is our non-violence stable?

Unless we are under age or dependent on others to provide our food and clothing, it is our responsibility to make our own choices. They can’t be left to anyone else. We have to decide either to develop a hard nose or a soft heart. That central choice is relevant to just about everything we do. It’s our choice and it’s a private matter. But however soft hearted we are, say over the matter of animals, at some stage we’ll be asking if we are also soft hearted about people - especially when we are hoping to recruit them. However important we think a matter is, can we discuss things without getting heated? Can we remain friends with people who disagree with us? Can we be sure our non-violence is stable? Can we be effective without wandering into the minefield of proselytising and exhortation?
The reason for being dynamic in the first place is that life is about creating tension, stirring ourselves into action to get a reaction, and thereby bringing issues into focus. We might feel passionately about cruelty to animals and keen on being vegetarian, but as soon as we declare this (or let it be known that we think others should be vegetarians too) we are answerable for what we say and the way we say it. We might think we can tackle anything, including negative reaction, but we can never be sure if others can. If we are taking the initiative (for raising the subject) then we also have responsibility not to load on the shame, because there’s nothing like being accused of unethical behaviour to bring about a real humdinger negative reaction. This one subject, amongst only a few others, is an extremely sensitive one. When we criticise behaviour, we are really being critical of the person as well, and from their point of view this always feels threatening. Whatever we might say in public, we should think non-violence before we speak.