Libertarians seems to have the knee jerk reaction that everyone should choose what they want to eat. Other people seem to have the same argument.
Sample opponents' argument
Opponent 1"I eat what I want and you eat what you want. I don't care how much damage is done to the environment, health, etc. I eat what I want. "
Opponent 2 "Yeah, go away and let everyone eat what they want."
Opponent 3 "You have no right to tell us what to eat!"
These opponents aren't denying the health benefits, nor environmental damages, or any of my claims. They are just dead set against any limitation on their freedom. Basically my argument is the sentience, suffering, health, environment, world hunger, water shortages, and best way to prevent oppression is to stop oppression of animals. The response is typical.
Opponent 4 "We don't care."
Opponent 5 "Leave us alone."
On some level the apathy response seem to be the most disconcerting. I'm okay if somebody fights me tooth and nail for every inch. A lot of people take this route. Yet, the apathy defense is what causes me the most distress.
Basically, my opponents' argument is
Opponent 6 "I have the right to my own body. You have no right to tell me what I put in my body. You don't see me telling you to eat meat and dairy. We should punish you and force you to eat lots of meat and dairy. See how the shoe is on the other foot. I go my route you go yours."
Honestly, from paraphrasing my opponents' arguments I see how redundant they are. Here's a question would you rather somebody respond with apathy or would you rather them fight tooth and nail for every inch?
I just find it odd that I can defeat every argument my opponent throws at me, yet their point of view is the same. I found this in real life too. I feel like I am yelling at a modern day smoker. Despite all the evidence and cost, people still smoke. Makes it hard to have faith in humanity.
Person A: You shouldn't smoke its completely illogical and harms yourself and others.
Person B: Your completely right, but I'm going to smoke anyways.
Argggh! It feels like a different battle when arguing with these types. Scientific facts have no noticeable affects on these groups. That all my information on sentience, suffering, and so forth goes out the window, and suddenly its all about rights and freedom.
Then, the conversation breaks down into freedom.
Me: Our actions affect others, shouldn't your freedom be limited to improve others freedom.
Them: They are animals.
Me: But they are sentient and can suffer.
Them: Who cares.
Me: What about other humans do they matter too? What if you eat meat and then hit somebody with a car.
Them: The chances of that happening are very unlikely.
Me: What about children being feed hot dogs in school? Children aren't old enough to know the risks.
Them: Children should eat what they want.
Me: What about global climate change? A lot of people are going to die when the water levels rise.
Them: Nobody is going to change their diet, and besides overpopulation and cars are a larger problem go bother somebody else.
Me: What about world hunger don't you care about that?
Them: No.
Me: What about preventing oppression?
Them: Slippery slope argument, oppression of animals doesn't lead to oppression of humans. Besides humans oppress each other plenty.
About this point my opponents resort to Ad hominem attacks. I then, call them out on the Ad hominem attacks and post links to various scienfic literature and documentaries. This keeps up for a while until they stop responding.
I don't know if this will help anyone. Kind of funny though. :)
Replies
Generally they tend to be anti-Establishment, which includes Academia, so it can sometimes be tough to use scientific papers or anything resembling an authority figure. But the few who go that route just makes them vulnerable to public shaming, e.g. anyone who can just blithely dismiss the many 1,000s of studies showing how meat/dairy/eggs is unhealthy is probably not proficient enough with basic, common sense to even hold a real argument with.
The one thing that all Libertarians have in common is their belief (and this is the core of veganism, truly) in the Non-Aggression Principle. This might be the best way to shove your foot in the door and keep it there till the hinges come off from them trying to shut it. They cannot get around the fact that eating meat, when it is not necessary to do so, constitutes unnecessary violence. Unnecessary violence is a clear form of aggression. And abstinence from unwarranted aggression is the foundation of the Libertarian philosophy.
So to supplement that, show them evidence of animal sentience, and make sure to provide several links. And then some of your favorite nutritional literature showing what we all know, that a vegan diet is perfectly adequate for everyone in the Western world.
I hear ya though. This is a tough job. Just keep in mind, even if you don't have immediate success of the "Wow, you really opened my eyes. I never thought about it that way. I think I'll give it a try!" variety, you are planting a LOT of seeds. Maybe some of yours have already sprouted without you knowing =)
And lastly, arguing with others can be a very difficult and emotionally draining experience. Dealing with the ego-saturated bad thinking of others is just dirty. Hell, by being vocal in public or any non-vegan community, you will likely get criticism from other vegans! I have, and it's uniquely frustrating. But because of all that, not many vegans are willing to do this job. Which makes it even more important, especially considering how relentless the 100-billion-dollar industries of Animal Agriculture are with their quest to keep people buying and eating their nightmare products.
I also think the reverse is true, that all vegans should embrace Libertarianism, as it is just the logical conclusion of the philosophy that we fundamentally don't have the right to infringe upon the freedom of others.