Table Of ContentHow to Argue With Vegans
An analysis of anti-vegan arguments
by
Benny Malone
Cover design and illustration by Richard Watts
@punishedfist on Instagram
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to my wife Amanda for support and encouragement. Thanks to Kylie
Mitchell, Charles Horn, Richard Watts and too many friends to mention for suggestions
and valuable discussions and conversations over the years and for particular help in
reviewing the manuscript.
Contents
Introduction
Chapter One – Thought Terminating Cliches
Chapter Two – Discussions
Chapter Three – Psychology
Chapter Four – Logical Fallacies
Chapter Five – Variables
Chapter Six – Reflexive Arguments
Chapter Seven – The Case For Veganism
“You never change things by fighting against the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model
obsolete.”
- Buckminster Fuller
Chapter One
Thought Terminating Cliches
The initial problem with talking to people about veganism is that people do
not want to talk about veganism.
Specifically, they do not really want to get into discussions about how
animals are used and slaughtered.
People will say things like ‘don’t show me, I don’t want to see that’ or ‘I
don’t want to know’ when confronted with images of slaughterhouses.
These phrases and platitudes are known as thought terminating cliches .
(1)
The most common you will see employed by people when veganism or
animal use is the topic are -
Live and let live
Each to their own
It’s a personal choice
Agree to disagree
You do you
Circle of life
Humane slaughter
Don’t judge
Can’t we all just get along?
They are ‘thought terminating’ because they aim to stop any further inquiry,
development, or criticism of the thought. They want to use the phrase and
for that to be an end to the conversation before it can even begin.
A thought-terminating cliche is a commonly used phrase, sometimes
passing as folk wisdom, used to propagate cognitive dissonance (discomfort
experienced when one simultaneously holds two or more conflicting
cognitions, e.g. ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions). Though the
phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a
means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it
thought-terminating.
The term was popularized by Robert Jay Lifton in his 1956 book Thought
Reform and the Psychology of Totalism . Lifton said, “The language of
the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche.
The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into
brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and
easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological
analysis.” (Wikipedia)
I remember attending a vegan pop-up dinner party years ago and non-
vegans who were there made it clear to me at the outset that ‘it is a matter
of personal choice’ and by this they were making it known they didn’t want
to debate the issues. ‘Personal Choice Vegans’ are their favourite type of
vegan. The non-vegan wants to make it a personal choice because if we
‘agree to disagree’ then there is no development or evolution of the
discussion. There is no exchange of ideas. The debate is terminated before
it can get going with these phrases.
They are cliches too because they are unexamined platitudes for the most
part. Have people really thought about what they are saying when it comes
to ‘live and let live’ when it comes to animal use and slaughter? The non-
vegan will also happily tell you that they are ‘fine with your being
vegan’ and ‘have nothing against vegans’ and may pay lip service to the
idea of not using and slaughtering animals. Why would they be against
someone having a personal dietary preference (as they mischaracterise
veganism)? It’s because if it’s just a personal choice like any other there is
no judgement or discrimination of ideas. One choice is as good as another
because the choices are personal, like any other choice on a menu of
consumer items. It’s not for anyone to judge another’s choice or taste.
Basically they want to make it clear they are fine with you being vegan as
long as you leave them alone and it’s an attempt at getting reciprocation
from the vegan to be ‘fine’ with their ‘personal choice’. It can also be an
attempt to make the vegan seem unreasonable and interfering and
moralising. You aren’t fine with people living their lives and making their
choices? How unreasonable of you! The playbook of tobacco, oil and fast
food companies all frame everything as Consumer Freedom and its enemy
as the ‘Nanny State’. This framing has had disastrous consequences for
public health. Of course, vegans want people to make personal choices, just
not those that promote animal use and slaughter. They want people to use
the power of choice for a better alternative.
Forcing views!
This is the first hurdle when discussing veganism, people seek comfort in
the status quo and don’t like being challenged.
If there is a risk they will get into a debate they want to shut it down at the
inception and even be pre-emptive like my fellow diner and make it clear
they don’t want a discussion on ethics.
The subject can be uncomfortable because it is a moral judgement, it is on a
subject of exploitation and slaughter of animals which is upsetting to most
people when they see the reality.
If people came to a conclusion that they were wrong about animal use and
slaughter and that it would be better to use alternatives that avoid this, then
the costs to them can vary. It depends how invested they are in defending
those arguments and how much they identify with the arguments. If it’s
your career it is a bigger ship to turn round than if you are someone who
has no financial incentive to exploit animals. Psychologically too there is
investment in identifying as a meat eater. The more a person is invested in
identifying with the arguments the harder it is for them to abandon them.
This is true for any ideology and is where cognitive dissonance comes in.
Slothful induction can mean people are slow to connect ideas and slow to
change. There is also the ‘ Sunk Cost Fallacy ’ where so much has been
invested in an idea or practice that people continue with it even though it
may be a bad idea to do so. Rather than ‘cutting one’s losses’ we continue
because we have already put in time, money or effort into the thing we are
defending.
As Upton Sinclair said – ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’ The
more someone is invested in an argument, whether that is through identity
or actual money, the more difficult it may be for them to change their mind
and the more likely they will have sunk costs into their position.
People will also want to highlight problems in other countries, with other
types of animal exploitation and killing that most people in their society
don’t approve of or support. This is another type of thought
terminating cliche that just seeks to keep the discussion in those areas. If a
celebrity consistently points to these areas that no one agrees with anyway
they don’t have to challenge their audience or themselves and can stay in
their comfort zone. Just like the vegan that they prefer is the non-
challenging quiet vegan , this celebrity type will be popular with them also.
Everyone can just carry on business as usual, make no personal changes in
practical or philosophical terms and maintain their comfort level. For
example Ricky Gervais is notorious for highlighting areas that no one, or
hardly anyone, in the U.K. would agree with anyway. He doesn’t maintain
the same energy for all areas of animal use and isn’t as iconoclastic as he
thinks. Do you think celebrities that actually challenged people on the areas
of animal use and slaughter they were complicit in would maintain their
popularity or appeal to those complicit in those acts? People want to
abrogate responsibility and say they are against things they aren’t involved
in anyway. It is harder to look inward and at our own lives.
“Everyone thinks of changing the world. But no one thinks of changing
themselves.”
– Leo Tolstoy
“I always thought someone should do something about that.
Then I realised I am someone.”
Going vegan was being tired of my own excuses.
Many non-vegan writers do understand these points and have written about
understanding veganism as the more moral position but say they are lacking
‘will power’ or commitment. (2)
Distancing – ‘‘I could never do that!’’
Not all such characterisations of vegans will be unflattering. In fact the
other way to create distance and therefore justify your own inaction or
attitude is to put vegans on a pedestal.
This may be more unconscious than the overt hatred of vegans that is
sometimes displayed. Perhaps there is genuine admiration for vegans. But if
it is exaggerated then vegans are made out to be superhuman with greater
resolve and willpower than the ‘average human’. Therefore, such reserves
are beyond the ability of mere mortals like them!
By identifying a superhuman effort or character trait that they say is needed
to be vegan people create a comfortable distance between themselves and
the change that would be required to be vegan. Be careful with this over-
admiration and with non-vegans who ‘could never do what you are
doing’.
