Two people can be best friends, whilst holding different strong opinions on what diet is best for everyone.
They can still look out for one another, and do everything friends do, inclusively.
They wouldn’t think less, mock or look down on each other, for their opinions.
They’d defend the right for the other to hold their opinion and be able to share it.
They’d expect the other to share occasionally, when asked, why they think the diet they back, is good for everyone, because they’d know their friend wants the best for them in their own way, even if they don’t share the same opinion on what will bring that to each other.
They wouldn’t insist on the other saying that their chosen diet is best for them.
They wouldn’t have to hide their opinions from each other.
If only we could treat opinions on diet, in the same way as sexuality, religion and theology.
But, if historically, one had had so called friends who did think less of them, mocked them, marginalised them, actually hurt them or they suspected them of looking down on them, because of their dietary inclination, they’d most likely insist any new friends said that their diet was just as good as theirs, for fear of repeat hurt.
But that would be unfair on new friends.
If only they could trust that the others want the best for them and won’t think them inferior and could be great friends, without agreeing on how the "best for them" is achieved.