Friday, March 13, 2009

Fighting talk

As adults we should be able to talk freely with each other, and surely we shouldn’t have to worry about our sensitivities getting bruised. Let’s not forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently living in Auschwitz conditions. Surely the wear and tear on our own sensitivities pales to insignificance when compared to the constantly attacked sensitivities of animals and the suffering they have to endure. If we feel strongly about this, surely passion must outweigh politeness. Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk excusable? And wouldn’t it only be seen as excusable outrage, a bold move away from being Mr Nice Guy all the time? But if violence is violence and always destructive and we decide to do without it, then where does that leave us? Can we still be a passionate advocate using principles of non-violence? Will our non-violent side always out-argue our violent side?
Let’s be clear, "dynamic non-violence" is not the same as "not getting involved". It merely avoids our violent side being used for back-up, so that we never resort to it. Take a nothing subject – the weather. We don’t need to become aggressive when discussing this, because the weather is out of our control. The subject of animal treatment is different! We each play a part in controlling this, if not directly then indirectly. We each have a say in what happens to them and we each help to keep them locked up. We are all involved. So it’s important to get this one right. The question is, how do we serve animals in the best possible way? How can we truly act as their protectors? Humans, past and present, have subjected billions of animals to barbaric existence. Many of us feel passionately about this, enough to "fight" for the case. But is the standard idea of ‘fighting’ appropriate or effective? Do we need to radically re-define ‘fight’ before we can effectively convince people by the weight of our arguments? Chinese proverb: When we fight it means we have lost our argument.

No comments: