a potential ‘vegan convert’ in every carnivore. Some are very pushy and see others as people who just don’t care. Consequently, there are two ways vegans see non-vegans: either we say “They’ll come across because they’re attracted” or “They’ll come across, even kicking and screaming”. The latter doesn’t sound as if we feel much affection for them.

Are we really caring people? Are we, as vegans, good with animals but not with humans? How ‘big’ are we, especially when faced with people who judge us or hate us or dislike us or ignore us? How we see ourselves depends on how we see non-vegans.

On The Nose

2048:

The hurtfulness of value judgement comes when we demand to be listened to, when we think the rightness of our cause gives us the right to make demands. People won’t admire our stand or want to be like us if we look pushy.

For most people ‘our cause’ is not their priority; they might believe there are other more important things to consider. Of course, from our viewpoint ‘they’ are wrong. But in their own viewpoint they’re right.

All vegans want change, but it’s big change, ‘animal-liberating-change, and we want it soon. We refuse to accept that there are huge forces against us, swaying people’s minds. Swift change may not be imminent. In regard to Animal Rights, ‘enlightenment’ may not happen any time soon.

Perhaps that’s why we’re sometimes tempted to say, “To hell with it, let’s just make war on the carnivores and have done with it”. But this devil-may-care approach is not appropriate. Diets are changing anyway, plant-based foods are becoming known as ‘safe foods’, as probably most adults agree, in theory. We probably have a much bigger audience of potential listeners than we realise, if not quite as full-on as we’d like. Omnivores might be warming to the idea, even interested in what we’ve got to say, even attracted, but that doesn’t mean they want to join the ‘vegan club’.

For most, who are curious, it isn’t yet a fully fledged conviction. The gulf between the mindless omnivore and the enlightened vegan is huge. How big the middle ground is no one knows, but it’s likely that, at present, most omnivores would prefer we weren’t around to pester them.

Vegans may be ‘on the nose’ to omnivores. But things are changing, and we should be seen as forerunners, optimists and resource people. We should be sitting on the sunny side of the hill rather than the dark side. We should be an access point for an attractive lifestyle and an attractive attitude.

Ultimately, attraction draws people in to see what’s on offer and to hear what’s being said.

Vegans may have two aims, to draw people to our view and to keep out of their way at the same time, staying down wind of their lunchtime ‘cremations’. Let’s be with them, but not too close to them!

Do Vegans Dislike Non-Vegans?

2047:

Not all vegans dislike non-vegans, but our image precedes us. Our unfair reputation (as people-haters) is part of what we’re known for. We’ve used confrontation in the past but it’s no longer a matter of getting noticed or getting our message ‘out’. Today we just need solid facts at our fingertips so that we can speak outrageously BUT without value-judging the people we’re talking to. And that might mean withholding information as much as delivering it.

Having said that, I have to admit there’s nothing’s better than a good stoush with a meat-eater!! It’s a release from the frustration of being ignored - whatever our motives for educating others, we must have some fun for ourselves, if only to preserve our sanity. To that end there’s nothing like stirring people up for giving us a good feeling.

But in the end, it all comes down to effectiveness - how what we say is taken in. How we, as advocates, are accepted.

Talking up Animal Rights always brings on heat. If anything, it’s a ‘stir-up’. But that’s quite distinct from getting aggressive about his subject. That can be the face of some who represent animal groups. If we do get some press or TV coverage of issues, it might seems like real progress, but it doesn’t get us far in the long run if we still come across as angry people. Some vegans are so consumed with anger we wear it like body odour.

It can look like wanting revenge! We can’t make people see the error of their ways by making them feel uncomfortable, or wake them up? And we won’t stimulate change if we talk down to people, or if we doubt them, or if there’s disapproval in our voice. If we’re always condemnatory it looks as if we expect them never to change.

Vegans Who Condemn

2046:

From a vegan’s point of view, protesting is right. We know we aren’t a bunch of oiks. We know the aggro image is not fair for the majority of us. Most of us - nicer people you couldn’t meet. Sure, some are shouters and some are a bit aggro, and yes, it does harm the cause, but (in fairness) the aggro activist feels passion and isn’t afraid to show it.

Lets us be outrageous, but be aware that the aggressive approach gets us nowhere.

Our subject is a tricky one to handle. When we speak with any aggression in our voice, it puts people off. And because ‘animal matters’ have to be explained in serious tones (necessarily, it’s a very dark subject) this makes the whole matter potentially unattractive. Without trying too hard, omnivores can easily dislike vegans. But is that partly because of our own prickliness, with anyone who puts up opposite arguments? We should be encouraging argument and disagreement, in order to stimulate discussion.

Vegans Can Have a Loud Look

2045:

In the past, owing to our small numbers, we’ve had to look stronger by being louder. Those who do advocate or protest sometimes seem pushy, even sour, even aggressive but, to be fair, we’re going out of our minds with anxiety over the horrendous things happening to animals. It especially drives us nuts that kind, intelligent, educated, economically well-off people don’t want to know.

But ours is a communication job. There’s no need to sledge hammer people with information. If our image is to change, we should be talking about people moving ‘towards veganism’. And talk in small enough doses to make our message easier to digest, to overcome the deeply entrenched perception of a no- animal-using lifestyle.

For omnivores, there are two off-putting perceptions of veganism – what we eat and who we mix with. If a diet, for instance, is Animal-Rights-friendly it means getting used to some unfamiliar foods, and maybe one can deal with that. But what are vegans like, as people? Could one mix with them?

 People may see us as being ‘kind’ to animals. Yes, but if they spot any ‘aggro’ in us it contradicts that ‘kindness’ image. It’s surely possible to look a whole lot more friendly without compromising anything we say.

Although our ‘shouting protests’ may be absolutely valid, they may have had their day. When we shout at people (and I don’t mean in terms of volume!) we show dis of them personally, and in a free-willed, individualistic society, it looks like ‘good cause but ugly people’.

Each of us has to work out our own way of speaking strongly, informatively and passionately, but without pointing the bone.

The Danger of Judgement-Making

2044:

Even in 2017, in this well-informed Western world, there still aren’t that many vegans around, especially in rural areas or countries where veganism is poorly understood. A vegan not only needs company (other vegans preferably) but for all the best reasons wants to inspire others to have confidence in veganism.

If our numbers aren’t rapidly increasing, that might be down to bad press coverage. But the other force working against us is ourselves! Our image as morally judgemental people doesn’t look good. We certainly have a moral message, but it’s more about adopting an intelligent 21^st century approach to life. It’s about animals, environment, malnutrition amongst our own community and poorer people of the world, and it’s a design for the future. As activists we need to have these extensions at our fingertips, to supplement and ameliorate the moral heaviness of our message

Forward Drive

2043:

As we look around, we notice others invading our ‘personal space’ – we’ll either push them away or draw them in.

What’s the driving consideration here?

As vegans, promoting Animal Rights, we want to be effective but we also want some sense of personal achievement, and that brings us face to face with consequences which involve unintended outcomes and collateral damage. We might charge through the proverbial ‘china shop’, smashing recklessly, to show off our ‘forward-drive’, without showing enough thought as to the consequences.

It could be well intentioned and yet just another of those ‘me-centred’ activities. Promoting Animal Rights, which is of deep and genuine concern for most vegan activists, can also represent our own need for achievement. Is our own needing-to-achieve for the greater good and centred on ‘humanity’? Or is it just something we just want for ourselves?

Consequences

2042:

When we do question the consequences of our actions, as we must do whenever we take major decisions, we weigh the pros and cons – if we get slack at this point, we may not foresee the consequences. Then things happen as if they’ve sprung out of nowhere. They shock us.

When we don’t question consequences, we soon enough forget to look for them - the miracle of how a taboo works is that whole societies can be made to perform the same ritual, quite mindlessly. Like the eating of animals. If we ignore the consequences, even when they’re staring us in the face, we can expect explosions later, usually later in life. But at the time, at the mere mention of vegan animal rights there wells up a hostility. If you worship at the carnivore’s alter, it’s likely you’ll rigorously defend yourself from any vegan who dares to confront you. After which you’ll probably be haunted by the ghosts they leave behind.

The omnivore-carnivore might care not to remember how humans have been spectacularly manipulated and bedazzled by the Animal Industries, who have anaesthetised their customers to cruelty. The Animal Industries can then control us through our taste buds.

The products omnivores won’t give up are the meats and by-products taken from animal bodies. They’ve used their money to support the Industry, who in turn use their wealth and influence to hide certain specific ‘consequences’ from the customer.

Vegans say, “Don’t support them, don’t encourage them”. But the upshot of all this is very sad indeed. Most people have so much baggage they can barely move: guilts, regrets, mistakes, hardenings of the soul, a fat stomach, chronic health conditions, etc. It all shows up further down the track. And when we consider fixing things, by then our initiatives come too late to be useful.

Imagination

2041:

There are promising signs for humans. In so many ways the development of ‘humanity’ process is already happening - it’s seen in our current impulse to go ‘green’, as if we are ‘greening’ our very consciousness. Maybe the impulse to hug a tree represents a sensitisation-of-thinking to the least animate yet most majestic entity in our scope of concern. It’s a willingness to bring imagination into the equation (by imagining a tree feeling being hugged!). It’s where we contemplate positive, creative thoughts. And it could be as simple as thinking about what we might cook for dinner tonight.

But negatively it’s also where we import into our imagination a ‘fear element’, like making a treacle through which to swim. It’s likely that where achievement is linked to pain is where the negative imagination causes us to strain too hard with self-expectation, only to miss the point entirely.

In its most positive form, imagination is relaxed, is quietly achieving. Not so bad, eh? BUT, it’s not necessarily such a good thing either.

Achievement is seductive, in as much as we can prostitute ourselves for it. Even if we don’t ‘sell our soul’ for success, then we might opt for second best. Every good intention will be sidelined when we’re wanting what we haven’t got and being careless of the negative ‘consequences’ like being the cause of someone else’s hurt. Could this be behind the predominant reluctance to empathise with those animals we want to eat?

Soul

2040:

The better part of ourselves listens to our ‘soul-talk’. If we engage the ‘soul’ we may still only be able to feel it as an abstract, a potential which can’t-yet be experienced, in-action, because we fear it. It’s too idealistic.

For some of us the implications of a humane world are too powerful - the blinding effect of ‘such a thing’ is something we’re dazzled by.

If humanity is indeed our very essence, our ‘special gift’ to the planet, then we also know it comes with strings attached. Maybe that’s why ‘soul’ keeps itself to the background today? So far, through all our most primitive developments as humans, and right up to this age, we’ve given ‘soul’ a poor showing. There’s something about ‘humanity’ we daren’t face up to. It stretches our collective imagination to hurting point.

"Oh, The Humanity"

2039:

Self development is a wonderful thing when it involves consciousness-raising. It means we’re becoming more deeply aware of our surroundings. As we go through each developmental stage we can feel ourselves growing up. Predominantly, it’s the ‘humanity’ we feel growing inside us, and that’s surely where the real hope lies for humankind.

We see ourselves as being ‘human beings’, and refer to ourselves quite accurately, if hypocritically, as ‘humanity’. And when the Hindenburg airship burst into flames in 1937 the news commentator famously said what everyone was feeling, “Oh, the humanity”. It was as if, collectively, we in-breathed a shocking event and out-breathed compassion for the loss of so much ‘humanity’. People understood what he meant, as if we humans are the embodiment of ‘humanity’.

It’s a delicious idea, as if we are all part of the common soul. In practice though, we are nothing of the sort.

The Plumber

2038:

Vegan Animal Rights is a subject (especially when it is closely involving food) which is dear to everyone’s heart, although we mightn’t yet know it. It’s also very private. In fact, the subject is tabooed, and for very good reason. Unlike, for example ‘environmental concerns’, this one (specifically concerning food made from animals) deals with a daily-used, consumer item. This is therefore an issue that every person on the planet is involved with.

Almost everyone eats animal-based foods. The taboo on the ethics of this habit prevents any casual discussion taking place; it’s locked away in the ‘unquestioned’ box.

So, in a nutshell, as advocates-for-animals, our approach, as we wade through the undergrowth of taboo, is as critical as the information we impart. We’re introducing a shy subject. We’re performing some plumbing repairs, unblocking the omnivore’s clogged pipes - their attitudes. Our own personal development as advocates is rather like the skills of a good plumber.

It's Not Meant To Be Easy To Talk

2037:

What we, as ‘the initiating-communicator’ shouldn’t feel obliged to do is betray our own position, by seeming to go along with views we don’t actually hold, just to keep the peace. If we do that we’re going nowhere.

On some level, for vegans, there must be an acceptance of the omnivore (for heaven’s sake, most if not ALL of the people we know are practising omnivores!). And because there are so many of them, we need to accept them and be pro-active in showing that – that’s if we want to have any chance at all of touching their hearts. It won’t work the other way around, by attack and confrontation. We’ve got to work out how to ‘dialogue’ with people, even when they disagree with us vehemently.

This vexed question, of whether our subject is regarded by others as ‘important’ - animal food and animal cruelty - is the foundation for all dialogue on this subject.

If this subject were talked about as freely as, say, environmental matters, we’d come across as less frantic. But this subject is unlike almost any other subject – it’s highly, personally sensitive. Food, and animal-based food especially (and therefore animal husbandry) touch a raw nerve, which makes it that much more difficult to talk about. It’s far harder for any casual discussion of it to crop up, in the natural course of  conversation than, say, Environmentalism.

First up then, vegans need to ease up on the attack mode. Then we need to find a way to relax into the role of ‘information-imparter’. But of course, it’s never going to be easy. God forbid that it were!

"You Are Inferior"

2036:

If I think your views are inferior to mine and if I try to tell you “you’re wrong”, your hackles rise, maybe mostly because it feels like a criticism of you as a person (“So, you think I’m inferior?”) If I believe I’m right and you’re wrong it seems like I’m brighter than you.

In any discussion about ethics, when I win the point, I also lose the point. No true advancement has taken place. All we have is a satisfied feeling that we ‘got that one across’. We said it strongly. We proved our point.

Confrontation and emotionally-charged one-upmanship gets us nowhere, as communicators. All the time we can see a tight lipped intention not to change we aren’t making the connection. We haven’t got a fair-minded exchange of views happening.

Perhaps there’s something we ‘righteous’ vegans have in common, when talking about our favourite subject - we are NEVER wrong. That more than anything else makes people dig their heels in.

But if that ‘better-than-you’ isn’t there then everything changes. Each side can let rip. Each knows this isn’t going to get ‘personal’. We can indulge in the most outrageous disagreements. It can all seem like fun even though the subject is so deadly serious. It can, in a zany way, seem quite constructive, as if our ‘jewels of wisdom’ may be tasty enough for ‘take-away’. For later, private consideration.

Feeding Information

2035:

Information is the currency of the future. Animal Rights information should be like ‘vegan take-away’ - something the customer leaves with, to take home and chew over.

A food vendor’s smile is good for custom, and it’s the same with vegans who smile, or rather who insist on being affectionate. However, let it be said, this is not yummy food we’re selling, it’s more like an at-first-difficult-to-digest idea. To pass our juicy morsel over the counter we need to assure people it is safe. In other words, we need to cultivate affection in order to make people feel at ease, unafraid, trusting, and willing to go exploring with us.

Communication starts when the most indiscernable connections are made (and made without the sparks flying). There are likely to be heated views which are firmly felt. You may love your meat, your diet, your treats, and I may be firmly against all of that. But come together we must.

If we’re in the middle of a serious discussion about the rights and wrongs of animal-eating, our smile, voice-tone and body language need to be unaffected by any force of opposition coming at us, whichever side of the argument we’re on. Nothing should prevent us from remaining calm. Throughout everything, our affection for the person we’re talking to should be constant. Our information might be hard to handle but our approach should be casual. It spells safety. It’s only when something is raised casually enough, to indicate safety, that it can become interesting enough for the other person to risk engaging with us.

The Affection Approach

2034:

If an omnivore is willing to accept the idea of animals having rights it implies they’re no longer willing to accept the old idea that they can be exploited for human use. Coming to that conclusion is the biggest or one of the biggest decisions one could make in life.

When talking Animal Rights, bearing in mind the significance of every detail we try to pass across, that it might resonate or do the very opposite and get people’s backs up unnecessarily. You never know how close they are to accepting our arguments. So, it’s better to be safe than sorry. Affection is a good safety measure.

Without being patronising, without being hyper-sensitive about this subject, we still have to be careful how we deliver it. It mustn’t be over-packaged and we have to show respect for the intelligence of the listener. Then we can expect some respect back. If vegans don’t respect omnivores, as people, there’s no way they will listen to us; figuratively speaking, we’ll never get our toe in the door. Emotionally, they have to be on-side if we want our ‘message’ to make sense.

Deadly Affection

2033:

There are those conversations, calmer ones, which allow both sides to say their piece whilst showing respect towards each other.

As vegans, if we are questioned about veganism, we might expect to be asked out of a genuine respect for our principles. But why is a question being asked in the first place? Maybe the other person is ‘showing an interest’ but not necessarily asking because they’re desperate to know what we think. It could be a show of good manners.

If we’re not sure who we’re talking with (on this oh-so-sensitive subject) it’s not until after our first words are out of our mouths that we get to know at what level we should be ‘pitching’ them.

The question remains: why would an omnivore want to discuss ‘veganism’ with a vegan? That is such a central question for vegans, but inside the vegan head we might have a question for ourselves - why do we want to talk about it? Are we needing to recruit? Are we needing their admiration? Do we want others for company? Maybe for all those reasons, but also for the animals’ sake, altruistically advocating their case.

If we want to be all-round effective, we have to learn to present our arguments affectionately, if only to show the benefit s. We may have personal reasons for wanting to talk but this is like no other subject, it is the do-or-don’t in everybody’s daily life. Talking about not using animals guarantees a hostile reception. We can be ignored, vilified or ridiculed, and none of that should matter a jot. Vegans must be ego-less. All we should do is try, advocate, show a good example and be patient - knowing that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

Personal Feelings Lining Up With Arguments

2032:

When we do get talking with non-vegans we, and not usually they, know how fundamental this subject is. They, on the other hand, because they don’t know or don’t want to know, try to treat it frivolously. Ours is a serious subject, and not one of those nice dinner table conversation pieces where we can just ‘agree to disagree’.

And yet, on one level it might need to be just that, where anyone who has something to say can say it but they also have the right to ‘leave it at that’ if they want to – there’s no law that says you have to come to a conclusion where there’s agreement between both sides. We are all volunteers-in-the-conversation. We, as animal advocates and vegans, will bring the subject up at the drop of a hat. It isn’t likely an omnivore would be wanting to bring it up at all.

I suspect that in the heat of the moment we can easily forget the feelings of the other person, or believe that their feelings don’t matter, and then conversation becomes heated. And although some important points are pressed home, afterwards there are feelings left over from the conversation which can sour any consideration of them there might have been. The mind will come down on the side of personal liking or disliking. And only after that is established will the arguments find the appropriate justification to suit the personal feeling for the person delivering the arguments in favour of animal rights.

The Go-Ahead

2031:

Omnivores have certain rights (not to listen to vegans if they don’t want to) but it’s maddening. Like the heckler who will not allow us to speak, there’s a lot of ducking and diving that goes on. We have to pretend not to notice, since we aren’t talking Animal Rights in order to make fools out of people.

Talk can be inspiring, and yet, throughout, we must be monitoring it to ensure we’re connecting with people and making sure we’re going to leave on good terms. When it doesn’t work, the conversation turns into a bun fight over who is most right. And that gets us nowhere and is of no help to the animals.

Those Who Will Not Hear

2030:

Overseas there seems to be very little knowledge of Australia’s record of kangaroo massacring. But everywhere in the world, people are uninterested in finding out about any human brutality towards animals, whether in the abattoir or in the wild.

I remember a time when I was addressing a crowd, standing on the traditional ‘orange box’ at Hyde Park Corner in London, giving a talk and answering questions about the kangaroo situation in Australia. I was heckled so badly by one person. He made so much noise that I couldn’t be heard. I had to give it away in the end. If we’re advocates for animals, one might simply want the chance to knock other people’s views on the head. That’s one type of activist. Another might genuinely want to assist, to help advance the general consciousness. For genuinely non-violent advocates for animals, who wish to communicate on this subject, our focus should be on helping, but, and this was made very clear to me that day, only with their permission. If not granted we must retreat. This subject can cause such hostility that we can easily put people off for ever if we get aggressive with it.

Wanting to Talk

2029: Posted Wednesday 5^th July

Wanting to talk

Amongst vegans and non-vegans, we should be able to rub along together. We can insist on it. The potential of our ‘omnivore - vegan interface’ lies in talking together, understanding where each is coming from. Probably, for the omnivore, they haven’t thought much about ‘animal issues’ before, and for the vegan it’s likely we’ve forgotten how we came to ‘it all’ in the first place. If we’ve been vegan for a long time, can we remember what were our triggers at the outset?

When there’s dialogue happening, things can come alive. Perhaps out of the blue the ‘subject’ comes up, the issues spring up ‘loudly’ and you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. The resistance-shutters come down, and so quickly too, especially if you’re already known to be ‘a vegan’. Suddenly, we are front stage, speaking, and then it’s a matter of how we pitch what we have to say.

Anyone listening may genuinely want to find out certain things, but they’ll be hoping not to cop a lecture. What a vegan might want to say is almost certainly more than we’ll be wise to say. For us it’s a case of guessing how genuine the interest is and why there are questions in the first place. If we’re given the go-ahead to speak, we need to know we have the right also NOT to comment, if we sense a hostility brewing. Often, we need to take the initiative, and drop the subject.

Seriously?

2028:

The vegan advocate ultimately sets out to impress and  inspire without the use of emotional blackmail or too-clever persuasion.

The subtle process of influencing others (to get them to think more the way we think) involves acceptance on all fronts – at some stage we need to show our friends and family that they can accept views which are not in agreement with their own. If we can show it - ‘acceptance’ rather than approval – we demonstrate how we don’t need to get hostile over anything. Those who don’t agree with us need to be assured of an equality of status between us, before there can be any launching into the deep waters surrounding this subject, of animals having rights.

If that assurance isn’t there, and then reinforced frequently, there will always be a reluctance to start any sort of meaningful dialogue. If equality isn’t established we enter a no-go zone. The well-thought-out position held by the vegan contrasts with the less-well-thought-out position of the omnivore - this is why we shouldn’t get heavy about a subject others might know relatively little about. All we ask of the omnivore is that they agree that ‘Animal Rights’ is a subject worthy of being taken seriously. If it isn’t, I believe we have the right to ask why.

I believe it’s sensible, before any conversation starts, to agree that this isn’t a frivolous matter and that we won’t be wasting our time discussing the subject if it is seen that way. But once that agreement is in place (and that we aren’t limiting the ‘subject’ to the food-diet-health issues alone), then something profound can come out of our discussions.

Best Chance

2027:

As vegans we need to be trusted on all levels. Is our information correct? Are we nice people? Particularly we need to be trusted NOT to fly off the handle over sensitive animal issues. We mustn’t be boring. We must try to be interesting and show an interest in others’ views. We then stand a better chance of a really spirited conversation. It won’t even get started if we can’t convince people we’re not out to embarrass them.  

We can show that by the tone of our voice and body language.

If vegans are calling for harmlessness on one level, we must respect it on all levels. Never get involved in emotionally attacking anyone, especially if we’ve chosen to talk to them about this issue.

Keeping It Cool

2026:

Our aim should be ‘not-confronting’, which means we are, by nature, super-uncomfortable with any sort of unfriendly confrontation. Go in softly. Gauge a person’s actual interest. Be friendly. It’s what most of us want from others. Any interaction needs to be interesting but safe. We all love a good fight that doesn’t involve violence. Most of us have grown up in relative peace, expecting no hostile attitude from those we meet. Here, when we’re advocating for animals, the advocate is representing an important movement. We are promoting a whole different attitude which involves liberating animals. We’re setting standards of behaviour as well as disseminating information. We’re self-appointed ambassadors for the voiceless, and if they could speak I think we’d find they wouldn’t be speaking with violent voices. They’d want to keep the peace (dealing with the highly volatile humans who can be so dangerous). Even in the most heated exchanges with other people, over the question of animal rights, why would we lose our cool, over anything?