Adversaries

1131:

1.       “What’s worse than vegan food? Imagine just eating that. I can’t stand vegans with their self-righteousness.  Vegans set impossible targets and feel superior to anyone who can’t meet them”.

2.       “What’s worse than carnivore food?  Imagine eating meat.  It’s their self-satisfaction that’s so ugly, their dominant, meat-eating, cleverest-being-on-the-planet attitude”.

         

These two perceptions always clash but in a way, the whole subject of what we eat and why we eat it is a private affair.  It’s no one else’s business ... and yet, speak about it we must.  Well, I must, but not to convince anyone that my view is more valid than another’s view, merely to explore attitudes and engage others in dialogue.

I’ll start the ball rolling.  With something simple and confronting, to see how it goes down.  I’ll say, ‘no-touch-animals’; humans are not to be trusted around animals because they always take advantage of them.  My bait is laid, and it’s meant to be taken.  If it meets with no reaction then I’ll leave it there and take it no further.  I’ve no intention of scaring people off, so although this simple statement is a challenge, I’d immediately follow that by acknowledging that this is a tricky subject, and to say what I have to say without any judgemental tone creeping into my voice.

If my ‘adversary’ does respond, I’ll be open to what they have to say, not rush in to oppose, but try to consider their view.  My aim would be to establish a rolling-along-manner, sweeping away judgemental-litter as I go along.  I’ll do anything to encourage any sort of dialogue.

It takes a lot of courage for the adversary to challenge some of our basic arguments, so any attempt on their part should be encouraged, and certainly not squashed out of hand.  Each one of us is at a different stage of development in terms of attitudes to controversial subjects.  Nothing is gained by keeping our views held in. Nothing achieved by not respecting each other’s private spaces.