On Meat-Eaters and Terrified Wildlife
In "The Explorer’s Club: Endangering Animals One Dinner At A Time," Diana Odasso explains:
Amidst admirable hours spent reflecting a precarious future and surrounded by accomplished explorers, researchers, and conservationists from the world over, I was therefore shocked to encounter a circus mentality akin to a turn of the century Coney Island freak show: the annual presentation of ‘endangered’ species. Accompanied by dessert and the cymbal-clanging lame jokes of the organization’s honorary president, handlers brought out several terrified animals: a large snapping turtle whose mouth was stretched wide in fear, a monitor lizard, and a mid-sized alligator from the Florida Everglades. . . . And though I eat meat, wear leather, visit zoos, and do not throw tofu pies at Anna Wintour, something in me stirred at the sight of those terrified wild animals.
Here’s my question: Do we have any business being angry or annoyed with people who eat meat yet are disgusted by certain uses of animals? In yesterday’s comments, Nathan wrote:
I think there are serious problems with anything that associates vegetarianism with veganism, ties them together, or suggests in anyway that vegetarianism is desirable or positive.
Part of me says, "Yes! What’s with vegetarians thinking they’re doing something so great?" The other part says, "Isn’t there something positive about ceasing the eating of flesh? Shouldn’t they get a modicum of credit? And the meat-eating, skin-wearing people at the Waldorf who were disturbed by the parade of terrified wildlife–isn’t it a good sign that there’s actually at least one form of animal exploitation that upsets them?" Of course, that’s one minuscule sign if it is one, and if it’s accompanied by no change in behavior it could very well be simply a pang of guilt for their complicity in the institutions of animal usage.
And regarding friends and family who eat no animal products except pizza–and that was me by the way: Do we ridicule them for their participation in the exploitation and suffering of animals and give them no credit whatsoever? I realize that the pizza thing really is the height of denial and/or hypocrisy, as you can’t get it without killing calves (because of the rennet), therefore pizza and veal are actually sort of cousins. But most people simply don’t know that.
I find that most vegans are tougher on vegetarians than omnivores, and the logic is that vegetarians think they’re doing so much good, and at least omnivores don’t claim to be. And I get that. But is that fair? Is that kind? Does it help move them toward veganism? Is there such a thing as behaving somewhat, but not completely ethically when it comes to animals? Isn’t it true that no one is completely vegan if they’re living in the developed world in a house, driving a car, etc.? Can vegetarianism be on the spectrum of respect toward nonhuman animals, with omnivores being on the way left, and the impossible perfect vegan on the way right? Do you think of this issues in terms of a spectrum, or is there only omnivore and vegan, with vegetarian being more of a pseudo category, like pescetarian?
I’m in complete agreement with Nathan, but that is because we share the same philosophy, not because of some non-principled pseudo-reason, such as that “we both happen to have the same ‘hunch’ with respect to ‘vegetarians’”.
The “spectrum view” of some “continuum” of animal product consumption is a direct result of utilitarian, Singerian, welfarist thinking about animal protection, and it celebrates lacto-ovo vegetarianism, which is entirely consistent with its philosophy. The “either/or view” (i.e. either one intentionally consumes/exploits animals OR one does not do so) is a direct result of the rights, Francione, abolitionist thinking about animal protection, and it utterly rejects any and all intentional consumption/exploitation of animals.
If what I said above isn’t clear enough, let me use two other cases. The environment is a classic case where utilitarian thinking and the “spectrum view” of behavior makes sense (it does NOT make sense in animal protection). We have no, or at least very few, direct duties to the environment or its individual parts. Our protection of the environment is a classic “maximization of utility” calculation which considers our benefit from its use balanced by the ability of future generations to maximize its use, BUT it is all about maximizing USE. Therefore, the “spectrum view” of using it is entirely consistent with the utilitarian philosophy of its USE.
The second case is the use of humans (and you can substitute animals for humans throughout this paragraph), where rights-based thinking is essential to any meaningful protection of human lives and the “spectrum view” makes no sense at all. We don’t look at a rapist or murderer as “taking a step in the right direction” for refusing to also beat or torture their victim or getting angry at someone else who does. We see an “either/or view” here: either one intentionally rapes/murders humans/animals OR one does not do so. We don’t care “how well you treat them” before you rape or murder them: Just stop raping and murdering.
I hope this helps clear the confusion.
BTW, I want to add, in case it isn’t blatantly obvious to some people, that rights-based abolitionists certainly want to see animals treated as well as possible, just like a human rights advocate wants to see humans treated as well as possible, but we refuse to make compromises that violate the rights of animals and confuse our beliefs with utilitarian welfarists. It is better that people consume less animal products than consuming more, just as it is better that rapists and murderers don’t torture their victims first, but consuming animal products is plainly wrong, just like rape and murder are plainly wrong.
Dan,
I'm not confused. I just wanted to hear your thoughts. I was sort of hoping for some thoughts from a pizza eater.
One thing I'd like to add is that some vegetarians I know have never heard of Singer, and most vegans and vegetarians I know — outside of the Internet — have never heard of Francione. What they're doing isn't based on someone else's philosophy. They wouldn't be able to tell you about utilitarianism or abolition as they relate to animals. They've simply come to the decision that, for them, it isn't right to eat animals (or eat their flesh and continue to eat their secretions, which at this point I just don't understand, though I used to), AND they have no desire to convince anyone else to join them. Odd, but true.
Also, there are environmentalists who would disagree with what you say about utilitarian thinking. Their problems with mainstream enviros very much mirror the welfare vs. rights debate. They balk at Priuses and CFLs.
Finally, I'm not a big fan of the rape analogy because rape is already socially-unacceptable and culturally-unacceptable. Culture is, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle because people think it's okay to use animals because they are told it's okay. They have to think beyond their culture to make the right decision, where in the rape analogy they don't. I try using the rape analogy and people get stuck, but they can't articulate why. They know it's not because rape is wrong and killing animals isn't, but they simply are unable to think of them both the same way. I don't want to use an analogy that doesn't work for so many people, because my goal is changing their minds. You obviously have had a different experience.
I wouldn’t think you would be confused, Mary, but you seemed to be asking the questions as an "objective" reporter from the NYT or CBS, rather than as an animal rights advocate. I answers questions in reference to how they are asked.
I realize that many vegetarians know nothing of animal ethics and the wide variety of views there are regarding such. My objective is not to educate on animal ethics in general, but to *advocate* for what I see as the only right and morally consistent view to have toward animals. It is a fact that a vast majority of animal *activists* know exactly who Singer and Francione are and prefer Singer’s view, a view I find to be plainly wrong.
I doubt any enviro sees the environment or its parts as having “rights”. I also realize that some enviros are “primitivists” and “deep ecologists” and have views outside of the dominant rights v. utilitarian way of looking at ethics. My point was to show the difference between the dominant views of animal ethics currently in our society.
Yes, I’ve had a different experience with regard to the rape analogy. I prefer to use philosophical tools and reasoning to remove the blind cultural prejudice from people’s views and behavior. Some people may not like the rape analogy for various reasons, but it generally does make them think about the issue, and it is a valid analogy or intuition pump for the point I’m trying to make.
How about this: In personal interactions, do you express support of a vegetarian for their baby steps, or do you go right for "If you really believed we shouldn't be harming animals" (because, face, it, if they were at all in a rights-mode, you wouldn't be having the conversation), "you wouldn't be harming them" (by eating pizza or buying grass-fed beef) "and by the way there are no such things as baby steps". What I was going for is your strategy in conversation. Poorly presented, granted, but that was my intention.
In personal interactions, I’m very clear about where I stand (i.e. rights, abolition, either/or), but I tailor my tone and presentation depending on who I’m talking with, and I don’t say things that I think will or might offend them, since you cannot inform people who become angry or hostile. I advocate going vegan only and never bring up or encourage baby steps, but if someone does bring up their “baby steps”, I’ll be silent on “baby steps” and change the subject to going vegan. I’m always pushing veganism-only during the entire topic of conversation. If someone questions me on baby steps specifically, they’ll find out in a polite, but very unequivocal way that nothing is acceptable short of going vegan – just keep trying to go vegan – it’s not difficult.
I strongly agree with Nathan’s sentiments regarding the negative association of (post-modern?) vegetarianism and vegansim. However, the history of veganism is so intertwined with vegetarianism that it would be imprudent to exclude groundbreaking vegetarians from vegan ranks.
Example A:
Mahatma Gandhi is recognized as a practicing vegetarian yet it is critical to keep in mind the context that influenced his diet. First, his conviction to practice lifelong vegetarianism was not religious; while certainly compatible with his spiritual upbringing he was adamant that he approached the practice rationally and for him it was a matter of ethical choice. In his dietary experiments he physically suffered in his attempt at an exclusive plant-based diet and finally compromised on including goats’ milk, because he pledged he would not drink cows’ milk and a quick thinking comrade offered the loophole to his vow. This was well before the word vegan was coined and more importantly before the discovery of B12, as Gandhi likely fell ill due to deficiency.
Though he consumed animal milk and even spoke against an exclusive plant-based diet based on his own experience, his was an undisputed vegan ethic. He went “as far as practical and possible” – arguably further. With his deep conviction and practice of non-violence, Gandhi followed a lifestyle of paramount simplicity and pursued uncompromised social struggle against human and animal exploitation. Gandhi’s diet was technically vegetarian, but he was thoroughly vegan, “more vegan” than the majority of vegans today–especially the health motivated vegan.
—-
Example B:
Henry Stephens Salt offers comprehensive written understanding of vegan ethics in a time before the word vegan was created in 1944 and before the crucial discovery of B12 in 1948 and its later synthesis in the 1950s. Regarding the criticism of vegetarianism by detractors as inconsistent due to eating chickens’ eggs and cows’ milk and what happens to the chickens and calves—what Salt wittingly dubbed the “cock-and-bull argument” —he states in The Logic of Vegetarianism (1906 – Free on Google Books):
“We fully admit that they [‘vegans’ pre-1944] are in advance of their fellows. We regard them as pioneers, who are now anticipating a future phase of our movement.”
“We hold that ‘the first step,’ as Tolstoy has expressed it, is to clear oneself of all complicity in the horrible business of the slaughter-house.”
“[The inconsistency of eggs and milk] has occurred to us years and years ago. The question is as old as the movement itself.”
“Call it inconsistency, if you like. If it be inconsistency not to postpone the abolition of the greater cruelties until we also abolish the minor ones, we are willing to be called inconsistent.”
“…I have asserted throughout—that the raison d’etre of vegetarianism has not been a pedantic hard-and-fast crusade against “animal” substances, but a practical desire to abolish the horrors of the slaughter-house.”
—-
Granted, there are hues of welfarism in Salt’s writings, but considering the context of the time he lived, his verbal paintings of vegetarianism was both visionary and consistent with what would become veganism. The vegan association with vegetarianism is a necessary and positive one so long as the origins, themes, and intentions of veganism, vegetarianism, pythagoreanism, and ahimsa are thoroughly understood.
(And I fully admit that that is a big problem.)
I think it's a continuum. I was vegetarian for 25 years before truly committing to veganism (I had stints of veganism but never kept it up). My husband was pescetarian when we met, which is why we met, because the people who set us up assumed he was vegetarian.
We became vegan together because that's what we needed – support. The reasons I failed veganism in the past were directly due to the social pressures to conform to a mainstream lifestyle and lack of a sense of support that I have now. The Internet hadn't formed and I had NO vegan friends. When I went vegetarian in the 80s we simply didn't have all the resources and support available now.
I have always cared deeply for animal rights. I have always been against meat and dairy, animal testing, fur, leather, circuses, zoos, breeding… But what one does and how one thinks are not always consistent. Habits are difficult to break. Plain and simple.
I definitely promote a "something is better than nothing" perspective. I don't demand perfection from everyone. If someone goes 60% vegan from 10% vegan, I think that's a great improvement. If that person advocates abolition of animal agriculture and other animal uses, I think they're headed in the right direction. If they promote "happy meat," they're off course. But if they are almostvegan, with an animal rights perspective, well that's pretty good.
An "omnivore – vegetarian – vegan" spectrum (including all the labels in between) seems to imply a linear evolution toward ultimate animal compassion. Though most vegans have arrived at veganism after vegetarianism, that does not mean it should be the rule/norm. I believe the fact that it is currently the norm has much to do with many vegetarians not being informed that ALL animal products = exploitation. I do believe that vegetarianism is an outdated and misleading concept and choice for the compassionate person who is informed.
If asked, I will always offer people the honest truth as I know it, regardless of their current diet. The consumption of ANY animal product is unnecessary today. Meat, eggs, dairy (and leather, wool, honey, etc.) – the consumption of all of these products entails the exploitation of animals. Abstaining from one animal product is no better (ethically or from a perspective of exploitation) than another product.
BUT – I am still unconvinced that anyone (whether a meat-eater, a vegetarian, etc.) can become a vegan overnight. One can make a commitment to do so (to become vegan), but that doesn't make one a vegan – it doesn't magically happen – *poof!*. For the person just learning about veganism, there's a steep learning curve. One must unlearn the way they have been eating all their life. One must learn new ways to cook, learn what foods have animal ingredients and which don't, what healthy foods to substitute for animal products (not to mention all the fresh new perspectives on issues they will be learning and pondering and forming their opinions about along the way – on zoos, breeding, animal testing, and on and on). Many people say becoming a vegan is easy. I don't agree. I think "being" a vegan is easy. "Becoming" a vegan is not so easy. Meaning that once you know what you need to know to be a vegan, it becomes routine and relatively painless (you know where to shop, what foods to buy, what to avoid). But for the person just making the commitment, it is all new to them, it takes some time and energy to come up to speed (and for some there will probably be bumps of temptation in the road in the beginning). Given that, I think incremental veganism (sans happy meat, cage-free eggs, etc.! I'm not talking about incremental reforms) is not something that one CHOOSES – for even the most committed, it is often a FACT of life in the journey toward becoming a vegan.
So what am I saying? I would encourage one to make the commitment to become a vegan. If they do not, that is their choice, I would not push someone into it. However, if an *informed person* abstains from eating meat but willingly consumes other animal products, then no, I wouldn't really applaud them (I think that is the real question being asked here, no?). On the other hand, I would not belittle them either (I have come a long way in my approach – thank goodness).
And…I have learned that there are always ways to inform a person in a well meaning and caring way (regardless of the topic) – meaning it can be done by not belittling them for their choices. I tend to try to think of it as sharing information rather than berating them with it. Kind of like letting them in on a secret…
I like the "becoming" vegan isn't the easy part, but "being" vegan is.
This is largely personal for me because I have people in my life who want me to throw them some kind of party because they stopped eating meat. One person constantly reminds me that he doesn't eat veal because of me and hasn't for 20 years and as far as I can tell he's been waiting by the mailbox for his medal to arrive. He eats every other animal product on the market, and I have told him–nicely–the connection between his beloved cheeses and veal, and milk and veal, but he hears none of it.
Then of course I have lots of pizza people who say things like, "Not everyone does things the way you do them. You have to give people time and not press them to make changes that aren't right for them." Like there's some kind of legitimate reason why ceasing eating pizza might be WRONG.
So there it is.
In theory and personal practice, I'm not sure we all differ all that much. But educating people is a delicate business and the planet needs all the vegans it can get and we don't have the luxury, in my opinion, of turning people off.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to say: "I understand you believe you are making fabulous progress and that you believe you are traveling on some kind of path, step by step. What is it you think these steps say, and where are you going?" That opened things up nicely, and perhaps we've made some progress. I'm not sure until I see a change in behavior.
Stay tuned . . .
I went vegan over a period of a year or so, during which I didn't immediately give up cake and other baked goods. I had a vegan friend who didn't judge me for my weakness – overlooked it really – and who kindly encouraged my compassionate leanings; he and some friends even made me a vegan cake for my birthday, which was really touching. Anyway, after a year I gave up my baked goods and went vegan. Honestly, if I hadn't been given the space to deal with this food attachment and ambivalence, if I'd been derided for my imperfection or had my sugar-crutch knocked out from under me, I don't know that I would have gone vegan in the end. I think I would have felt resistant and begrudged veganism for taking away what I loved. Instead, I was given compassion (and vegan cake) and I made the change – a little slowly, but with real commitment and enthusiasm, because I'd gotten to that spot myself, without being rushed.
So yes, vegetarianism and its ilk really bother me from an ethics standpoint. But everyone is a potential vegan, and I believe they're more likely to get there if we act as positive, happy examples of veganism – rather than as negative, judgmental critics of their every effort.
Based on my secondhand knowledge of the 1940s and earlier, and on my memory of the 1980s, I would say that becoming and being vegan was “not easy”, certainly not nearly as easy as it is today, *in 2008.*
The research and information available on vegan nutrition and eating a balanced diet is excellent today compared to the relative dark ages of the 1980s. The number and quality of resources on what vegans eat is excellent, with several good (and a few excellent) cookbooks and dozens of vegan food blogs – some excellent. The number and quality of writings and philosophy of animal rights has surged tremendously during the past 25 years. With the Internet and all of these developments in readily available knowledge, it is both easy to become vegan and extremely easy to stay vegan as a matter of pure knowledge and choice.
The most difficult thing about becoming/being vegan *in 2008*, which is largely mitigated by Internet support groups, etc, is the most difficult thing about life in general: other people. How difficult this aspect is for each person *in 2008* depends on their social skills and independence-of-mind. The better social skills and more independence-of-mind one has, the easier it is to coast through this aspect of becoming/being vegan in 2008 (in 1940 and 1980, things were different). I’ll admit that if one lacks social skills and/or is very dependent on others’ enthusiasm to support one’s behavior, then becoming/being vegan is probably socially difficult, even in 2008.
Dan says:
" . . . the most difficult thing about life in general: other people."
First I laughed out loud.
Then I wanted to cry.
One thing I’d like to say in light of Ari Moore’s comment is that when speaking to people-at-large (such as on Mary’s blog), I just say exactly what I think without tailoring it at all. However, in real life, there is much more nuance in communication. There are also people who we deal with every day and people we’ll only see once in our lives.
The point is that there’s a balance between over-advocating (to the point of losing acquaintances, turning people off, etc) and not advocating sufficiently, and it is not always perfectly clear where that line is. With people who must deal with me at work, etc, I tend to err on the side of “leading by example” and not advocating sufficiently. With people who only deal with me occasionally or rarely, I tend to err on the side of over-advocating.
Mary, I deeply share both your sense of humor and sense of tragedy regarding the biggest difficulty of life.
I liken making a commitment to veganism ("becoming" vegan) similiar to traveling to an exotic country for the first time. Everything is new – the culture, the language, the customs, the currency, etc. It takes time to get up to speed (no matter how ubiquitous, plentiful, and easily accessible the informational resources may be), and it can be quite overwhelming.
This made me laugh out loud…
"…as I can tell he's been waiting by the mailbox for his medal to arrive."
There are a number of people in my life who periodically make it a point to tell me how they chose not to eat a particular animal product that day, week, whatever…and then wait for me to commend them. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes I do and other times I don't. Sometimes, I take it as a compliment. If it is someone close to me, it may mean they value and care about how I view them.
I boil it down to the intention to become vegan.
Some people, unfortunately, find their stopping point somewhere along the way and (almost defiantly) decide that they are not interested in ever becoming vegan, despite being informed about the animal exploitation involved with eggs, dairy, leather, or some other animal product that they refuse to stop consuming. And as I said before, I will not offer them praise, but on the other hand I will not scorn them. Yes, it's true that if that person chooses not to eat one particular animal, that is one more animal saved. But to praise that person is to perpetuate the myth that one type of exploitation is better than others.
Anyway, I have found that we all need to find our own way of approaching people that works for us. The one thing I like about blogs/forums is that we can all share our experiences with each other. Lately, I like when people write about their personal experiences on a subject. Real personal stories (or even fictional ones!) can be just as (or even more) effective as the cold hard facts when it comes to influencing others.
Comments on the "rape analogy", from the perspective of working toward basic rights for non-human animals.
1) It (human rape) is quickly recognized as an ethical transgression, no one will deny it. We think about it unequivocally, and as a moral imperative within our lives. We non-consequentially protect the interest of other humans in not being sexually assaulted. We just wont do it, regardless of the circumstances.
2) Something like human murder or pedophilia can also work, but those examples are a little more dependent upon exactly what is being discussed. As in "What about murdering Hitler?" or "Where do you draw the line for pedophilia (what ages)?"
3) Without confronting the non-consequentialist/moral imperative mind-frame discussed in point one above, thinking about a rights-type protection of non-human interests is rather difficult.
4) If we choose to protect the basic interests of non-humans (freedom from enslavement and violence)… in a manner very similar to how we protect the human interest in not being raped, then we have more or less accepted "animal rights".
5) The analogy simply says: Here is how we think about ethical transgression-X (which you evaluate in terms of rights)… and here is how we think about ethical transgression-Y (which you evaluate in terms of utilitarian considerations). See the inconsistency?
6) The analogy is about form, not content. CONTENT: Whether or not raping a human is worse than or equivalent to any given non-human use (for food, clothing, entertainment, or whatever)… is irrelevant, and impossible to determine with any accuracy. The analogy does not presume to compare the content of each transgression. FORM: The point is that they both represent rights violations. The analogy presumes that, if we take morality seriously, we should expunge both transgressions from our lives… not merely tinker with or adjust them.
7) Finally, these are not mutually exclusive propositions. That is, we can easily not violate the interest of our fellow humans in avoiding sexually assault, *and* protect the basic interests of non-humans. Keep all sexual activity completely and explicitly consensual, and go vegan.
8) Oh, and though I really shouldn't have to note this… don't have sexual activity with non-humans.
I wrote that article for Huffington – and I do take small issue with the comment 'Do we have any business being angry or annoyed with people who eat meat yet are disgusted by certain uses of animals? ?' To begin with, a large portion of the room at the Explorers Club dinner were conservationists, really tried and true, field work conservationists, scooping up monkey shit, collecting algae samples, risking their lives tagging dangerous species, trying to figure how and why we are destroying our world on a large scale, perhaps trying to save mr. owl from the loggers, mrs. panda bear from her useless reproductive system, people in no small measure who have dedicated and risked their lives towards the preservation of the natural world. Are many of them vegetarians? Probably. Do many eat meat? Tes. Have I been vegetarian before? Yes. Even vegan. The problem: that was not really the point of the article. One should bother a first and foremost about one's own health, one's own actions towards their community, peers, city, state, country, world we live in, and so on and so forth, before condemning someone else's ethical boundaries. It is exactly this type of separatist (or should i say fundamentalist?) worldview that creates an us vs. them mentality (outsider/insider, good vs. evil, christian vs. muslim, United States vs the rest of the world, whatever you want to call it).
So yes a miniscule sign of progress that many "meat eaters", "pescetarians", "ovo-lacto vegetarians" etc.. were disgusted at the parade of animals at a fancy dinner. sure. but nothing compared with the work many in that room have already done and continue to do for the environment, for animals, for humanity. How terribly sad to not recognize this.
Diana,
Please understand that the point of an article isn't always what I choose to write about. Then I'd just be writing about what you wrote about (which I liked!). What I do here at Animal Person when I deconstruct a story is largely about saying what isn't being said and asking the questions that are begging to be asked–at least from my vegan point of view.
The most common themes in my two years of daily blogging are cognitive dissonance and aligning our actions with our beliefs. Part of the purpose of this blog is to raise questions about ethical boundaries and to encourage critical thinking.
You say, "One should bother a first and foremost about one's own health, one's own actions towards their community, peers, city, state, country, world we live in, and so on and so forth." Perhaps the difference is that I include nonhuman animals in my definition of "community."
Also, when you say "One should bother first," you're telling me what should be most important to me. In my mind, one should bother first and foremost with aligning one's actions with one's beliefs. So we disagree.
But we do agree on another point.
There is indeed an us versus them mentality. Us (meaning humans) versus everyone else. It's called speciesism. We have declared war on nonhuman animals and the natural world, and though evidence is all around them, few people are willing to admit that.
Vegans are criticized and called fundamentalists for merely living according to our beliefs. We ask questions and make connections that most people shy away from. What I would call "terribly sad" is that most people don't want to know about, and don't want to think about the hundreds of animals we slaughter PER SECOND in the US for their flesh, secretions and excretions.
Do you see how what you eat and wear (and invest in, in addition to where you give your money) might be just as important as your day job? And that it might be particularly important to align all of that if you claim to respect the lives of sentient beings and your career is supposedly rooted in that belief?
That's all I'm saying. Everything we do tells the world about what we believe.
Vegans: "We ask questions and make connections that most people shy away from." And when we encounter a rare person who is willing to un-"blind themselves" to examine their beliefs and adjust their actions (according to what information they've gathered and processed) – if they fall "short" of the "vegan" mark I still believe acknowledging their efforts positively encourages thier future attempts. When an acquaintance glows, (awaiting a medal), pleased to say "no meat today" – I'll just muddy the moment by pressing for "tommorrow".
I think veganism – as a movement, requires the tolerances necessary to endure the slow course of big change. I know what's at risk, the 10 billion animals here and 43 world-wide….. Most days, my sorrow and disgust at their ordeal consumes me with heart-breaking impatience.
But if my pescetarian sister or flexatarian friend are to remain open to questions – If they are to think more – talk more – research more…. It requires the temperance to go at their speed. Vegans are hyper-aware, but remembering and being sympathetic to those who've "never really thought about it before" – seems like the best strategy to me.
I save my militancy on those who've made the connection and choose to ignore it. There's nothing kind or forgiving about me then – and there's also nothing left to loose.