Is being opinionated being violent?

In this conversation we’re having with out imaginary adversary, instead of cooling things down, perhaps I decide to go for broke. I dive down deep, get into rough stuff, get them responding passionately and open up their deepest feelings. Is this courage on my part or something less attractive? What starts out as a robust discussion turns into something that can easily get out of control. The big question here is – can we afford to let this happen, between friends? Or indeed between anyone? When talk turns to fighting, when verbal stoush starts to include the use of ‘dislike-tactics’ and it gets personal, what’s happening then? Do we go to any extreme to ‘win the argument’?
The cost? Perhaps Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly terms with someone. If I think I’m right about an issue, I’ll defend my position, no matter what happens (“fight to the death for my right to say how I feel”, etc). I think the cost to Animal Rights will be heavy if we go this way. On almost any other major issue, yes, we can go in hard for our case and receive respect for the strength of our beliefs but not with this subject. It’s quite different because it triggers such uniquely illogical responses. We touch on the most sensitive sense that people desperately want to defend, their right to titillate their taste buds, food, etc. That’s why we are so astounded, when people discuss animal rights, at the blank response we get. And this is why we get so annoyed with otherwise intelligent kindly people. But that’s or challenge.
This unique advocacy role we have requires us to be true to our role as advocate, in our defending the undefended. Yes, yes, and this is all very noble of course, on the face of things, but in our culture this particular approach is often doomed to failure. This is why we should deeply understand the nature of non-violence, as a strategy, as a communication channel, if we are ever to get people to drop their taste bud addictions and do something about their food policy. To swing the masses across we need only become non-violent in thought, word and deed. And then if that is part of one’s approach to others, then it can also be part of one’s approach when talking about the "animals".
If we understand the value of non-violence, we won’t get sucked into fighting, and instead we might go the other way. We might decide to submit a little in order to restore good feelings, even to the point where we consider letting our feelings remain undeclared. In a nutshell, to be much more patient than we want to be.
But is that realistic or even honest? If we have strong views surely we shouldn’t pretend otherwise? And why should defending a position, a serious position, have to go pear-shaped anyway? Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, provides the heady atmosphere that can blow cobwebs away, break a few barriers and let us re-examine attitudes. A frisson of tension means the issue is alive, even if it makes for discomfort. Just by discussing it (Animal Rights) means we’re into a serious subject, that indeed we’re involved with each other, trusting each other. But are we?
This subject is a classic divider, even between close friends. A vulcanologist never knows how big the eruption is going to be. Similarly, do we ever know exactly what will set another person off? Do we ever really know where their breaking point is or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them? How much can we trust another person even if we are certain we don’t want to hurt them?