Open discussion

If an omnivore finds ‘hirself’ up against a vegan, (s)he would be afraid of being shown up. If vegans are seen as a threat to a person’s own arguments (about animals-use) they’ll defend their view in any way they can. For them any defence they use must be effective. If all else fails we all of us fall back on the old standby - we go hostile. The option of going ‘unfriendly’ is the ultimate weapon to fight vegan capability for annihilation with just one word, or even one look. If they are attacked they’ll defend, and being in the vast majority they can out-shout any prosecution case we dare to put up. Once we see them playing dirty we do too; we counter with moral judgement … and so it goes on. If we push a conversation, about animal use, towards the precipice we can guarantee an aggressive response: “Oh, so that’s what you reckon do you?”
Where either side can go from here is anyone’s guess.
Aggro can flare up in the middle of a sentence. The synapse movement in the human brain can be fast and furious - all smiles one minute and World War Three the next. The attacked omnivore is forced to the edge only because we (often with some violence) leave them nowhere else to go. And who’d think that was productive?
As vegans, by not wanting to attack omnivores we avoid getting involved with a primitive converstaion in which anger plays a part. With that component dropped we don’t need to show judgement, and if we inadvertently trip over it we restore balance straight away. In this talk-together, whether ardent omnivore or animal advocate, if we keep focused on the idea of being our planet’s guardians, we can ride that particular wave all the way into the shore. Somewhere on our way in we’ll find a common purpose with most people - we’ll surely agree that the human brain is too significantly unique for our true purpose not to reveal itself to us. Surely anyone can imagine humans as ambassadors. Our argument is that now we can fulfil that role quite substantially simply by boycotting products we are unhappy about.
Concerning food, a major bought product, now that we know we can be exclusively plant-eaters, and that we can survive happily and healthily as such, our job is clear. To repair – it’s what ambassadors do. They help to make things run smoothly. And a sustainable planet can only work if we’re clear about this role humans may play. To be consistent in our basic philosophy (harmlessness wherever possible) we must be open books for anyone to pick up and look into. What we say, what we believe, how we behave, all of it must be evident in the way we conduct our lives - by our own lifestyle. The attitude (in the West) concerning animals-being-used (should they or shouldn’t they) is the testing ground. Guardians who engage in cruelty are no guardians at all … but, as one keeps saying: that NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED?
The astounding thing is that it isn’t being discussed. Does that smell like a cover up? Assuming that you don’t like cover-ups, you’d have to agree that it’s all rather strange that the third estate will not cover this subject. Of course it’s not funny-strange at all. Not when you consider how tightly the media is controlled and how few maverick (vegan) journalists there are.
So it’s down to we amateurs. Advocates, activists, writers, teachers we’re all that stands between a beautiful future and a rampant surge of destruction evident just now. We must do our best to edge this subject into the limelight. Make it a main aim. To promote animal rights and veganism may look like an uphill task and not for the faint hearted, but the rewards can’t be ignored. Not only may we eventually show a way of repairing the current mess but once that ball starts rolling, the arguments will have to be discussed.