Most people (especially when they're young) understand what's "fair" treatment. It's the simple Golden Rule standard. I'm happy with it, because it allows a civil conversation… I just want people to be able to listen and see things in the "fairness" point of view of nonhumans. Of course I could never call it "justice" – but that's exactly what I'm after.

"I say don't start talking about terms that mean nothing to them or using language that might alienate them.

But that's me . . ."

But as usual coming from you, it's also good advice!

I see that the welfarist advocates in Norway have began to use the retoric of or concept "animal rights" to advocate for welfare laws. The idea is that when the laws give some nonhuman prisoners cages of a bigger size, then that can be said to be one of their "rights". Especially when there's talk about stronger penalties for "animal abuse".

Then I prefer to insist on sharper terminology. Or at least make clear the difference between the concepts of "animal rights" and "animal welfare" as different ethical positions, as opposed to the more loosly use of "rights" and "welfare" which can mean many different things to different persons. We don't need to be hang-up on "rights" as oppossed to "welfare", because there's not contradiction there, the difference is only that "animal rights" and "animal welfare" are TWO DIFFERENT NAMES for two different moral positions.

A reason why I prefer defending "animal rights" in a narrow sense – that is non-utilitaristic and abolitionist – is because the term has a history which make that definition plausible, because I want to advocate for that idea because I think it gives the strongest defense for animals, and because I try to articulating myself in descriptive – as opposed to personal and moralistic – terms.

what I mean with the latter is that when I share my ideas about the treatment of animals with other people I'm not good at being personal. I'm affraid to sound preachy and get emotionally involved, because that make me angry and sad. So instead I give lexical correct definitions of the terms "animal rights", "speciesism", "antispeciesism", and so on. I try to descripe my ideas from a detached perspective. I'm not a very empatic person (asperger syndrom).

Arild, I don't disagree that there's a time for that. I was going to write a follow-up today about messaging, but the day sort of ran away from me. Perhaps I can do it this evening. I want to emphasize audience and intent and the need to customize language accordingly. Thanks for commenting.

I find it so refreshing to hear you speak about the realities of vegan education. As you mentioned in your ARZone chat, people on the street, the people who we need to focus on, don't care who is fighting over the term "abolitionist" or who is a "new welfarist" or many other terms. You're so right, people respond much better when they're spoken to respectfully and on their own terms.

Thanks for this great post!