(Meme is not OC)
Instead of framing it as a question of morality, a matter of logical consistency, and/or an environmental concern, I've started taking an amoralist/egoist approach and simply saying:
"The thought of eating animal products is gross to me, and I don't want to participate in the killing of animals when it's easy for me to avoid"
Which is quite hard to refute, because its about how I feel/my experience. They can question why you feel that way but, if you exclusively respond with 'I statements,' they really have no room to argue. I also feel that this is more likely to persuade people without having to actively encourage them- it has the potential to open an actual dialogue
What are your thoughts? Do you have your own method?
I mean, usually these questions aren't posed, because they're genuinely interested, but rather because they feel attacked.
And then, yeah, there's no point in delivering a logically flawless argument, they won't actually listen anyways. The only thing they'll listen for, is whether you're attacking them or not.
Formulating I-messages signals that you're not attacking them, which is probably better for resolving that situation.
Having said that, I often don't heed that advice either. I usually don't want to talk about it. If they bring up the topic and want to feel offended, I have no problem making them feel offended (by stating harmless facts), so they leave me alone next time.
Truuee. Lol, I feel that.
Most often when I find myself in a situation like this, it's because a therapy client themselves or their parent/child asked, so I can't just 360 and walk away, nor be too blunt.