Mild manners or abuse

564:

Whenever vegan ideas are introduced to omnivores, as soon as the vegan is no longer around neither are their ideas. They evaporate like Scotch mist. Each vegan principle is forgettable back in the real world. What flew in now flies out. ‘Reluctant’ ideas don’t stick in that part of the brain or heart where there’s any sign of addiction or guilt. Unless there’s been something impressive about the manner of ‘the promoter of ethics’.

            If omnivores and vegans are going to discuss these matters there must be some semblance of equal footing. Each side must have something substantial to contribute, otherwise it turns into a rout. And that’s a long way from discussion.

            The vegan will fight as the ambassador for animals, judging the omnivore mistaken for eating them. The omnivores might judge the vegan unrealistic and object to their being judgemental of them. Both will be perceived as valid positions to take - the omnivore has a right not to be judged and the vegan has a right to be taken seriously. Each position has potential for making a valuable lesson-to-be-learnt. There’s value in pursuing each point of view. But if we slip into the personal push-me-pull-you situation, where ‘discussion’ can’t move along, then something has happened which needn’t have happened.

            Both sides have their arguments. And whether they are good or bad is immaterial, as long as each side respects the right of the other to have their chance to put their argument. (That means people like me having to listen and not to be so quick to interrupt).

            Discussion on this subject can be stimulating. It doesn’t have to descend into an excuse for personal abuse.