The no-brainer

1317:

When I comment on animal food, the already-converted will say “Yes”  but with others, especially if I’m not invited, talking about Animal Rights or vegan issues sets off alarm bells.  Omnivores just won’t listen when I sound as though I’m criticising their food!  Especially since they might already feel a bit guilty about their position on the animal connection.  Understandably, they regard what I say as excessive chutzpah.

         

But for some activists it’s okay - these people deserve to be confronted.  But the danger is that free-willed people who walk away may be so put off by our confronting approach that they're forever lost to us.  So, who wins then?

         

The alternative to this bulldozer approach is for us to show a particular sensitivity when talking about Animal Rights.  Face to face we can judge whether there’s an interest in hearing what we’ve got to say, or if they’re building a brick wall against us.

         

Some think animals deserve to have a life of their own.  The vast majority haven’t thought about it - the question is never brought up and if it were it would be considered an absurd question.

         

But where the question of animals having rights is discussed, no other subject hots up quite so quickly.  For the confirmed carnivore this whole subject is a no-brainer.  What happens?  The activist tries some moral bludgeoning, the adversary denigrates them and nothing useful is achieved.  For the carnivore, using animal-food is as natural as breathing; a meat-meal is never seen as an act of condoning violence.  If there’s any curiosity at all, it’s academic and not applicable to everyday living.  Maybe what we say is a shock when we say it, but it passes from memory as quickly as a night’s dream when you wake up.  There's just no reason to remember what we’ve said.