Over at the Vegan Soapbox, an interesting post titled Why Do Omnivores Hate Us provides a good example of the misunderstandings that exist between vegans and non-vegans, which came in the form of a comment. In response to the author's question, "Why do omnivores hate us (vegans)," a commenter remarked:
"Sorry but your wrong...you happen to mention that we omnivores are the angry ones...i personally respect the choices of others..the reason many of us get angry is this....if u invite a vegan to dinner u have to go out of your way to cater for them, if u visit a vegans house, u eat wot ur given.....secondly when ur eating vegetarians and vegans find it perfectly fine to try and convert us...we dont approach you and tell you to eat meat so we dont appreciate people trying to convert us, we are intelligent enough to make our own decisions so why do you always have to bring it up to us...iv been called a murderer, zombie, baby killer and graveyard of rotting flesh purely cause i eat meat...i dont call you savage carrot murderers and graveyards of rotting plants...so why do u all think we are wrong...how do you know veganism is right for the planet..i can garuntee if meat was outlawed and every1 ate just plants and somthing massivly wrong happened to the world you wouldnt be so cocky and say..oh but we didnt know...if people want to be vegetarians and vegans then fine but stop trying to convert us..its like a cult."
Attempting to extract the argument here is difficult due to the poor grammar, spelling, and sentence structure; however, read through it several times and I believe that you will be able to decipher the text.
Notice that the commenter is assuming the invalidity of the authors' argument for veganism (i.e., all sentient beings are possessors of inherent value, and ought to have their interests protected with rights), without actually considering the argument. I didn't comment about this, however. I took a different approach - to get at the lack-of-substance of the comment itself, and the absence of reason.
I responded as follows:
Ethical vegans believe that meat is the result of an unjust institution that turns a rights-holder into a thing, a tool. It seems unreasonable to equate carrots and a cow - unless someone believes that carrots are rights-holders, therefore, our consuming them is unjust. "U eat wot ur given" at a vegan household because vegans are taking an ethical stance; at a meat eaters house, this is only similar if the meat eater believes that carrots have rights, for example, and thus take an ethical stance against eating vegan food. This is self-evidently different: it's analogous to asking someone who believes in the equality of all human beings to participate in chattel slavery - likewise, it's unreasonable to argue that the racist is placed in an ethical dilemma if they go to a non-racists home who busses their own tables, as opposed to having a Black slave do that work for them.
As this should be clear, you must understand why an ethical vegan would suggest that a conversation is necessary when confronted with a meat eater. We believe that you are violating another individuals' most basic moral rights, which is unjust and ought to be stopped. Again, an attempt to convert me from veganism on a similar level (i.e., I am violating the rights of a soy bean) is clearly absurd, and illogical. So, it's not the same. However, please do, start a conversation with me about why consuming meat is ethical and we can go from there.
And, believe it or not, this is a conversation that vegans constantly have. What is obviously, so clearly a difference for the vegan, is obtuse and unclear for some non-vegans.
Non-vegans, where am I wrong on this?
What omnivores usually forget is that most vegans weren't always so, and for this reason, rarely ask themselves (or the vegans) why someone might turn vegan.
I also tend to think that the animosity of some omnivores towards vegans is due to the fact that vegans make them feel uncomfortable, because deep down, when confronted with a vegan who makes an effort to act ethically in his/her life, they know that the vegan is right.
As for the reason why one should not expect vegans to serve animal products to non-vegans, you have tackled this issue well. If its a question of personal taste, one should not force his/her taste on others. However, if ethics and morality are involved, its a different matter.
Regarding veganism being a "cult", this is clearly false, since all it takes for a vegan to stop being vegan is for one to convince him/her that veganism is wrong. Of course, convincing someone requires some sort of discussion on the topic...but most non-vegans avoid such discussions because they make them uncomfortable. So if there is a cult, it must be the omnivore one.
Kenneth,
You make two excellent points that must be highlighted:
#1) "I also tend to think that the animosity of some omnivores towards vegans is due to the fact that vegans make them feel uncomfortable, because deep down, when confronted with a vegan who makes an effort to act ethically in his/her life, they know that the vegan is right."
#2) "Regarding veganism being a "cult", this is clearly false, since all it takes for a vegan to stop being vegan is for one to convince him/her that veganism is wrong. Of course, convincing someone requires some sort of discussion on the topic...but most non-vegans avoid such discussions because they make them uncomfortable. So if there is a cult, it must be the omnivore one."
As you said, to have a discussion about the latter requires omnivores, not vegans, to confront their own insecurities.
Alex, thanks for being so polite! An educated discussion is necessary as the post on vegan soapbox already stated. I saw a similar comment on a different blog, the other day, but the person made fun of vegans, calling us weirdos, etc., and jokingly (or not) kept talking about how delicious slaughtered animals are. Since I couldn't punch him in the face via computer, I practiced my finest French. :)
Veganism is a minority ethical position. Therefore, many individuals believe that mockery, instead of a conversation, is an acceptable method to deal with their own discomfort over their diet. It take's a better person than me to rise above the muddy hole that these individuals exist in when they respond to an honest question about Veganism with "I am eating a delicious piece of ham and it's soooo good." My finest French is often the only recourse I am capable of.
What’s ironic is that if these individuals could articulate a convincing ethical defense of the exploitation of animals, a defense that proves my argument wanting, I would have no other choice but to rethink my position. So, when they participate in the conversation with these infantile statements I wonder why they don’t simply tell me why I am wrong. I believe the answer is that they cannot; therefore because I am still in the infinite minority, it’s just easier to poke fun.
They’re moral cowards really; and intellectually childish. I don't want them on my team anyways :) Actually I do, because these people are generally the biggest consumers of meat.