Most people live in a myth and grow violently angry if anyone tells them the truth about themselves
While at Kris's the other day I had a small 'run in' with one of his flatmates. The conversation turned to fruits, mangoes were mentioned, and I said that I made a mean mango cheesecake (to be fair I've only made it twice and it came out a bit shit the second time, but the first time it was amazing). Kris pointed out that his flatmate was vegan and I said that I'd only ever made vegan mango cheesecake, as I was a vegan for a couple of years.
His flatmate (I forget her name) asked why I stopped, and I said it was partly because I'd had a rethink of the ethics behind it. I pointed out that, arguably, an acre of soya kills more animals than an acre of cow pasture. Kris then mentioned the large amounts of rainforest which are cut down in order to plant soya.
His flatmate immediately became very defensive. She said to me "There probably aren't any other animals left in the cow pasture as they've been trod on and shat on," and I replied that a field mouse is going to have a much easier time avoiding a cow's hoof than a combine harvester. She then said that she didn't appreciate having her beliefs attacked, that she hated the way most people were lazy and uncaring while she was ethical, and left the room.
Which was curious. She asked why I was no longer a vegan and I replied. I didn't give a full explanation as that would have taken quite a while, but my brief response was a fine starting point for discussion and debate. But as soon as we ventured into debate she got pissed off and left.
I have no interest in converting vegans. It's even possible that I'll go back to it myself one day: the ethics are multi-factorial and complicated. I wasn't attacking her or her beliefs in any way. But she appeared to view any challenge to her beliefs as a personal attack. And she responded by instantly accusing me (albeit not directly) of being too lazy and uncaring to be ethical.
I find the ethics behind our food choices extremely interesting and would have been very happy to discuss them with her. But I was equally happy to leave them be and chat with Kris, which is what I was there for in the first place. But she very quickly took offence and attacked me (and Kris). It's like her sense of identity was very fragile, and she instinctively recoiled at anything which might possibly puncture her sense of moral superiority.
It's interesting how easy it is to interpret a challenge to our beliefs as an attack on ourselves. Discussions of politics, religion, ethics, etc. all too quickly descend into ugly arguments, and often end up in physical violence. Why is it so difficult to simply discuss these things? Why can we not debate our notions of the perfect political system without descending into personal attacks? Look at any discussion of, e.g., politics on the Internet and count how many comments go by before somebody calls somebody else a "fucking idiot" or similar. Why is it so hard for us to just say "I think your analysis of Politician A's proposals is glossing over the fact that..." and then respond in a similar measured fashion?
My guess is it's because our humanity is only a tiny percentage of what we are. The so-called lizard and mammalian brains make up the bulk. And so any debate can very quickly degenerate into mammalian posturing, throwing shit at each other to defend our territories, even though our territories in this instance are mere ideas.
My title quote is by Robert Anton Wilson (I had to shorten it a little for LJ) who elucidated these points extremely well. Every year I feel like I gain a greater appreciation of his work, despite having read it over a decade ago.
His flatmate (I forget her name) asked why I stopped, and I said it was partly because I'd had a rethink of the ethics behind it. I pointed out that, arguably, an acre of soya kills more animals than an acre of cow pasture. Kris then mentioned the large amounts of rainforest which are cut down in order to plant soya.
His flatmate immediately became very defensive. She said to me "There probably aren't any other animals left in the cow pasture as they've been trod on and shat on," and I replied that a field mouse is going to have a much easier time avoiding a cow's hoof than a combine harvester. She then said that she didn't appreciate having her beliefs attacked, that she hated the way most people were lazy and uncaring while she was ethical, and left the room.
Which was curious. She asked why I was no longer a vegan and I replied. I didn't give a full explanation as that would have taken quite a while, but my brief response was a fine starting point for discussion and debate. But as soon as we ventured into debate she got pissed off and left.
I have no interest in converting vegans. It's even possible that I'll go back to it myself one day: the ethics are multi-factorial and complicated. I wasn't attacking her or her beliefs in any way. But she appeared to view any challenge to her beliefs as a personal attack. And she responded by instantly accusing me (albeit not directly) of being too lazy and uncaring to be ethical.
I find the ethics behind our food choices extremely interesting and would have been very happy to discuss them with her. But I was equally happy to leave them be and chat with Kris, which is what I was there for in the first place. But she very quickly took offence and attacked me (and Kris). It's like her sense of identity was very fragile, and she instinctively recoiled at anything which might possibly puncture her sense of moral superiority.
It's interesting how easy it is to interpret a challenge to our beliefs as an attack on ourselves. Discussions of politics, religion, ethics, etc. all too quickly descend into ugly arguments, and often end up in physical violence. Why is it so difficult to simply discuss these things? Why can we not debate our notions of the perfect political system without descending into personal attacks? Look at any discussion of, e.g., politics on the Internet and count how many comments go by before somebody calls somebody else a "fucking idiot" or similar. Why is it so hard for us to just say "I think your analysis of Politician A's proposals is glossing over the fact that..." and then respond in a similar measured fashion?
My guess is it's because our humanity is only a tiny percentage of what we are. The so-called lizard and mammalian brains make up the bulk. And so any debate can very quickly degenerate into mammalian posturing, throwing shit at each other to defend our territories, even though our territories in this instance are mere ideas.
My title quote is by Robert Anton Wilson (I had to shorten it a little for LJ) who elucidated these points extremely well. Every year I feel like I gain a greater appreciation of his work, despite having read it over a decade ago.