I am in one vegetarianism clubhouse where someone is saying that vegetarian groups say not to eat meat, but I like to eat meat once every week (flexitarian) and the vegetarians must not to say to me this is not ok.
And he accused vegetarians of extremism, and he was saying that vegetarians must not to say to others that eating meat is not ethical, and that humans are not superior to other species, and if they are, they should try to kill less.
In this discussion, someone else said that meat eaters are of two types:
Some have decided to close their minds and are content to continue killing other creatures and enjoying meat.
Others are aware of the badness of eating meat, and yet for some reason they continue to do so, and it is a shameful situation.
A meat eater is trying to say that vegetarians don't have any plan to change this situation, and I said that there are 400 million vegetarians in Indian and the vegetarianism in India goes back to more than 500 BC, and this person denied this history and points to the meat eating practices of some other countries, and is saying you cannot change this system. They don't accept that the meat industry grows on the basis of demand for meat and stops when this demand is cut off or reduced.
Also, this person says that vegetarianism is not tested, and denies the 2500 years vegetarianism history in India and the culture or experience of the 400 million vegetarians in India.
I have tried to describe the denying defense system of one meat eater and the vegetarians in one discussion.
I would like to have some comment about the proper defense system for answering this kind of question, and what could answer when they are using this denying mechanism.