Communication: Using humans in analogies / as examples

[Volenta]

I'm thinking a lot about how to communicate veganism lately, mostly because I notice that it's not a position that is respected a lot. And this is what makes it hard for me to talk or start a conversation about it. I think there are a lot of reasons that it doesn't get the respect it deserves, to name a few things: dealing with cognitive dissonance; uneducated about animal cognition, sentience and ethics; dislike of known vegans (maybe because of communication problems); diverse and mutually inconsistent views of vegetarians and vegans. And because of all these factors, I think good communication is absolutely crucial.

So what I'm noticing is a strong dislike of making comparisons of humans. I catch myself on
a) making comparisons with mentally disabled people for demonstrating moral status/relevance (if interpreted from the wrong premise—namely that eating animals is okay—it suggests a condescending attitude towards mentally disabled people, which is blasphemy in a political correct society),
b) using human rape as an example of why enjoyment shouldn't count as a valid reason for eating meat (which can be interpreted by some as being equal to rapists by continuing to consume meat).
You can probably think of many more since they are used a lot—probably because they are easy to grasp and appeal to common sense. Now I know that these are logically valid points to make, but people that aren't as familiar with ethics and rationality or just don't have an open mind can have trouble with these examples. And as true as the arguments may be, if people interpret it as offensive/rude it is not going to change their mind or doing good on the stigma vegans already have. Then you just become their new disliked vegan, and you didn't get through their cognitive dissonance either, and maybe even closed the door to educate them on the issue.

How useful I may think these examples are, should we really use them in practice? Or should we take a more formal and academic approach? I sometimes try to use a more academic approach, but then I get criticism for using difficult words or being too philosophical. And this is for some, I would almost say anti-intellectual, people also not the solution. How do you prefer to communicate?

[brimstoneSalad]

How useful I may think these examples are, should we really use them in practice? Or should we take a more formal and academic approach? I sometimes try to use a more academic approach, but then I get criticism for using difficult words or being too philosophical. And this is for some, I would almost say anti-intellectual, people also not the solution. How do you prefer to communicate?

'Dumb' people pretty much just need pictures, and emotional appeal. Comparing pets seems to work well for some. Also, baby animals.

Rather than focusing on individual people who are overtly opposed to giving animals moral consideration, leafleting is probably much more useful (since it catches those people who are on the fence)- it's also the only method proven particularly resource/cost effective.

When somebody is both anti-intellectual, and anti-emotional, it's usually better just to move on.

If you get somebody intelligent, then you can break out the more reasoned arguments.

[PrincessPeach]

Just refer to the food they eat as what it truly is. Do not call cow's milk, milk, call it what it is; breast milk! Tell them they are not eating a burger they are eating, flesh, blood, antibiotics, stress hormone cortisol, ect.. Tell them that your wife has a strange condition; when she ovulates now she actually drops her eggs out of her vagina and you eat all them every month !!
No one wants to be compared to such extremes as rapist's or killers especially if they are not fully cognitively aware of what their actions (consuming animals/products) is really doing to the animals or themselves. That would be a topic to discuss with people on a figuratively speaking level 4-5 of actual 'knowledge' into veganism. Most people are truly blind but; if you tell them what their food really is it may open their eyes a bit more and instead of looking down and biting into a 'burger' or drinking down a 'milk shake' maybe they'll have a second opinion on it maybe even become a little less reluctant to believe that they need to change their diet!
You may have only one chance to talk to someone about veganism, try your best to make a strong lasting valid point that they can't deny, make them feel guilty about their actions or lack of action really. IMO it's too character insulting to straight up compare a reg. person to a rapist or serial killer, hey if everyone else was raping and killing humans and it was sociably acceptable well; I bet a lot more people would be doing it. We are creatures of influence it's not their fault it is societies fault. How well would you take criticism if someone insulted you for your actions instead of logically and calmly explaining to you why you are wrong and offer a solution. I would rather have some one explain to me how I FD up instead of insulting me for messing up. Do you get what I am saying ?

[Volenta]

@brimstoneSalad
Adjusting to the person you're talking to is probably the best approach indeed.

@PrincessPeach
Well, naming everything for what it truly is may sound fair, but then I'm more concerned that the ethical argument goes unnoticed and making myself unpopular in the process as well. It's not a concern of me that the origin of the products is gross, I'm concerned with the ethical implications. And to be honest, it would seem to me that you're making a kind of emotional case using that approach. And maybe it's failing on my side, but I like to stay objective in representing the case to make it more strongly without distractions. Aren't you concerned that it might well be a conversation stopper?

On your point on making someone feel guilty; I think it depends on how you bring it whether it is the right approach. I think human psychology works in a way that it tries to protect itself when attacked by someone directly for their behavior/misfortune. And when your putting someone in a defensive (or maybe even offended) state, they are less likely to change their mind. I think a lot of people aren't rational enough to honestly evaluate your claims when putting it on the table in a direct way. But if you would do it calmly and give them some space to move in (not strangling them in a position that makes them feel uncomfortable)—and I think you were saying this—it would have a better impact I think.

[PrincessPeach]

@PrincessPeach
Well, naming everything for what it truly is may sound fair, but then I'm more concerned that the ethical argument goes unnoticed and making myself unpopular in the process as well. It's not a concern of me that the origin of the products is gross, I'm concerned with the ethical implications. And to be honest, it would seem to me that you're making a kind of emotional case using that approach. And maybe it's failing on my side, but I like to stay objective in representing the case to make it more strongly without distractions. Aren't you concerned that it might well be a conversation stopper?

On your point on making someone feel guilty; I think it depends on how you bring it whether it is the right approach. I think human psychology works in a way that it tries to protect itself when attacked by someone directly for their behavior/misfortune. And when your putting someone in a defensive (or maybe even offended) state, they are less likely to change their mind. I think a lot of people aren't rational enough to honestly evaluate your claims when putting it on the table in a direct way. But if you would do it calmly and give them some space to move in (not strangling them in a position that makes them feel uncomfortable)—and I think you were saying this—it would have a better impact I think.

You are right about my emotion approach, we are creatures of emotions and feelings, sometimes the logic approach, while it makes sense and is logical to you, I feel in most cases you need to make an emotional connection with that person before you can even try to get any logic through. A lot of times you will find people will also try to deny the logic, if you make them feel a certain way about something it's going to be hard for them not to think of the emotion you just left them with the next they do whatever it was you talked to them about... If they aren't emotionally tied into the conversation how well will they be listening to you, most of the time I find if I don't pull on the emo-strings I get ignored/passed on to another subject.. I was trying to imply that you would naturally make one feel guilty by playing with their emo-strings..
I still say, tell it like it is!
THEY'RE ALL DRINKING BREAST MILK!!!

[Twizelby]

I prefer to ask using Socratic method. "if we base what we eat off intelligence, should we eat the mentally disabled?" I hope it leaves an impression and a lasting question. I have never gotten a response to such things so I assume that they can't find a hole that they can get out of. I think it's a very passive way to shift the question to the opposition.

[EquALLity]

I just got into an argument with someone about this.

•
slaveworldabusementpark @theatheistweepingangel @ @liberals_live_in_reality @t_fish15 @republicanlies2 It's an analogy. It's not saying the two instances are exactly the same. It's just saying that just because you like doing something doesn't make it moral. It's just using an example of something (rape) that we already understand is wrong to convey the message it is making. 2h

•
theatheistweepingangel And yet, it falls under the false equivalence fallacy. Saying that rape is anywhere near close to being like killing an animal for sustenance is wrong in every single respect. To say that they're even remotely anywhere near being alike enough to be able to use them in an analogy together is disrespectful and insulting to any and all survivors of rape and sexual assault. @slaveworldabusementpark 2h

•
slaveworldabusementpark After reading it over, I see the tweet does say that it's the same to say those two things actually. I have a feeling that's just mis-wording, though. I'm just going to give that woman the benefit of the doubt and assume that she messed up the phrasing. I realize that my assumption isn't an argument; I just had to clarify. It's really too bad that she had to use the word "same". If she said "like" she would have made an actual argument that might plant some seeds. 2h

•
slaveworldabusementpark @theatheistweepingangel It wouldn't be saying that rape is close to as bad as animal slaughter, though. It would just be saying that liking something doesn't mean doing that something is moral. 2h

•
theatheistweepingangel By using it in an analogy, that is exactly what you're doing. To do otherwise is to be hypocritical and dishonest. If that's not your intention, then you don't use it in an analogy. It's literally that simple. A comparable analogy would have been animal abuse. Not rape. Never, ever, ever rape. Never. Ever. @slaveworldabusementpark 2h

•
slaveworldabusementpark @theatheistweepingangel Also I don't know what you mean by sustenance. Unless you live in an area where you can't access other foods to sustain yourself, you're likely killing animals because you like how they taste. 2h

•
slaveworldabusementpark @theatheistweepingangel A comparable analogy would have been animal abuse? Animals are literally tortured on factory farms and in most slaughterhouses. It's way worse to kick your dog around than to buy a turkey and provolone sandwich at the average American deli. Anyway, how is pointing out a similarity in two different arguments saying that the two things being argued about are necessarily similar? 2h

•
theatheistweepingangel I want you to reread your last sentence and literally answer your own question @slaveworldabusementpark you just pointed out a lot better than I possibly could from now on 2h

•
slaveworldabusementpark Let me break down my position- I think murder and rape are both immoral. One reason they are both wrong is that they interfere with the wellbeing of another person. Is that to say that rape and murder are both necessarily equivalent? No, it's just pointing out a shared reason why both things are wrong. P.S.- You didn't address what I said about sustenance. @theatheistweepingangel 2h

•
theatheistweepingangel 1 you don't get to choose what I put in my body anymore than I get to choose what you put in yours. 2 animals are not human beings. Therefore, they are not a person. 3 do regulations of the meat industry need to be tightened? More likely than not, yes. Does that mean that killing an animal and raping an actual person is at all comparable? Hell fucking no. How dare you state that my rape and killing a cow are wrong for the same reason? Don't you dare say that the two things are at all comparable enough to be used in an analogy. You're insulting me and every other rape survivor out there by saying so. I know plenty of animal rights activists and vegans and vegetarians and none of them have ever said anything even approaching something quite this disgusting and insulting. Congratulations on reaching a new level of low that I never in my darkest nightmares believed to be possible. @slaveworldabusementpark 1h

•
slaveworldabusementpark I never said I get to choose what you put in your body. What the fuck are you talking about? I also never said animals are humans. Also, ONE reason why rape is wrong is that it interferes with the wellbeing of another. Killing animals is wrong because it interferes with the wellbeing of another. That's not to say that there aren't more reasons why rape is wrong or that the two things are equally immoral. I am saying that these two immoral things share a common factor. If you think that is saying they are the same or almost the same, or that that by pointing out a common factor in both situations or that by pointing out related bullshit in justifying two arguments that I am somehow diminishing one thing, you have a logic problem. @theatheistweepingangel 32min

•
slaveworldabusementpark So, I do believe the two things share one common factor, but I also believe that rape is way, way, WAY worse than eating meat. Rape hurts humans and that is definitely worse than hurting animals. But pointing out a similarity in two different arguments doesn't necessarily mean that the two things being argued about are similar. Take arguing for giving children cocaine and for pouring water on your computer with the reasoning, "because I can". What I really meant to say, though, was that "How does pointing out a similarity in an argument make the assumption that the things being argued about are nearly equally bad/good/whatever?" This is because the two things do share one common factor. They both unnecessarily hurt. But that doesn't mean I think one even compares to being as immoral as the other. @theatheistweepingangel 6min

[brimstoneSalad]

She sounds like a bully.

Rape and meat eating is a great analogy.

Meat eating: It's 'natural', we can digest meat, and our close relatives do it.
Rape: It's natural; the penis evolved to rape (it's unnecessary for consensual intercourse), and our close relatives do it.

Both are natural.

They both cause suffering for the victim, and pleasure for the perpetrator.

They're both unnecessary to survival of an individual in the modern world.
They're both arguably necessary to survival in the wild/third world.

The only differences is that rape usually leaves the victim alive, and is illegal while meat eating kills the victim and is legal. Then there's also the fact that rape, for some men, is the only way to reproduce, which has implications for survival of his line (which is more than can be said for meat, which grants no such 'advantage').

Rape seems almost more justifiable in some sense, since it usually doesn't kill (unlike meat eating), and could be seen as necessary for the survival of a line if a man can't find a woman to voluntarily bear his child.

Tell her that. See if her head explodes.

[brimstoneSalad]

Also, since she's playing the victim card as justification for bullying other people by telling them what they can and can not say:

You could call bullshit on her calling herself a "survivor".

It makes about as much sense as saying somebody is a fender bender survivor- something that is rarely ever lethal in the first place.

You can be be a car crash survivor, but if your life was never in any very serious danger, you're not a "survivor", if you're the victim of a crime, you're just a victim.
And you can choose to define yourself that way, be a PTSD sensitive little flower who gets triggered by everything everybody says, and bully other people to walk on eggshells around you for the rest of your life, or not.

If people want to use the word 'survivor' because it's empowering, OK, fine... but you've been nice to her, and very sensitive, and she's just being a bully. If she's not going to pay you some basic respect as a human being, maybe it's time to put her on the defensive about HER word choices.

[EquALLity]

Tell her that. See if her head explodes.

Ha! But I can't. After writing her rant about how I am insulting any and all rape victims ever, she blocked me.
I wrote those last two things so that other people reading those things could see what I was saying.

You could call bullshit on her calling herself a "survivor".

It makes about as much sense as saying somebody is a fender bender survivor- something that is rarely ever lethal in the first place.

You can be be a car crash survivor, but if your life was never in any very serious danger, you're not a "survivor", if you're the victim of a crime, you're just a victim.
And you can choose to define yourself that way, be a PTSD sensitive little flower who gets triggered by everything everybody says, and bully other people to walk on eggshells around you for the rest of your life, or not.

That reminds me of a quote about this-
"Someone f*cked you, and you didn't wanna be f*cked, and you're surprised you lived?"

-TheAmazingAtheist

I don't know if I would say that to her if I could, though.
I'm just thinking aloud.




Side note- I think that when I made my analogy about murder and rape, she thought I was using murder as another term for animal slaughter. That's why she said that animals aren't people when I wasn't arguing that. I was actually using murder and rape so that she could see the logic behind that argument and apply it to the current situation. Surely she thinks murder and rape are bad, but that murder is worse. But they still are wrong for a common reason. In the same way, I was saying rape is worse than killing an animal, even though they share a common reason why they are bad. Ugh.

If she's not going to pay you some basic respect as a human being, maybe it's time to put her on the defensive about HER word choices.

Too bad she blocked me. I guess I still could write something about that for anyone else reading though.