1097:
Edited by
CJ Tointon
Vegans want to strike a blow for
compassion. We’re willing to deny ourselves lots of things for
that. We know where we stand on animal slavery (opposite to how the
majority thinks) and we know why people don’t agree with us. Agreement would logically lead to 'Going
Vegan', which is a very scary idea for the majority of people.
Because of this scariness (the
implication of taking up the 'soft-heart' position) nothing changes. Attitude to animal slavery won’t change
if a person still wants to eat them - eat their bodies and various secretions.
If attitude towards 'food' animals
can't change, any concern for their welfare doesn't really make sense. We
trust farmers by buying their goods.
We give them and their colleagues in the Animal Industry our mandate.
This is where vegans and non-vegans
part company of course. One side is unable to comprehend (let alone
agree) where the other is coming from. It’s the reason vegans can’t
sympathise with omnivores and vice versa. To 'them', what we’re on-about
is not a thought-about matter. One buys according to one’s needs and
desires and bank book. For 'us', it is such
a matter-to-be-thought-about that we indulge in thinking-about it. We draw
energy from knowing why it is NOT being thought-about by the vast majority of
people. For them it means the not small
matter of the absence of multiple food items, clothing items and other
commodities all animal-based/animal-tested.
It's the scariness of losing out on the goodies of life -
voluntarily - with heaps of self-discipline. That’s scary! The
warriors of righteousness charging over the hill, sweeping down upon the
people, crying 'GO VEGAN'. That’s scary! And that’s the reason why,
when we try to discuss this subject with people, they prefer we didn’t.
We think they’re obstinate or 'bad' for
eating bacon for breakfast. The omnivore doesn’t see it that way at all.
Bacon is compartmentalised inside a no-think tank. There are a few other
things in the same tank, like our favourite 'black spots' of day-to-day life.
The No-Think-Club has plenty of members, so they can afford to think of
us disparagingly. We want to ruin their fun. We’re out there, just
spoiling for a fight. They think we want to cause them embarrassment, so
if the subject arises - they’re done for!
They just cannot defend themselves against a good vegan argument, no matter
how clever they are, and with a danger of losing face, things usually turn
nasty.
On the one hand, you can’t blame a
vegan for speaking out on behalf of the voiceless. But there again, you can’t blame the omnivore
for thinking we just want to put them off their dinner. It’s a trap for all concerned.
For example: You visit someone’s house. Food is offered out of hospitality. It’s refused.
The reason given
is "I'm a vegan". Either the matter is brushed under the
carpet or something is said to appease the situation. Each party underestimates
the strength of opinion of the other.
Vegans have no idea how offensive they seem by condemning the food
offered. Omnivores have no idea of how
badly they’re thought about for lack of moral fibre to make a stand against
animal cruelty. There are so many other
differences springing up all over the place that the conversation gets
heated. Separation usually occurs.
It needn’t, is all I’m saying.
The main problem is that vegans think
deeply about something that non-vegans think almost nothing about.
The world is a very wicked place today and there are many conscience pricking
issues. They all stand in the same queue
waiting their turn on "Who’s Got Talent" to see which of the Big
Issues of the Day deserves the most attention.
Who decides which issue is to be the
most important? Planet Destruction Protectionists say terrible things
about air travel being bad for our carbon footprint. Population
Protectionists say terrible things about the obscenity of hunger. These
are vitally important issues and gladly they are being taken seriously
by a lot of people. In some important ways they are going well.
They go well because every sane person agrees with what they are saying!
However Cinderella doesn’t enjoy the limelight! Animal Rights enjoys neither applause nor
agreement. We vegans have entered the Zone of Maximum Interference.
Pollution and World Hunger are easily agreed upon - but Veganism is not.
At first sight of those vegan police
troopers charging over the hill, at the first whiff of criticism, people dig
their heels in. They refuse to change.
They stand bravely to fight the onslaught? No, they try to avoid the
critic. But when someone is avoiding a vegan for fear of confrontation,
the vegan naturally wants to hit back. Aggression is good for these situations?
Yes?
If aggression gets us nowhere when
talking to omnivores, and if this is a problem, then I suggest it should be
fixed. Sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment