1574:
When I meet an adversary and
discuss my opposite views, concerning the eating of animals, I’m at a
disadvantage because I know that I hold such a minority view. It’s almost
impossible to win the ‘animal argument’ if my opponent feels supported by the
dominant culture.
For me, not blessed with a
brilliant wit, if I try making a witty response I usually blow it. I see the
attack coming out of left-field, I see it has a distinctly personal tone and
that it looks like a challenge. In other words I don’t see any signs of us
heading into a fair-minded debate, quite the opposite in fact.
Maybe I detect a simple
comment, couched as a joke, and that it’s meant to give a benign impression,
whilst behind it there's a sharp thrust. It comes in and out in a flash, with
no room for any detailed discussion. The sharp comment, fired off at ‘joke-
level’, is not meant to be shrugged off. But it’s difficult to respond to it without
firing back an aggressive reply. And in that split second, as I bite back, I
know I’ve trapped myself. I’ve been manipulated into the very thing that's needed
– an aggressive response. This is the coup de grace of their ‘joke’, and it’s
this that finally ‘turns’ the atmosphere.
I’m made to look bad, as if I
took things further than necessary. The joking carnivore is outraged at the
thought that their comments could be taken so personally. “It was meant as a
joke. Haven't you got a sense of humour?”
By taking umbrage, by being
hypersensitive to a bit of light hearted banter, I show how ready I am to
quarrel over this issue. It’s proof (to my adversary) that I’m neither cool nor
collected, nor a compassionate person, nor as non-violent as I’d like to appear
to be. I look like a loser who seems to have gentle views about animals but not
about people.
They win!!
No comments:
Post a Comment