After the debate

1095:

After the talking is over we might have to agree to disagree.  If there’s an atmosphere left behind, we are anything if not sensitive!  If there’s something unlabel-able-but-not-quite-right that springs up, it’s because we’re airing delicate matters.  Over which there may be very few points of agreement.  Eventually we must move on, work to be done, etc.

Under whatever difficult circumstances we meet each other, when we get talking about this subject, it shows a lot about our character if we contribute quite heavily to allow us to rub along together, disagreement or none.  Probably we all have learn’t ways to defuse a situation before it gets explosive.

Hopefully we all learn to take up our positions in life, and often in opposition to one another, and yet when it comes to the crunch, surely, we must still refuse to take umbrage or be prepared to go to war over a difference of position.

         

If we always regard opposition as a positive challenge then opposition doesn’t feel so much like an assault (even though any ‘softening on my part always makes me seem as though I’m caving-in, even though I don’t feel it that way).

Out of all this:

As long as we don’t shy away from this subject because it seems to cause a disturbance, then I think there are only two things to bear in mind:

1. Keeping focus on the point of difference

2. Do something towards making constructive person-to-person repairs, where necessary.

The growing gulf appearing between vegans and non-vegans is a bit like that between greens and foresters or Christian and Muslims.  Useful dialogue doesn’t take place; it’s only possible where each side feels free to dip in and out of issues (maybe concerning food, animals, health, planet’s future, non-violence, and so on) and come away with some new-learnt value.  Better that than coming away with more emotional baggage which eventually needs to be sorted out anyway.

Wanting to delay the inevitable attitude change is what, on some difficult level, we’re all fighting.