Theory number two

What keeps vegans and omnivores apart is that one side knows what the other doesn’t. To the omnivore, any information about food-animals and vegan diet is pushed away, not because anyone believes in cruelty to animals or indulging a death wish but because we don’t like bible-bashers. As free-willed adults, living in the Western world, we don’t like being told what to do, especially what to eat.
Vegans say. “You must hear about it, for your own safety”, and then omnivores question the grounds on which vegans dare to assume such authority. They would like to say to a steamy vegan, “No, I don’t want you to push that point across at me”, but vegans push it anyway. And it’s possible that, in over stepping this mark, between okay behaviour and rude behaviour, we’re perceived as hostile. But it doesn’t feel that way to us, that’s not the vegan’s perception; they think they can stay just inside of the mark and still do some good for the animals.
What a risk! To blow the chance of a sensible low key talk for the sake of scoring a point or making a ‘hit’. To the poor battered vegan so used to having their views put down or ignored, to be in a position where we can ‘push a point, for the animals, it’s tempting. It feels good to do that. It’s a dose of courage and another notch on our stick - to tell the insensitive omnivore what we think of (them) their arguments. We say we owe it to the animals to go in boots and all. As advocates we battle for them. We reckon anything vegan is like speaking ex-cathedra, and that justifies it. We can and should say what we like without being intimidated by the omnivore majority … but let’s get smart about this. We have enough problems communication-wise without adding problems. How we seem to be what we are saying mustn’t ever be frightening.