Arguing for veganism to conservatives

Have to disagree with your take on Buddhists, since I am one. If you have the time please read the following on my site, a letter by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist Priest, a global spiritual leader, poet and peace activist, revered throughout the world for his powerful teachings and bestselling writings on mindfulness and peace.

wedigfood.com

or the entire letter, it is long but a good read.

Thich Nhat Hanh
That is a lovely letter, thank you for posting. I read the whole thing.

I am sorry to have been unclear, I meant that of course Buddhism includes not eating animals, but many modern Buddhists argue that as long as the animal wasn't killed by or specifically for you, then it's acceptable to eat. Others have argued that only the monks must abstain from eating flesh.

I of course disagree and was vegan before I became a Buddhist.
 
I've been thinking about this thread a lot and trying to put together some thoughts on it. My first inclination is to address the word argue as I think attitude plays a bigger role than the actual words we use.
"ar·gue
ˈärɡyo͞o/
verb
1.
give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
synonyms: contend, assert, maintain, insist, hold, claim, reason, allege; More
persuade someone to do or not to do (something) by giving reasons.

2.
exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.
"don't argue with me"
synonyms: quarrel, disagree, squabble, bicker, fight, wrangle, dispute, feud, have words, cross swords, lock horns, be at each other's throats; informal spat.

I think #1 is more effective but I think we let our emotions get the best of us and we end up resorting to number 2. I see it as a big problem, not just in advocating for veganism but for other issues as well. It doesn't matter what arguments we use if we insist on being offensive, insulting or we ridicule our intended target. That makes them dig their heels in deeper and resist more, IMO.
 
Yes, I was thinking of "arguing" more in the sense of that first definition. Once it gets heated, the person you're talking to has all their defences up, and you're not likely to get anywhere.
 
I think #1 is more effective but I think we let our emotions get the best of us and we end up resorting to number 2. I see it as a big problem, not just in advocating for veganism but for other issues as well. It doesn't matter what arguments we use if we insist on being offensive, insulting or we ridicule our intended target. That makes them dig their heels in deeper and resist more, IMO.

Some facts/truths are so offensive to some people that arguing style #1 becomes more offensive than arguing style #2.

If anyone wants to test theory; Try posting simple truths/facts about eggs and dairy outside of the vegan forum here and see if you don't get asked to refrain from making 'attacks'.
 
It does go both ways which is why we need to be the ones who take the high road. And I'm not suggesting the facts be sugar-coated, just as long as we stick to the facts. I think a lot hinges on presentation.

Off topic, a coworker was talking to me about her dog. He was purchased through a breeder. I took the opportunity to bring up some of the facts about puppy mills. She was genuinely shocked. We chatted for a while and I told her how there are many pure breeds in shelters and she said she was going to ask me for help the next time she wanted another dog. :)
 
Yes, I was thinking of "arguing" more in the sense of that first definition. Once it gets heated, the person you're talking to has all their defences up, and you're not likely to get anywhere.
Yes, I did take your OP to mean that. I just thought what I was saying was kind of related. I will try and come up with something more definitive in what we can use as "arguments". :)
 
Once it gets heated, the person you're talking to has all their defences up, and you're not likely to get anywhere.

You'd be amazed what a wound up dumb-*** in full flow can do to influence the 'floating voters', IS.

Long time ago I was receiving regular "I'm convinced, I'm going vegan" pm's on a multi faith forum I belonged to.

A common factor was it is the sheer stupidity that the opposition had been forced to resort to that had actualy done the convincing.
 
You'd be amazed what a wound up dumb-*** in full flow can do to influence the 'floating voters', IS.

Long time ago I was receiving regular "I'm convinced, I'm going vegan" pm's on a multi faith forum I belonged to.

A common factor was it is the sheer stupidity that the opposition had been forced to resort to that had actualy done the convincing.
This is a good point - while you might not be getting through to the person with whom you're discussing, depending on the arena, there could be others who do get the message. So it's a question of who you are targeting.
 
This is a good point - while you might not be getting through to the person with whom you're discussing, depending on the arena, there could be others who do get the message. So it's a question of who you are targeting.

Intended audience or incidential by stander? Anyone and everyone?
 
This is a good point - while you might not be getting through to the person with whom you're discussing, depending on the arena, there could be others who do get the message. So it's a question of who you are targeting.

Aye, you've gotta understand that it's a numbers game also. One in which the odds are very heavily stacked.

The combined effects of every strategy to promote veganism to date have only achieved a conversion rate of around 1%.

Basicaly that means that, on average, pissing off 99 out of 100 people you talk to about veganism is just about getting it right.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully they can gain some insight before they move on.

On dhammawheel there was a small crew who were so 'enlightened' that they could secure a more fortunate reincarnation for any animal their holy-asses ate.

M'theory that such people had an obligation of compassion to take a bite of everything and anything they came across did not go down too well.
 
On dhammawheel there was a small crew who were so 'enlightened' that they could secure a more fortunate reincarnation for any animal their holy-asses ate.

M'theory that such people had an obligation of compassion to take a bite of everything and anything they came across did not go down too well.

That is certainly an unique interpretation of reincarnation. Glad to hear it was a "small crew" and not something widespread. Maybe they have been reading some Vampire comic books.
 
Arguing against eating animals to anyone who eats animals is futile in my experience, regardless of political ideology.
 
Arguing against eating animals to anyone who eats animals is futile in my experience, regardless of political ideology.

It definitely is if you're crap at arguing. Yes.

How you measure success would also affect how you measure futility though.

One measure of success may be something like "will that dumb-*** think twice before he/she tries being a dumb-*** with a vegan again"?

It's personal opinion but if it is true that thinking more leads people closer to veganism then anything that makes people think more is a significant success.