WHERNTO: techniq operate
The following article (taken from the ESA website) provides large number of ideas and insights into animal rights (AR) discussions on internet forums which are useful for both the beginner as well as the experienced communicator. While the items here are not directly related to writing eletters, they may help individuals engaged in general discussions both on and off the net (and not just in the area of animal rights).
Tips For Those Starting Out
Below are some ideas from experience in internet discussions that immediately may be helpful to keep in mind.
- Always post within the forum guidelines. Remember you are a guest on someone else's forum. Even if you are at diametric odds with forum policy, it usually does little good if you get your post or yourself booted off.
- When possible, back up your statements with sources or logical verification. It usually isn't useful to suggest something with "… because i say so" or "… because that's how I feel" or "You are wrong and I am right". Even though all of these may be valid and even correct, remember that they don't make your point necessarily and your opponents can use exactly the same arguments on you.
- Be careful of falling into the 'absolutes traps'. For instance, while most primates are almost exclusively veg, it is foolish to argue that humans should be veg because monkeys are veg (because the latter isn't true and it's a non sequitur anyway). Another trap is that veg folks are always healthier than corpse eaters (you don't have to call them that btw), because it isn't true. What is true is that statistics greatly favor veg folk to not suffer from a variety of diseases such as atheromas, obsesity, cancer, osteoporosis etc which frequent corpse eaters.
- Don't get into name-calling unless there is a very good reason. For instance, it doesn't accomplish much to call your opponent a heartless brute, because it really doesn't have a great impact beyond the retort that you are a bleeding hearts, anti or what's recently been worse, a liberal! It's a good idea to stay away from political name calling too since some conservatives are far more aware and compassionate towards animals (and people) than some liberals or socialists.
- Be wary of deflections of various sorts. One of the usual efforts against pro-animal folk is the anti-abortion lobby - ie you care for animals but not unborn fetuses. Or here's a speciesist deflection, "Why are you telling us to stop killing seals when you should be complaining about the slaughterhouses!". The key to remember here is that if you protest A, it doesn't mean that you don't protest B. In other words, it is perfectly legitimate to protest something without protesting everything.
-
An interesting counter-effort that doesn't always take place consciously is rationalization. Here the person doesn't so much oppose you, but justifies why he or she should keep status quo. Corpses eaters come up with stuff like "Grain destroys more soil, so I have to eat meat", or "My doctor (or professor - i came across that believe it or not) said I have to eat meat", or "We can't let the cow population explode" or "Animals gladly give their lives for us" (a most interesting anthropocentric fantasy) or "It tastes good" (that, btw, is the only valid excuse and it's a pretty poor one), or "They'd do it to you if the situation were reversed" (at this point, we're getting borderline crazy), "We're on top of the food chain" (no way, unless you take up cannabilism) or "Monkeys do it" etc. The last one is the appeal to nature fallacy which was hilariously countered by my friend sheepdog:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I put it to you that it is not for vegetarians to justify our diet, but it is for the meat eaters to justify meat eating. And I further put it to you that anyone who has a choice about his diet and chooses to eat meat can only justify it with reasons all of which fall into one category, the "Because I want to screw like a chimp" category. Look:
"Because I want to (and I want to screw like a chimp)" "Because it tastes good (and it feels good to screw like a chimp)" "Because my ancestors ate meat (and they were chimps and I want to screw like a chimp)" "Because it's natural (and chimps naturally screw a lot and I want to screw like a chimp)"
And if someone insists that you tell them why you do not eat meat, it is enough to say, "Because I do NOT want to screw like a chimp. We can do better than that."
A simple, clear, ethical choice. And therein lies the paradigm shift. Natural = Good? (If you want to see more about the appeal to nature fallacy, check out the above thread)