Hi! Long time, no post, missed all of you wonderful people, etc. I read all the time, but because of some weird ass circumstances, I haven’t been able to post. Anyway!
Okay.
I’m pulling my hair out here because I’m obviously a fucking NITWIT who can’t answer a simple fucking question for my fucking self!
(Please excuse all of the fucking. This is driving me nuts.)
As an animal rights activist, longtime member of (shut it!) PeTA, etc, ad infinitum, where in the blue fuck do I draw the line when it comes to proselytizing?
Now, let’s say (hypothetically) that I firmly believe that the slaughter and abuse of animals are barbaric and monumentally cruel acts, akin to the murder of a human being. Okay.
Should I try to convert people? Is it considered ‘conversion’ if I believe I’m attempting to stop a brutal process? I’m hyper-sensitive about shoving what I believe down anyone’s throat, but this is the scenario that fucks me up:
I go to the mall. I see someone beating the fuck out of a defenseless child. I proceed to do something about it (call the cops, inject myself into the situation, etc).
That’s not conversion to my belief that beating up on a child is wrong.
Is it?
AM I AS FUCKING STUPID AS I SOUND? Jesus christ on a pita bread sandwich.
Now. I see someone beating a dog or cat. I think most of would agree to the same thing – do something about it.
Okay! I’m clear on that. NOW here’s an example of the fucking sticky parts…
Breeding animals. Should I tell people who own/purchase from/own a breeding business my beliefs on how shitty breeding is? And what it does and what it causes, etc? Or has that stepped over the line into lecturing and soap-boxing?
Circuses and the like. Do I tell my best friend who’s taking her kids/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever to Ringling Brothers what a contemptible institution they are? Or have I crossed that boundary?
You see my point. I don’t want to be some domineering asshole who shoves what I think up your ass and reams it until you scream your blood soaked acceptance of my values.
BUT. If I see a kid getting their ass righteously kicked and don’t step in, I’m a fucking pussy for not stopping a brutal and wrong process. If I believe the same (or equivalant of) thing about animals, and say nothing, isn’t that the same thing?
Or is it?
Any answers greatly appreciated.
Many advance apologies for being such a fucking nimrod.
That old saying “you catch more flies with honey then vinegar” might come in here. Pick your battles. Voice those ones that matter to you most, but don’t voice everything or you are more likely to just get peoples backs up.
I’m a hypocrite. I am an animal eater but I can’t stand abuse of animals, or children (how do children come into the animal argument?). We all live in a world where lots of things happen that we don’t agree with, or strongly disagree with. We can’t fix everyone and everything. Choose your battles and stand strong on them, let some other things slide.
K, maybe I’m a wus and that is wussy advice. Just seems to me we should save our strongest feelings and actions for those things that matter most to us.
:Carefully approaches what appears to be a cactus:
Sorry, QueerGeekGirl, but you are coming off as a touch prickly at the moment.
Here’s where I think the line is. I’m quite definitely a meat-eater. I’m also assuming you’re a vegan purely for the sake of this argument. Based on that, let me give you three situations:
[ol]If you come up to me in a restaurant where you see me eating a hamburger, and start telling me how wrong it is and how cruel it is, I’d say that’s proselytizing and rude. I’m likely to get annoyed with you and, depending on what you say and how you say it, I might even think you’re deranged. My gut reaction would be “Why is this complete stranger yelling at me?”
[li]Let’s say we’re in a group of people who are talking about going out for dinner, but don’t know each other well. If someone mentions my preference for steak, and you start telling me how cruel that is, to me that’s still proselytizing and I’ll probably back out of dinner because again, I’ll feel like you’re attacking me without cause. [/li]
[li]If we are friends or even somewhat better acquaintances and are discussing what to do about dinner, I won’t mind you’re bringing up the subject of meat-eating. In fact, I’ll probably offer to let you take your chances with that recipe for vegan minnestrone I’ve been wanting to try out. [/ol][/li]
I think the distinction is how well you know a person and what the circumstances are.
To get to your hypotheticals, I would gently tell someone who was considering buying an animal to go to the local animal shelter. Since I volunteer at one, chances are there’s a dog or cat I can personally recommend. I’d gently discourage them from going to a breeder and, if gentle discouragement didn’t work, I’d be blunter saying, “That’s a really bad idea.” OK, as I’ve typed this, I’ve realized I have no clue why anyone would insist on only having a purebred animal or why they’d insist on getting one from a pet shop.
Circuses. Hmmm. Brace yourself: I liked circuses when I was a kid. I’d say present your case, but don’t insist. You see, the more a person tells me “X are e-e-evil!”, the more resistant I get and the more likely I am to seek out evidence to the contrary. That applies to all kinds of things, from circuses to Bill Clinton (although aren’t politics and circuses similar?;)). I’d say one “contemptible institution”, or, at most, two. After that, your point’s been made and you’re starting to cross the line into obnoxious.
(1) Intellectual belief: the person came by her belief through rationalization and/or reason. She holds her belief much in the same way that she might hold some other opinion.
(2) Epistemic belief: the person came by her belief through revelation and/or life-experience. She holds her belief much in the same way that she might hold some other knowledge.
If your belief about animal abuse is intellectual whereas your belief about child abuse is epistemic (or vise-versa), then no, they aren’t the same thing. But if both are intellectual, or else both are epistemic, then yes, they are the same.
Not wussy at all. Excellent advice, actually. That’s usually how I tend to operate, but sometimes I feel like I’m doing enough for my (drum roll) “cause” when I don’t try to show other people another way of living. Ach. Thank you, much, kiwi. You are a kiwi among kiwis. Or something!
Oh, I’m just prickly with myself because I keep coming to a damn impasse with this thing. I’d never be prickly with someone trying to help.
I am actually NOT a vegan, which is a huge thorn in my side. I’m getting there (recently gave up all red meat, am working on the poultry), but until I AM there, 100%, I’d never dream of trying to convert others. That’s fucking blatant hypocrisy, and while I recognize it in myself, I try not to practice it, you know?
And I’d never dream of going up to a complete stranger (I hope!) and bitching them out over a cheeseburger. And I swear, if I do that when I become a total vegan, I’ll proceed to appoint myself head of Peta and wear a shirt that says “I am a fucking lunatic.”
When it comes to circuses and breeding, I try to be very casual and use a “Oh, did you know…” tone, instead of the “OMFG you ASSHOLE! HOW COULD YOU?!” thing.
My main sticky spot is trying to have the utmost respect for others choices and beliefs, but then I feel guilty for, well…you know. “Silence equals agreement.” That whole thing. If you don’t speak up, blah, blah. But if I DO speak up, then I get the complex of “Ach! You shouldn’t, you shouldn’t…”
It’s a quandry. For sure. And you DID help, thank you very much for your lengthly reply.
Thank you for teaching me a new word.
Okay, so let’s say that both of my beliefs are epistemic (or both intellectual)…does that impact my original problem of standing up for what I believe vs. being an overbearing twat? If they are both the same, should I react in the same manner?
Hmm…I’m with calm kiwi on th ehony/vinegar thing, but at a slightly different angle. Kiwi, said you should pick your battles accoording to what matters most to you, personally.
I say pick the battles that are most likely to lead to success and the least likely to lead to antagonizing.
Timing is everything. The right moment to offer information, an ethical appeal and good alternatives, is when a person is still deciding what to do.
For instance, prosytelizing someone about to eat his hamburger, will only lead to that person defending himself. While he gives defensive arguments (Meat is healthy, people are meat-eaters, animals do not suffer as people do etc) he will need to believe what he says even more then if you had not questioned his beliefs. So, instead of converting someone, you will have lost him for ever.
Better to take action at your local supermarket and get them to stock vegan burgers alongside the meat. And then volunteer to hand out warm baked pieces of those yummy burgers to shopping housewifes. While they taste those, and are open to the information, that is the time to tell them. And keep it down even then, concentrating on what they can do from now on to be better persons. (and be sure to mention how cheap and light in calories your burgers are, too, and how modern and chique ist is to be vegetarian) No-one wants to hear informaton that tells him he has been cruel to animals all his life, or is cruel now.
If you want to tell people about the horrors of farming, tell the general public.
If you want to approach individuals, make sure they have something to gain by listening to you. Individuals you must make feel good about vegetarism, not bad about eating meat.
I agree with calm kiwi in that you should pick your battles, and I also suggest that no matter what battles you get into, you make it a priority to remain respectful and calm.
Certainly don’t withhold the facts that you know about animal breeders if someone you know mentions a plan to purchase a pet from one, especially if they ask your opinion. Certainly respond to “I’m taking the kids to the circus.” with a gentle “Ooh, did you know that the animals in Ringling are really treated terribly?”
But don’t be a raving looney. Don’t get in people’s faces. Don’t rant. Don’t persist in badgering people with opinion or invective, especially when they’ve clearly indicated that they’re not interested.
In short, be a good example of someone with a passionately held, if non-mainstream, perspective on an important issue.
This is very good, Maastricht. That makes a boatload of sense, appealing to the individual differently than the general public.
And that is spot-on about veganism (which I have absolutely no room to lecture or attempt to convert anyone to as of yet, sadly enough). And I have always thought that was the best way to increase veganism/decrease meat eating. Point out the gains of one, not the losses of the other.
I was going to say what about the cases of cruelty in circuses and such, but I guess the answer is the same. Try to show the appeal of the alternative, instead of the bad points of the original option.
Yes, precisely. That is my worst nightmare – being dismissed and though of as the crazy fuck who rants and raves and steps on other people to get my agenda across.
I could go into a lengthly rant about certain heads of certain organizations I belong to (yes, Ingrid, I’m looking at you, you silly twat!) but I won’t go there.
What utter gash! Why complicate things with this pseudo-intellectual bollocks?
The big difference is that QueerGeekGirl’s feelings about child abuse are the widely accepted majority view, whereas her feelings about animal abuse are a minority view.
I’m a vegetarian who struggles with this as well. I deal with it by only talking about it with friends or family, and only if the subject comes up. I like to think that for the rest, I’m quietly setting a good example.
I also give myself free rein to rant about not eating animals to anyone who gives themselves free rein to rant at me about opening my heart to Jesus.
QueerGeekGirl, glad I could help. I’ve been through this dilemma, myself. This site might provide more ideas. It focuses on positive, public-friendly, yet effective measures.
The man who makes this website is a member of a new political party in Holland, The Animal Rights Party. I’m a member, it’s actually the first political party I truly care about. Unlike Peta, they focus on actually upholding all animal rights that are laid down by law, yet that are currently just paper-laws, overlooked for agricultural ecomomical reasons.
The first few months, as could have been expected, the party was ridiculed in the media. But over time, it became more and more respected. At the last National Dutch election, it got 0.5-0.9 percent of the votes, (55.000) which was a just a few thousand votes short for a seat in parliament.
That’s what I was trying to say in my inelegant way. Quietly reason with those around you about the things dearest to your heart, as opposed to walking round with a megaphone condeming anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
I have a vegan friend who occasionaly reminds exactly what is in cheese (rennet :eek:) or how intelligent pigs are (he knows how deeply addicted I am to bacon). By not ranting, just ocassionaly mentioning snippets it is getting to me. I’m about to look for bacon patches
In general with any proselytizing, you have to weigh a few factors very carefully when thinking of this issue.
Is your belief based on sound principles? Are you letting emotion carry the day, or have you made a perfectly rational, logical, defensible decision?
Is your decision reflective of a better life or better way for humanity in general and your friends and peers specifically? Do you honestly feel that overall people will be better off following your way? Will the world end up with greater good?
Are you sure you’re right? Think of it on a historical basis - think of the thousands of morals and beliefs and assumptions of the masses that went to dust. Things we laugh at now, that people fervently believed at the time.
Put yourself in the position of your friends. Imagine you are approached by someone who believes that eating beef every day is moral because plant life is supreme in their eyes? Imagine you are approached by a friend who nags you constantly about why you drive a car, since driving a car contributes to global warming - and that affects the “whole damn planet”. Imagine that you want to see a concert by your favourite artist, and just as you’re about to buy tickets, someone tell you that they would never see that artist because they were anti-abortion.
What is your “right” or moral obligation to coerce or convert others to your belief?
You are mixing things up here. The vast, vast majority of societies and peoples of the world believe that “beating the fuck” out of a child is wrong. (I’m not talking about discipline; what you are describing is clear and unambiguous abuse).
You need to understand that as important as your beliefs are, there are different degrees of belief as well. I imagine there are many animals rights activists who would never say anything directly to a friend or co-worker, but instead would support via funding and peaceful protest - how do you feel about those people? Are they slackers? Scabs? Of course not.
No. Accent positive replacements for negative behaviour. Think to yourself which one of these scenarios is more likely to achieve your goals.
Scenario 1: “You’re buying a puppy from that place? You fucking piece of human filth - I’d kill you where you stood if it weren’t illegal! Did you know they commit atrocities to their puppies that would make Hitler vomit with rage?”
Scenario 2: “You know, I know a shelter that has a really good variety of nice animals that need homes. I also know of some rescue organizations that have several purebred dogs for adoption. They really do a great job and - here’s the bonus - they give an older, well-trained and housetrained animal a new home instead of encouraging puppy mills. If you’re interested, I can give you a flyer…”
Your friend or co-worker has already engaged in a fait accompli - they may have actually dipped a bit into their budget, and taken time off, to take their kids to someplace they feel will be fun. Why ruin their time once the tickets are bought? If she is only “thinking” about it, then try once - just once - to steer in a positive direction - remember, present positive choices as alternatives. Go the extra effort - search the web and see if there is a special deal on tickets for a RenFest or amusement park. If you know someone who has extra tickets to a ball game for sale or give-away, try to link them up.
There is a problem that many animal rights activists have on this Board - they equate a child with a dog with a tiger with a rat with a paramecium. Do you really believe that? Is beating a child to death in front of a crowd the same sort of thing as attending a circus? Does it mandate the same sort of response?
Let me make a deliberate strawman argument for illustration:
"Women are victimized and beaten and sold into slavery in countries around the world. People die of hunger every minute in Africa. Thai girls as young as 8 are forced into prostitution. Christians and Muslims and Jews all run around killing each other in a wide variety of regions. Cyclones leave hundreds of thousands homeless and starving and dying in southeast asia.
What have YOU done about it? Why do you ignore those things, and instead choose to pick only the “easy targets” for your battles - such as browbeating your co-workers over the circus?"
You see? Different degrees, different priorities, and different levels of action and involvement. How can any animal rights activist be upset and spend their energy on saving a squirrel, when they should be out there saving the lives of dozens or hundreds of human beings? How can I, Una, be a moral person when I sit here comfortable in my upper-middle class home, while people live in dirt and starve to death?
They’re tough questions, see? What is your answer to them?
Mine, like most people’s I would imagine, would be very unclear.
I hope you understand what I’m saying - I’m not criticizing you over these things, I’m using a deliberate strawman to illustrate that in life, we choose a lot of battles to fight and things to be concerned about, and if you step back and examine them critically, that which seems like a cause of dire importance to you, may not appear that way to others.
There are different degrees to many things. You can be offended at both the beating and the circus, but most of all your actions must be proportional to the situation, people may simply not understand why these things are important to you, and you must always consider that it is possible that you may not have the “right” way.
Most people believe that humans are omnivores by nature and are not “wrong” in any way shape or form for eating reasonable amounts of meat. You are assuming a philosophical position that makes no logical sense to most people and never will except to a narrow cohort of like minded folks.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, and in fact you would be a hypocrite if you did not speak up vigorously when people ate meat or went to the circus or wanted to buy animals from pet stores. At least have the courage of your convictions. Stop worrying about what your friends and acquaintances think. Your job is to stop animal abuse. Get in people grilles about their food choices. Start a commotion. You may be a social pariah, but that is a small sacrifice to make in order to stop animal abuse.
You need to engage the problem, not cower worriedly in the shadows. You need to take it up a notch if anything. Get going!
Alright, now that we’ve heard from the far end of the spectrum, please allow me to present a more moderate view. In my experience, people take little tidbits that you tell them, digest them, and if it makes sense to them, adopt them as their own. If you have some interesting little factoids about puppy mills/pet shops, circuses, etc., drop them into casual conversation and let people come to their own conclusions. If you plant the seeds, it is amazing how people come around on their own.
Also, you are always allowed your own opinions for yourself. You can certainly tell a friend going to the circus that you personally don’t support circuses, and if she asks why not, then give her the short answer (not a lecture). She will probably still go to this one, but maybe not the next one, and you probably still have a friend.
I sympathize with you totally about this. I am extremely anti-SUV and completely uninterested in children, and I tread a very careful path in my conversations with people these days.
How would you feel about a ‘raving loony’ fundamentalist telling you how to live your life? Pointing out to you that if you do xx and xx then surely you will be going to hell.
I agree with the others that its how you present your side. Getting in ‘someone’s face’ will probably do one of two things: antagonize them to the point that they won’t listen to anything you say or piss them off so that they start to look for your hypocrasies ("oh, so it’s wrong to eat animals…but ok to use film?). Either way, this method will leave you as a lonely person. I know this because I used to have a class with someone like this. By semester’s end, no one was speaking to her. You may be fine with that, I don’t know.
Personally, when it comes to beliefs, I think that actions speak louder than words. I’m not talking about the actions such as throwing paint on coats and such. I’m talking about the type of actions that actually help the animals out.
For example, say that I am really against homelessness. I think that I would make a more positive effect on the problem by spending my time volunteering for Habitat for humanity or at a soup kitchen rather than getting in people’s face about the situation.
In the end, there is only one person that you are sure of that will help the animals out and that is you. You are the only one you can truly count on, so you should make your actions count.
