Some guiding principles for conversations:
1.  Speak calmly and clearly.
2.  Maintain a calm demeanor; avoid raising your voice.
3.  Position yourself comfortably beside them, rather than directly facing, to foster a less confrontational atmosphere.

Viewing the Conversation from Their Perspective

Let's consider a scenario: picture yourself unable to swim, yet suddenly finding yourself in the deep end of a swimming pool. How might that experience feel? It might be overwhelming, perhaps even terrifying. Now, imagine if sharing our idea felt similarly overwhelming to others. What might we estimate our chances of connection to be? Change can sometimes evoke discomfort, and significant changes can feel quite daunting. If our idea suggests a substantial shift from current habits, it might encounter some hesitation. Instead, a more gradual approach could be helpful. We could break down the idea into smaller, more manageable steps. Keeping it simple can be key. It's important that the person we're speaking with feels secure and understood at each stage. We can explore how embracing this perspective might align with their own best interests and values. Moreover, it's always important to avoid any hint of condescension and maintain a respectful tone throughout our conversation.

The Common Thread in Outreach

The general idea behind this outreach approach is to gently explore premises that resonate with a person's existing values. The hope is that these premises, which they are likely to affirm, can naturally lead them to consider how reducing their contribution to animal suffering aligns with those values.

In practice, the conversation might unfold through steps like these:

- Explore shared values (e.g., "Most of us would likely step in if we saw someone on the street kicking a dog or a cow in the chest, wouldn't we?")

- Gently illustrate the connection between values and actions (e.g., "Have you considered how supply and demand works? Our purchasing choices can act like a vote for certain industries, couldn't they?")

- Invite reflection on aligning actions with values (e.g., "If we're against animal cruelty, it might seem inconsistent to also support industries that involve animal products. Perhaps considering how aligning our actions with our values might involve reducing our reliance on these products is something to explore?")

Since we're often creatures of habit, and many of us have grown up with certain societal norms around food, it's natural for people to offer reasons why they may not currently be focused on reducing animal suffering through their choices. Even here, we can gently help people see if the values they're trying to uphold with these reasons are truly what they believe. More on this in the next chapter.

How to Effectively Address Potential Inconsistencies in Values

Sometimes, in conversations about our values concerning non-human animals, a pattern emerges that can be counterproductive. This often involves framing the conversation by projecting onto the other person an assumption about their stance, rather than presupposing they are against animal abuse. You might see what I mean when I say this can feel counterintuitive to how we usually engage in moral discussions.

An example of this less helpful approach might be, "How do you justify animal murder?" By "projecting," I mean we might inadvertently assume the person we're talking to supports animal harm, when often, they are simply acting out of social norms, tradition, or habit that lead them to buy and consume animal products. When this happens, the person might offer a justification that doesn't truly reflect their deepest values, perhaps just the first thing that comes to mind.

For example, when asked, "How do you justify animal murder?" the other person might reply with, "It's tradition; we've been doing it for thousands of years." Then, the person advocating for reducing suffering for non-human animals might respond by constructing a "straw man" argument, saying something like, "So you would be okay with humans being murdered for tradition?" It's worth remembering they might have only said "tradition" because it was the first thing that came to mind when prompted for a justification. Most people would initially answer "no" to the human scenario because most people are against murder, even if they moved to a society where murder was a tradition; they would likely still object to it.

Now, the person advocating for animals might then try to highlight this as a contradiction. This can escalate, sometimes leading to confrontational questions like, "So, are you admitting you're contradicting yourself?" especially in a group setting. Understandably, people generally wish to avoid appearing contradictory, which can make them defensive. As a result, in an attempt to remain consistent with a previous, perhaps ill-considered statement, they might agree to something extreme, like, "So you're in favor of killing a human if they're tasty?" and respond with "yes" to avoid further perceived contradiction. It's important to recognize that this kind of questioning can feel manipulative and might lead people to say things they don't genuinely believe, almost as if backed into a corner.

Ask yourself, would people commit to the same statements if you asked them these questions randomly or in an honest, non-pressuring way on the street "So you would kill people if that is tradition?", they would not. The framework of the conversation makes them commit to things that are actually against their values.

It's also helpful to remember that this confrontational approach isn't usually seen as effective in other forms of advocacy. For instance, in anti-racism outreach, one might gently ask, "Could we explore if this aligns with your values, given your stance against racism?" rather than a challenging, "So, you'd accept racism here?" The former focuses on understanding values and fostering collaboration, not on catching contradictions.

Effective outreach, in my experience, focuses less on trying to make someone's stated arguments consistent, and more on highlighting how prevailing food norms might conflict with their deeper, actual values for compassion. Instead of putting someone on the spot with, "You brought up reason x; in another situation, you wouldn't accept x. Do you understand that you have made a logical error here?" a more constructive approach might be to say, "You mentioned reason x, and I wonder if that might be influencing a belief that the value of x (being against suffering, for example) doesn't fully apply here. Could we explore together whether that's truly the reason for the choice not to act in a way y?"

Or another example: Instead of saying, “You said tradition? So you're ok with abuse when it's tradition?”, perhaps try something like: “If we consider the concept of tradition from a broader perspective, it might mean acknowledging X, and it's worth reflecting on whether this truly resonates with your core values. Is it possible there’s an alternative view that aligns even better with what you believe?” After exploring such points, one could gently guide the conversation towards sentience or suffering by asking something like, “Do you have a sense of why someone doesn't want to be gassed to death?” If they are honest, they will likely respond with something like 'because they can suffer.' Then you could ask them, “Does this idea of sentience and suffering perhaps align more closely with your value system than the difference x we just discussed? It feels that way to me. What are your thoughts?”

The difference, I believe, is significant—this approach offers individuals the space to reconsider their initial argument and acknowledge that it might not be the primary reason for valuing being x over the other.

General Outreach Example

One way to begin a conversation is by asking if they have encountered similar videos before: “Did you see something like this before?” This can feel more natural than inquiring about their interest in information or your presence, potentially making the interaction less like a sales pitch. If they have seen videos like this before or are generally aware of animal abuse, they might be more open to engaging with you. After this, you could ask them how they feel about what they've seen. If they start bringing up arguments, or especially in small groups where people might talk over each other, it can be helpful to gently return to the question about their feelings. If they still don't answer directly about their feelings, it might be an indicator that the conversation isn't progressing at that moment, and it's okay to politely disengage. The aim is to guide the conversation, not to force it.

Once they share their feelings, you could then say something like, “We're showing footage from standard practices in industries that use animals, such as meat, dairy, egg, and fish industries. All the footage reflects standard practice and includes humane/RSPCA-certified organic, etc. Do you have any thoughts on why these places exist in the first place?”

When they articulate their response, likely along the lines of "Because people consume meat/animal products," you can then gently introduce the concept of supply and demand. Whether they affirm, deny, or express uncertainty about understanding this concept, you could smoothly continue the conversation by stating, "It's a bit like supply and demand, isn't it? If you were to visit a store and purchase, let's say, 'x' (replace 'x' with strawberries, animal products, or a relevant example), and the seller records this transaction 'x,' do you think the seller would order more or less of 'x' next time?" Anticipating their response, which is likely to be "More," you can then reinforce the idea by saying, "Exactly, so it's like our choices act like a vote in a way.”

Now you want to make the person express values against minimal animal abuse, saying like you just want to make sure “You’re against animal abuse right?”

They will probably say “Yes” or “In general yes, xy” because that’s their values, most people don’t want to be psychopathic animal abusers. After they respond, you can then delve deeper into their agreement. Instead of accepting this as the statement of their values, you can guide them to acknowledge a more fundamental level of opposition. For instance, you could ask them, 'If a cow were lying here, and someone was kicking her in the face, would you intervene and stop them?' This question essentially forces them to acknowledge that they are against the minimal level of animal abuse. This also eliminates mostly that they bring up other forms of animal exploitation like “Yes I'm against abuse in general but organic and free-range is not abuse, and my farmer next to me only slits the throats and rapes innocents but it's not bad as on the screen you show here...” and argue, this doesn’t capture what I said when I said I'm against animal abuse, but when you extend their values to what they actually mean this won’t come up or they will realise quickly that imprisoning, breeding raping and slitting someone's throat who’s innocent isn’t better than kicking someone is the face, it's much worse.

Moreover, adopting this approach significantly reduces the likelihood of them responding with "That's too unrealistic." This is because you are essentially aligning their position with yours, creating a context where agreement is desired. For instance, imagine asking someone, "You're against kicking children in the face, right?" Upon their agreement, you can then pose the scenario: "If a child were lying here, and someone was kicking it in the face, would you intervene and stop them?" In such a scenario, it becomes challenging for them to dismiss the hypothetical as unrealistic, as doing so would not only go against their initial agreement but also hinder their ability to effectively signal their values in opposition to the depicted situation.

Now, you have the opportunity to delve into additional facets of the animal industry and highlight their aversions by prompting individuals to empathise with the victims. For instance, envision being born in confinement, devoid of sunlight, surrounded by waste, and subjected to mistreatment for the sole purpose of facilitating pregnancy so that others can consume the bodily fluids intended for your offspring, who has been separated and killed.

"Now, ask them what they think they can do about this. They will likely respond with something along the lines of creating awareness. You can agree and say, 'Yes, of course. You should also defend your own values and explain to other people why you are against voting for animal abuse.' They may directly respond with the point you want to make, such as not voting for products that entail the abuse they are against, even at the minimum.

You say, 'Yes, exactly. One way is to reduce our reliance on these products or support practices that minimize animal abuse, imprisonment, mutilation, etc. When one chooses to reduce their impact on animals, it's often not about changing core values' (pointing to your chest). 'It's more about aligning actions' (pointing to the screen) 'with one's own values. Does that make sense to you?'

Alternatively, you can phrase it as, 'When one chooses to reduce their reliance on animal products, they don’t necessarily change anything about their core values' (pointing to your chest). 'They just align their actions with those sets of values that they hold. So, you're not changing anything about who you are; you're just aligning your actions with those sets of values. If you buy meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal products, you're saying that this is okay. Are you with me on this?'"

"If they seem receptive, you could ask them, 'Would you be open to considering how you might reduce your support for the objectification and abuse of animals at some point?' After they say 'yes,' this can be a helpful step in them envisioning this change, because if they've said, 'I can imagine reducing my animal product consumption' once, the step to actually doing so can feel much easier for them. Encouraging individuals to consider a small commitment can sometimes enhance their willingness to make a more substantial commitment at a later stage. The hope is to have them feel empowered to consider making changes that reduce animal suffering. If you get a 'yes,' you might gently ask, 'So what feels like a possible next step for you, perhaps starting today?'"

The conversation will usually evolve. Either they will express strong interest in making significant changes to reduce animal suffering, or they will express interest in smaller steps, like “I will eat less x.” If they suggest a smaller reduction, you could gently explore the idea of discrimination by saying (perhaps referencing the screen or concept), “This is an interesting point to consider in relation to discrimination. When we examine discrimination and its origins, we often observe a common pattern: people treat others differently because they look or act differently. If we were to teach a child from a young age, ‘Just because a cow looks different from a dog, there's no reason to kick it in the face. Just because some animals, which we are culturally encouraged to eat, look or act differently, there's no reason to put them into a gas chamber, dismember them, and consume their body fluids when we don't have to.’ How might this child grow up regarding other forms of discrimination, like racism or antisemitism, if they never learn this initial form of species-based discrimination? It's like addressing the root. Do you see what I'm saying?”

If they respond with yes, you could conclude by saying, “And now, imagine we are here doing activism against discrimination, and someone approaches us, saying, ‘I spit on x people every day.’ And YOU explain to him why it's wrong and goes against his values. If he responds, ‘I knew this, but I never actually thought about it. My whole family used to do it, etc.’ Then, you ask him, ‘What are you going to do about this?’ and he says he's only going to spit on people from Group A and not anymore on people from Group B, or he says he will do it only once a week or once a month? You would probably feel that, ‘If you think this is wrong in principle (point to the screens/concept), then taking significant steps to move away from it, or reducing this behavior as much as possible, would be the most consistent action,’ right?’"

They will most likely understand, and you can finish by gently asking, “Do you know when the best time to start reducing animal suffering through your choices might be?” If they say “Yes, now,” you could smile and say, “Perhaps even yesterday, right? So, is this something you're considering for yourself, making some changes starting now?”

If the person still hesitates to commit to significant changes to reduce animal suffering, even though it seems to align with their own values, you can be transparent and say something like: "From a place of respect, I feel the most helpful thing I can do right now is to share my honest perspective. I'm having this conversation because I genuinely hope for the best choices for everyone, including animals. And the difficult truth, as I see it, is that to the extent our choices contribute significantly to animal suffering, we might inadvertently be involved in these terrible images (shown on the screen or refer to documentaries like Dominion)." It is important to always let the person feel they have the free choice to decide to reduce their impact.

Additional motivation can also be provided with phrases like: "So much that's challenging is happening in the world. There are horrific wars, and undoubtedly, suffering occurs in many hidden corners. Unfortunately, we may not have direct control over all these things. However, we do have a measure of control over the suffering inflicted on animals in food systems. Many of us, through our daily choices, can feel like we're casting a vote that allows these practices to continue. This means that by making choices to significantly reduce animal suffering, one isn't necessarily doing something extraordinary. Rather, it's about reducing one's participation in this widespread animal suffering. It can be seen as a fundamental step, and compared to the other complex global issues, understanding what one can and should do is perhaps more straightforward when it comes to reducing our impact on animals through our food choices."