Apology

Just to explain why there have been no blogs lately – the book we're writing at the moment is taking up all of CJ’s and my time. Hoping blogs will resume as soon as possible. But for the time being, only as time permits
David 

The Three

2090:

Some fundamentals worth mentioning. But briefly. This is a brave fight we are fighting with the dastardly omnivores. Talk to them but play a little hard-to-get, to keep them wondering. But if nothing else can be got across, then one thing at least. We need to have a nugget of truth, for omnivores to chew on in private – to do with humans relating to food animals!

As advocates for animals, we should first mention what we think about sentience:

Sentience implies a similarity between humans and animals - in the way we feel or suffer.

Poison - There’s a long-term ill effect on health, from ingesting animal products. One hundred thousand snacks and meals later, is it any wonder that we are dying from slow poisoning, or is it from guilt?

Conscience warns us that by conspiring with the Animal Industries we’re working against the animals. When it comes to ethics, morals and our guardian nature our conscience is a key player.

If vegans are discussing these matters with non-vegans, all this needs to be mentioned. And when we’re finished speaking, the principles of Animal Rights should be basically understood.

We, as vegan animal advocates, can in theory get people to this stage - understanding something which wasn’t properly understood before. But this is not the same stage as considering implementing veganism into one’s life. This is the earlier stage.

Big new ideas have to sink in, past a massive propaganda wall behind which we’ve all raised. Behind this wall we were taught that animals don’t matter.

If you ever get the chance to quote just one dull statistic, I think a very powerful one is: At year-end, 250 animals will have been executed for each animal-eating human.

Cross The Street, Here Comes *#@*^^

2089:

If we do get the chance to say something to someone, on this very important subject, what should we mention? There’s so much to say. But oftentimes, intuition says – “ Don’t say too  much”. If nothing much then a few handy bites should be up our sleeves, to fill one of our brief response moments. But this ‘responding’ poses a bit of a dilemma for us. On the one hand, the less impact we make the less they will notice. On the other hand, the more impact we make, the greater the risk of being totally rejected. We might even become an ‘avoided person’.

The Impact Of What We Say

2088:

As animal advocates, our number one aim should be to never get nasty or never to be insistent. The seriousness of the (animal) issue isn’t necessarily shared by everyone, so the details I might want to ‘share’ with you should be kept in reserve. Use them when we can use them effectively.

When, for instance, we are sure we have their interest, their attention, and maybe even their affection, then we can talk. Probably not before!

Once they show interest (and we are watching for any signs of un-interest) it’s all fine. Go-ahead. We say what needs to be said and move on. But if there’s NO interest then talking about animal issues is a waste of breath, and we’re also likely to be offending them. Communication breaks down most often because we are stepping too quickly into one of my favourite subjects. In our case, animals or diet. Immediately a sensitive subject is alluded to, then warning lights predict something ‘boring’ is coming up. But instead of showing that big-yawn-boring-ness, there is a polite nodding of the head, and an encouraging benevolence towards the mention of that reverent subject, but the talking-about-which we’re not happy.

So, because we are dishonest (not wanting to hurt feelings, etc) we do polite. We show accepting-ness. We’re certainly not expressing our feelings – if that person is offended or embarrassed they won’t show it. Therefore we fail to notice it. And we carry on talking as if they want to hear what we’ve got to say, whereas they are wanting us to stop.

Out Of Interest, Not Out Of Aggro

2087: Thursday 19^th October

Out of interest, not aggro

Aggressive vegans do neither themselves nor the Animal Rights Movement any favours, when we rub our opinions in people’s faces. It’s not necessary anyway. Most people are fully aware of ‘animal issues’ and often know more than they let on. They probably do realise the compromises they make by eating the food they eat, and the clothes and shoes they wear. But probably they also realise how irritating it is to be lectured by those they neither want nor recognise as authorities.

As vegans, we often adopt an authoritativeness in our voices, probably to be more persuasive. It happens but it’s unfortunate because it’s so off-putting. When our arguments stop being informative and logical and become emotionally predictable, useful communication ends.

The more unpredictable we are, the better we come across. We should be half entertaining and half educating, with the overall purpose of keeping the person we’re chatting to (the listener) on the edge of their seat, wanting to know what’s coming next. But our job is never to let anyone think that we aren’t clear and deadly serious, however we choose to act-up.

Vegans can’t possibly BE confused about where we’re coming from. Ultimately though it comes down to their feeling ABOUT US. That determines what type of vegan we are, to them.

Presentation counts for a lot - we need a calm exterior (i.e. a quietening-down quality) and a tone of voice that isn’t shrill. As soon as an omnivore is sure we mean no violence towards them in any form whatever, they’ll be able to say how they feel. And whether they say we’re speaking crap or whether they concede our points, it’s not a competition, who is right and who is wrong. Conversations on this level are about opening up to what is honestly felt, which is what we want. We surely want to light up the truth for them, in them. But such foreign attitudes vegans have! And we’ve got to find out how to translate the language of everyday vegan thinking, that connects. Interests them. Once they’re interested, then it’s a matter of holding their interest. To let them see we can stop and let them explain their interest.  

Exchanging ideas and attitudes mustn’t be a win-lose-game. That’s not what it’s about. It’s more the freeing of the atmosphere to allow things to be said without being afraid of saying them. Then ideas, like the buds in spring, emerge, slowly perhaps, but emerge.

If it were me listening to you, talking about Animal Rights, veganism, liberation, etc, I’d be suspicious. I’d be waiting for the barb. But what if there’s no-barb in the vegan spiel. No dread. No embarrassment. No ego performance.

As the omnivore, instead of you telling me about your virtuous diets and virtuous conscience, I’d rather, first up, discover who you are. We’re not to here discussing house prices, we’re about to engage in a deep and meaningful.  This isn’t a casual hail-fellow-well-met chat as much as an analysis of the other person. They analysing me, I them.

If I were an omnivore facing you, as a vegan, first I’d be wanting to get to know if you’re a shyster or not, for if so, I wouldn’t waste time listening. If you’re not a shyster, then maybe I’ll listen to what you have to say. Out of interest.

The Vegan Facilitator

2086:

We all need to know how we are seen by others, and the way others are seen by us. If we are role models (because we’re setting the example, because we’re the ones wanting to initiate debate and change) it’s entirely down to us to take the initiative.

First-up get over the superiority thing - we shouldn’t consider ourselves better. We’re vegan, that’s all. In many ways each of us has our own embarrassing faults, enough to match anyone else’s. When all’s said and done and all honestly added up, none of us can afford to feel ‘above’ anyone else. Even with the best arguments in the world (and of course we do have the best!) we shouldn’t flaunt that advantage, and anyway, it’s not a competition about me being better than you; it’s not about ‘me’ anyway, and we aren’t trying to win any brownie points here. This is not Arguments Central. It isn’t a persuasion game or an excuse for a fight. We’re surely trying to encourage people to crank up their brain cells, touch their hearts and get them to take this subject seriously. We have to be seen by others simply as facilitators of discussion not conversion agents.

You Do It, So I Shall Too

2085:

In the face of greatly differing views, we each seem implacable - vegans judging non-vegans for their weakness, they judging us for our preachyness.

Today perception rules - in all matters of food, omnivores see only what they want to see. They want to support the status quo. They don’t want to go down the path of boycotting products, since that leads to a huge inconvenience.

Trying to be consistent about what and what not to boycott, with all the self discipline that implies, is difficult. Life’s a matter of fitting-in, and if we don’t do things the way others do, we seem uncooperative. When it comes to ‘being vegan’, we’re considered to be outcastes.

Vegans want to alter things in a quite incredible way, so we’re seen to be people who want to deny others their simple pleasures of life.

“What’s so very wrong about a cheesy pizza or a quiche?”

That’s convenient perception for you!

So, vegans need to point out, if we ever get the chance, that there’s such a thing as an ‘imposed collective consciousness’ based on an ill-informed idea of herbivorous living. It’s down to us, as vegans, to better inform people.

Vegans take an important initiative here. We’re pioneering a certain type of change, the sort that heads straight into the very core of perception: how we perceive things that seem anti-pleasure but which we know as anti-violence.

We are up against what is not to be thought about. Were up against the predominant mind-set - you do it, so I shall too.

NON-VEGANS ARE NOT FOR SHOCKING

2084: 

Because animal exploitation concerns us so deeply, vegans will talk to anyone about this subject. We’re the ones who usually get conversations going, not the omnivores. So, by stepping into the fray, if we up the ante then we must take responsibility for what happens.

We can say whatever we like, unless we’re uncertain about our own tendency to ‘turn nasty under provocation’. If we feel a ‘violence’ coming on, or any one of its familiar cousin-feelings, then it’s time to leave or change the subject.

Our passion can easily look like bragging, and what we say can seem deliberately confronting. Being with a vegan, under any circumstances, should ideally be a stimulating even happy experience, not something to dread. Mind you, vegans must step up to the plate here.

Being confronted by a zealot, who only wants to tell people what they may or may not eat, is a disturbing experience. But there are practical reasons too why we vegans shouldn’t confront omnivores - it may take time for them to realise what we’re suggesting. And this can go two ways. It boxes them into an impossible position, because they can’t counter cruelty arguments. It’s as if they think we are trying to lead them down a path where they will be caught between a rock and a hard place.

It can go another way. As if we haven’t the confidence or strength of will that will get us over such strongly ingrained, resistant attitudes. These attitudes constitute the biggest part of our lives. So by considering becoming a vegan, computing how ‘going vegan’ could impact on one’s social life. There are several daunting changes to be made, not only with diet.

But coming back to zealotry. Confronting people with passion. Communicating any subject, it has to start somewhere.

Imagine the scene. We meet. We probably exchange a little intimacy just to confirm we’re still friends. Then, if it feels safe, we might slide into more ‘serious talk’. We each try to keep it ‘together’. For the benefit of our friendship.

Okay. That’s the subject. Animal Rights, etc. But underneath the passing over of important information is the feeling of warmth that goes with it. Nothing between us, our differences, our differences of opinion, our differences of values even, this is not our business exactly, only like ‘in-passing’.

Mainly, it’s got to be a connection, even in a state of ‘differences’. Isn’t that intention not to quarrel how things should always be, no matter what we’re talking about? And isn’t that surely why different humans, from different cultures, would rather converse than argue aggressively? Isn’t that why, today, we so often ‘workshopping’ issues, and talking through or despite our differences.

Anyone, even the most ardent carnivore, is speakable-with. No one has to be ‘impossible’ to talk to.

N

APOLOGIES FOR SPASMODIC BLOGS - WITH CJ, BOOK WRITING HAPPENING

More on the Matter of 'Shocking Facts'

2083:

If Animal Rights hasn’t reached many people yet then perhaps it’s time to re-consider our approach, and that might mean being less reliant on ‘shocking-facts’.

Back in the 1980’s when the horrors of modern animal farming first came to light in a big way, everyone was shocked. But soon enough it was ‘business as usual’. Things down on the farm are worse today, but essentially not that much worse in terms of mindless cruelty and indifference. The phrase ‘hens in cages’ is understood to represent the extent to which humans have become cruel, but that hasn’t induced people to think about it or stop buying eggs or products made with egg ingredients.

Yes, we are shocked, yes, we shake our heads in disbelief but we’re not willing to switch brands of biscuits or stop buying cow milk to pour on our breakfast corn flakes. We are not yet willing to change the habits of a lifetime. We say, “Be kinder to animals” but that’s where it stops. It means virtually nothing. So, this is why vegans advice is, “Don’t trust yourself around animals. Humans have a history of abuse”.

As activists, we have to start from a ‘rights’ point of view (not welfare) and promote a no-use-animal policy. That’s a long way from the norm and a long way from those who say “I agree with you. I only eat free range”. Some day every omnivore will have to come to terms with what we know today as ‘vegan principle’. It’s possible that they may find some of what we are saying interesting enough, to hear about it the first time round. But next time they see us walking down the street they’ll probably want to avoid us for fear of a repeat performance - no one wants to be baled up, or be ‘evangelised’. That’s surely why Animal Rights is not like a church and why vegans shouldn’t preach, nor start speaking with the words “I am a vegan …”.

So, if we are to be accused of anything, let it be for igniting dangerous discussion. We need to be seen as open people, rather than as purveyors of shocking-facts. We need to become a conduit for ideas and information. It’s still early days for Animal Rights consciousness.

This is one difficult subject to broach. We might expect people to be open with us but not if we drop bombs on them. As soon as we get personal, over ‘differences of opinion’, then dialogue ends and fights begin. Whereas, if we can have a non-judgemental exchange, we can’t go wrong. Somehow, we need to establish mutual respect, before lunging at people with the spear of truth.

Shocking Facts

2082:

How do animal activists come across? We meet some mates in the street, and it’s nice to see them, but how do we seem to them? Maybe we smile, hug, ask each other how we are. I’m calm, they’re calm, feelings are mutual, and that’s how it starts out. But sometimes conversation moves into dangerous territory, when the subject of Animal Rights comes up. We might have a lot to say on the subject and it can be said calmly, approachably and strongly, but not so strongly that they want to change the subject or so calmly that they can ignore the importance of what we’re saying.

It seems the best way to consider talking about this subject is for no sermons, no attacking, no sloganeering, but just calm talk - more can be said by understatement than by diatribe.

Those ‘Animal Rights Shock-Facts’ can sound stale if they’ve been heard before. If we try to persuade people it won’t necessarily be taken as a friendly gesture, more like an attempted conversion. And anyway, it doesn’t usually get people thinking about what they don’t want to think about.

Conscience doesn’t seem to call the shots any more, especially when it interferes with our ‘little comforts’ (like animal food and clothing).

We’ve all known about ‘Hens in Cages’ for a long time, it’s a familiar horror story even amongst kids - but it isn’t ‘thought about’. So, it’s not acted upon. Most people are nowhere near to boycotting animal products. They regularly buy things they can’t possibly approve of if they thought about it.

But if that is so, it isn’t necessarily our job to exploit their guilt or try to convert them. We might be able to get them thinking but we achieve nothing by embarrassing them, attacking their values, or giving up on them.

In the Shadow of the Abattoir

2081:

The omnivore is still blasé when passing the abattoir down the road. They remain un-shocked. Why? Perhaps because, in the weed patch of violence we all live in, it’s difficult to separate problem weeds from the relatively harmless variety – the ‘holocausting’ of animals isn’t yet seen as a problem.

With all the violence going on about us, why don’t we see this particular violence as significant? Well firstly, unlike the barrage of ads on TV for meat, the killing of all these animals isn’t exactly ‘in our face’. And when it is, it’s thrust at us too confrontingly, like when the animal rights message gets through and is associated with activist-types who the general public can’t relate to or identify with.

Omnivores’ sensitivities are blunted by their addiction to ‘yummy’ animal stuff, but also by the fact that the abattoir is not ‘just down the road’ or even near by. Both it and the animal farms are out of town, privately owned and what happens there is behind closed doors. The ‘dark side’ is hidden while the attractive side, in the form of ‘yummy’ food, is flashed in our faces every day on TV. We’re shown lovely-looking people selling lovely-looking products. The omnivores buy it. They feel normal, safe and satisfied. The products even seem efficacious.

Are omnivores too easily swayed by what others do? Are omnivores hard hearted? Maybe. But normality is powerful enough to smother everything. We don’t indulge in individual thoughts on these weighty matters; thinking is not encouraged. We are kept in the juvenile unthinking state by vested interests; we do as others do; there’s no need to feel personally responsible.

Indifference

2080:

We’ve all grown up with an omnivore’s indifference about animals, the ones you eat anyway. Becoming herbivore is quite a big step.

Once vegan, we’re almost alone in a non-vegan world. So, we try to get others to join us, and that can be a problem, when people push us away if we try to convert them. Omnivorousness is like a flow of water, the more you stand in its way the more it flows around you. Our information might have been arresting enough for us to take notice of, but for those who are not ready, our words simply sound antagonising.

Animal Rights exploded onto the scene some forty years ago, when the book Animal Liberation was first published and The Animals Film came out. The shock was fresh then. But now, it seems that everyone knows the essential details, it’s all ho-hum, so the shock-approach seems stale. Even back then, the ‘latest information’ didn’t inspire people to veganism and, without that, nothing will change.

Since the 1970-80s, the Animal Rights movement has understandably concentrated on instances of extreme animal cruelty instead of explaining why exploiting another sentient species is morally wrong. The numbed public need to have their sensitivities reawakened with some careful explanation. It may be obvious to us, but it’s likely not as obvious to most others who, on this subject, generally don’t often want to think about it for themselves.

Picking-up On Vegan

2079:

It’s been a lot of fun, out on protests, with mates in a group, screaming about the horrors of animal abuse. It felt good to protest this way, it felt ‘right’. But there’s a ‘cooler’ way to communicate without seeming angry, disapproving or indeed hypocritical about being models of conscientious peacefulness. If there’s even a hint of double standard on our part, we might be seen to be unreliable and therefore possibly wrong about everything. Poorly-informed advocates get uptight when our information is challenged. Once we get upset (and can be seen to be made upset) we bring out our angry and quarrelsome ‘true nature’, and this makes it easier for people to NOT identify with us and to reject what we are saying. It’s easy for angry vegans to look unimpressive.

Communicating In A Flash

2078:

We need seconds to get everything we have to say across. It's the calmness in our voice that gets us a few more moments. If we're speaking for the voiceless - we should speak as they might, calmly and never forcefully.

Look at it this way: Why are there so many animals here in the first place, aren’t some sort of missionaries? Are they here to teach humans how to be more … well, rather like themselves.

If so, it’s a big job they’ve taken on.

Perhaps there are so many farm animals on the planet because theirs is a slow but extra powerful magic,. It has to be to bring humans around.

Humans are narcissistic and species-superior, which is why we are so obstinate when it comes to maintaining our rule over the planet. This obstinacy has built us both brains and mastery, but this same obstinacy has made it impossible for us to see what we don’t want to see. Even when we see it with our own eyes, the beauty and calmness in an animal’s face, we still know our survival-in-comfort and our healthy bank balance are to be valued. We can’t endanger either.

In order to establish our safety, humans think we have the right to exploit. Until we treat the animals in a civilised way we will never know how to treat each other properly. And we do certainly put each other through a lot of misery and suffering. As with humans, so with animals.

As vegans, we are animal advocates, reaching out to the collective consciousness and hoping to invalidate violence.

All we have are words. But they need have no sharp edges. As long as we stick to the rule regarding permission to speak, then it is down to the omnivore’s generosity towards us, by allowing us in, to be granting us their permission. If we get their go-ahead then we can run with it, say what needs to be said, and for the few seconds we might have their attention we need to have our words at the ready. We must be clear, neat, short and kind with them. So, whilst talking, we must keep an eye on any signs of withdrawal on their part.

If permission is not forthcoming we'd best go home, and say nothing. It’s either a 'yes' or a 'no', and if it’s 'no' then either we haven’t approached the matter with enough magic, or the person we're talking to is really not-yet-ready. Or a complete no-hoper.

Dry Philosophy

2077:

I was told years ago that in Australia you shouldn’t mention the ‘ph’ word. It puts people off. But philosophy is what it is. Take it or leave it.

‘Vegan principle’ is a philosophy for life. It can be summed up in the simple sound bite - “no-use-of-animals”. It’s daunting. Yet it’s a bold promise for a better life. Vegans hope to lull people towards acceptance of what might, at first, seem like a massive lifestyle restriction. But as vegans soon find out, it is simply thinking adventurously.

Animal advocates are informing people of the nuts and bolts, saying what many omnivores secretly want to know, but can’t admit wanting to know. Considering becoming vegan is tied up to giving one’s life meaning and construction, rather than conniving with some terrible destruction.

When we think of the various secretions and animal tissues we routinely consume, we know it comes from executed animals. As vegans, we sow that seed, and we hopefully leave something behind us something useful which people can contemplate later.

I remember being dragged to school and church and finding nothing pleasant to look forward to there. But no one is ever dragged along to see a conjurer - we go happily, voluntarily. ‘Vegan’ sounds serious but it’s magic too. Omnivores won’t come across that until they’re ready to forgo one thing for the sake of the other.

Our job might be to chivvy them up from the sidelines. We can spruik. But carefully. Ultimately, this is a very private matter replete with feelings, attitudes and decisions - it’s up to each person, in their own time, to organise how and if and when to make changes to lifestyle and attitude. Then, when the time comes, we can change without looking back.

All that vegans can do is hand out ‘sample packs’ - if you want any more you can sing it yourself. It all depends on whether or not ‘it’ can be taken in, and whether one is up to such a magic show.

For our part, transformation can happen at any time, and then the vegan advocate must be prepared and ready with some useful magic - the magic of perspective and practical assistance … but … when the time is ripe, when a person is ready to open up to the subject.

The Cafe

2076:

The café is always open but it doesn’t sell cheap. We, at the café, are maybe not what we seem at first. Our windows are kept a little misty to keep them guessing what’s inside: we have a come-in-if-you-dare look about us.

We encourage people to enter our café that oozes delicious smells. This is no junk café. And we sell to young and old alike.

The best things in life are never obvious. It’s likely most people haven’t thought too much about veganism. They think only what they want to think, that vegans are simply diet freaks. But it’s deeper than food, health and animal issues, we’ve got something panacea-like going for us, and it doesn’t sell cheap. “Come in. Take a sample from this café. If you’re interested, come back tomorrow for more; we sell more than food”. Our café is always open.

Moving Day

2075:

Free-willed humans guard their own space. No one gets in without permission. Vegans may want a chance to influence others’ thinking, but is that going to happen? We, as advocates for the ‘forgotten ones’, want to get inside the omnivore’s head, rearrange a few parts, get them to see things another way. But we go nowhere without their permission. We may want to give our omnivore friends our best shot, but first we have to encourage them into thinking, and thinking big.

I’m planning on driving over to your place, along rough roads. I’m still at home. I’m searching for my car keys. I find them, I turn on the ignition, the car actually works, the machine will get me there. In specific ways, I know the roads. My machine functions well on these roads. I’m travelling over towards your place. But all the way? Why not meet half way. Perhaps your car’s not good on these difficult roads. And the car’s a bit rickety anyway.

So, I’m going all the way, to meet you. I’m on the move. We discussed meeting half way but decided my car is good on these roads. So why don’t I come all the way over. At least I’ve got you thinking about a half-way meeting. Where we meet is irrelevant. As long as there’s some thinking-about-it-movement. As long as I can hear the sound of your car engine, I’ll know we’re both getting somewhere.

Finding A Parking Spot

2074:

When we get talking to someone about Animal Rights, at first we want them to make an effort, to think about the subject. So, perhaps instead of driving over to their place we need them to come half way, towards us. Maybe meeting near the middle, which is a point where we are at ease with each other. That means, first and foremost, establishing and maintaining a friendly atmosphere. We want their respect: they want our non-judgement of them.

Driving over to their place may be largely our idea. We set the ball rolling - getting them thinking. So, our ‘no-use-animal’ idea, if it’s to impact on them, means they have to travel past their own resistance, past preconception and even a little bit further, so they’re not put off by our boasting about our being ‘vegan’.

If we want parking rights over at their place we must make the best use of them. We may only have them for a limited time. Talking vegan is heavy. Why would anyone want to be listening to me talk to them about this subject?

How long will it be before their patience runs out, before they want us gone?

After we get permission to enter, it’s a question of striking a balance – and not overstaying our welcome. We don’t want to get a parking ticket from our friends.

First Principles

2073:

We’re friends, having a chat. Why would you want to talk with me about Animal Rights? Hopefully, you’re interested but, knowing me, I hope you know I’ll stick to the rules.

You know I’m not out to get you. Just to pass across information. Trust my reasoning – if you see that I don’t want to drown you, you’re more likely to dip your toes into the chilly water.

Let me put it this way: if I want to drive my car over to your place, enter your home, and then have access to your mind, I need a parking spot, pre-arranged – there must be room for what I’ve got to say, otherwise I won’t say it.

Let me put it another way: if I’m going to open my mouth, I need you to signal that I’m safe to enter your attitude-space.

Here’s the deal: if you are willing to make room for me, it’s only reasonable that I’d need to offer you something in return. I come bearing gifts. Of advice if asked for. I promise it will be carefully and tastefully wrapped.

So, here I am. Driving over to your place: I’m hoping to change your mind about animals. I want to get you to move from being omnivore to being herbivore. How do I do that without intruding or over-stepping the mark? You invited me around, to enter your home, but maybe not to enter your mind.

Perhaps there are some useful tricks of approach with this tricky subject. It’s like going out at night to pick up a date, and when we do, we don’t want to appear pushy. No lunging or invading. It’s the same with talking about this subject, amongst a potentially hostile group. How do I continue a conversation without losing them. It’s not immediately obvious how we do that.  

There is a huge resistance to vegan persuasions. But they want to know something of it, and it’s connected to a choice they might one day decide to make. 

People know they have choice and the right to refuse, and not fear being harassed. When vegans know this to be reality, we then see that it’s not a good idea to offer the whole orgasmic thrill of being ‘free-and-vegan’. At first - small advice. Preliminary thinking, first principles. But if we mention nothing else, we should establish where we’re coming from - that no animals should be used by humans.