Weighing interest and indifference

1307: 

Why would I even care if you disagree, if you're indifferent?  Perhaps we all want our values confirmed by others, and when they aren't confirmed or they're disagreed with, then we worry that self-doubt might creep in.  So, value-judging is a natural tendency - if I judge that they are wrong then I am more likely to be right.

But this is the main cause of separation. And that separation holds back any constructive interchange, neither party learning anything new because neither will allow themselves to be undermined or shown to be wrong or seem not to have thought things through deeply enough.

This animal subject is so important, that if we allow our personal agendas to get in the way, we'll soon enough not be discussing the issues but our own 'right-ness'.  So, to prevent this from happening, to avoid this trap, surely it comes back to not judging another person’s values at all.  If you do, it will show in your face or your voice.  Talking Animal Rights is the art of keeping emotions in neutral, keeping ego out of it, resisting the temptation to be always-right, stopping ourselves becoming antagonistic.  This is why a grounding in non-violence is useful, especially when we inadvertently touch a raw nerve in the other.  Or when it comes the other way around, and we have to not appear too hypersensitive.  Communications in this field are fraught with dangers.

         

I remember conversations on meat-eating being a good opportunity to get my point across, so when I rattled my meat-eating friends, deciding to go for broke, I was showing them I wasn't scared by getting into the rough stuff.  But what started out as a robust discussion often turned into a fight.  And then I was risking friendship itself.

I've since found that by taking this route I never win arguments and usually damage friendship.   And then one must question whether forcing the issue (of Animal Rights) is more important than staying on friendly terms.  Or this question: Am I really being true to my role as an animal advocate, by rigorously defending the undefended, when I know this approach is doomed to failure?  Or this question: Where a non-violence policy is made obvious, it will impress and can even win over the most hostile adversary?  I've come to the conclusion that we must first set the example of showing and expecting mutual respect.

The more sensitive the subject, the more one can show that humility can go a long way.  By letting my feelings remain undeclared it's more likely that I won't get sucked into fighting.

Running through all this careful approach is yet another reality - being honest about having strong views that must be made clear.  Why pretend otherwise?  And, why should strenuously defending an important position have to go pear-shaped anyway?  Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, serves to break down a few barriers and a few stale attitudes?  Surely a frisson of tension means the issue is alive, even if does feel uncomfortable?

         

This ‘Animal Rights’ subject is a classic divider, even between close friends.  A vulcanologist never knows when or how big the volcanic eruption is going to be before it happens.  Similarly, in my experience, I never know exactly what will set another person off or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them?  What’s important here is surely not about our own human sensitivities being bruised, but the possibility of ‘blowing it’ completely.  We must never forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals down on Auschwitz Farm.  Surely our own sensitivities pale into insignificance when compared to their suffering.  And surely, if we feel strongly about this, the passion must outweigh politeness. Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk excusable in order to demonstrate our outrage?  Shouldn't I risk moving away from being Mr Nice Guy?

         

But this is all to do with perception.  I think passionate advocacy can coexist with non-violence and that our non-violent side is robust and can be put to the test, for if there IS interest in what we say, it’s like having an invitation to speak freely.  And, when speaking freely we can always pull back.  We can moderate what we say according to others’ feelings.  We might need to promise ourselves to never try gate crashing.