People go to circuses and rodeos for âentertainment.â Many are hostile to any âkilljoysâ who want to spoil it. So, depending on their character, there are several familiar ways they resolve the âconflictâ:
1. IGNORANCE OR DENIAL: âThe animals are not sufferingâ
2. DEFENSIVENESS: âThose who demonstrate for animals are over-sensitiveââ or âYou should demonstrate for people rather than animalsâ
3. HOSTILITY: âThose who demonstrate for animals are self-righteous busybodies or aggressive extremistsâ
4. APATHY: âI donât care if animals are hurtâ
5. PSYCHOPATHY: âAnimals are there for us to do whatever we want withâ
Few people, there to entertain their children, are ready to say âI now realize itâs terrible and I will take my children home.â And virtually none of them will decide on the spot to become vegans â although of course everything that can be said about animals suffering for entertainment, which is unnecessary, can be said about animals suffering for clothing, which is also unnecessary, or for meat/dairy/eggs, which is also unnecessary, except in some impoverished or subistence environments. Only (some) medical research faces the troubling question of life-saving necessity.
So my own strategy has been just to silently hold up images that show the suffering, offering pamphlets to those who willingly take them, and answering questions if asked. Those who ask are usually in category 1 (ignorance or denial) and sometimes 2 (defensiveness). They truly donât know, or donât want to believe the horrors. And there is some hope that some of them will change their minds once they know â not on the spot, but eventually. I never argue, and donât even enter into discussion at all with categories 3-5, because it is useless and it only provokes them to become more hostile toward animals, their suffering, and those who try to defend them.
I donât know of a poll, but I believe (or at least hope) that although categories 3-5 are more aggressive and they are also the ones we notice and remember, the most numerous ones are categories 1 and 2 — decent people, with hearts, but unaware of the suffering — and that they are the ones who may later reflect and eventually change.