Open discussion

533:

When omnivores finds themselves up against a vegan, they might be afraid of being shown up, by better argument. So, if vegans are seen as a threat (about animal-use) omnivores will defend their position in any way they can - any defence has got to work. If all else fails one might fall back on the old standby - hostility.

            Hostility looks ridiculous today, but in the last resort the option of  being offended and then becoming ‘unfriendly’ is the only way some people think they can fight back.

            Now omnivores might know that a vegan has the capability to annihilate their arguments with just one word, or even one look. In return the omnivore, being part of ‘the vast majority’, can out-shout anything we can put up, and once they play dirty then we might think we can too. This is where we’re likely to start making moral judgements … and so it goes on. If we push a conversation about animal use towards the precipice, we can guarantee an aggressive response along the lines of … “So, that’s what you reckon, do you?”

            Aggro can flare up in the middle of a sentence. Our synapse connection can be so fast. It’s all smiles one minute and World War Three the next. The attacked omnivore is pushed over the edge because we leave them with nowhere else to go.

            By NOT attacking omnivores, we can avoid getting involved in a primitive conversation, where there’s a show of anger and plenty of value judgement. Instead we might use a little subterfuge. We can afford some inscrutability, by keeping someone guessing as to exactly where we will ‘land’. And if we encounter any ‘hostility’ our best bet is to try to restore balance. In any ‘talk-together’, whether we’re an ardent omnivore or an animal advocate, if we keep focused on the idea of being our planet’s guardians, we can ride that wave into the shore. Somewhere, on our way in, we might just find common purpose. Certainly we’ll avoid drowning each other.