Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
“Feels good” is not a valid justification to harm others, imagine how that justification would apply in other cases and it’s pretty easy to see how it falls apart. You can’t be logically consistent with that justification to harm others. The same with apathy, also not a justification to needlessly exploit animals.
In reference to my other conversation regarding the comparison of products that use electronics vs meat consumption, I would ask if “convenience” was a valid justification.
Given the horrors of the electronics supply chain (slavery, horrific working conditions, cartels etc) im not sure why convenience electronics (phones, laptops, pc’s) use would be OK, but meat consumption would not.
Im not saying the horrors are equivalent and it’s not a dig at you, I’m genuinely trying to figure out why one kind of horror is OK, but another is not and how people make those calls.
The reason i ask is that I’ve never heard an opinion from someone with the viewpoint it seems you hold talk about what they’d think in that situation.
and my follow up would be to ask why meat and not electronics (explained below) or textiles or megacorps ?
In general i struggle with why people place these ethical and moral rubicons in the places they do (i do mostly understand why the lines exist)
I mentioned in another comment about the horrific shit that goes in to basically all electronics (there are numerous documentaries and articles on the horrors of cobalt mining for instance) and it seems odd that people are ok with that but not the meat industry, or perhaps fine with both of those but draw the line at baby animals.
Again, i understand why the lines exist, it’s the seemingly arbitrary nature of where they are placed for different circumstances that eludes me.
I’m asking so i can gather opinions enough that hopefully i can understand, eventually
I love how vegans are literally always someone who fell for fake propaganda and never someone with real knowledge or experience of the agricultural industry. I watched several of my vegan friends do a 180 in vet school once they started internships and saw first hand how the animal industry operates, and realized their ex-conviction was based on sensationalized lies.
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
Most people agree that raping dogs is bad. Maybe they genuinely believe that raping dogs is okay, or maybe they’re just saying that to deal with their cognitive dissonance. I would prefer that it’s cognitive dissonance, but if they’re a dog rape apologist, then they’re a piece of shit anyways.
I hope it’s cognitive dissonance and not authentic approval of dog rape.
But just to be clear, the evolution of your conversation did not show any evidence of an inconsistency in their beliefs that would amount to cognitive dissonance? Because otherwise you would have brought that up, I assume.
bearboiblake@pawb.social 11 hours ago
Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
Senal@programming.dev 11 hours ago
Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.
Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 5 hours ago
“Feels good” is not a valid justification to harm others, imagine how that justification would apply in other cases and it’s pretty easy to see how it falls apart. You can’t be logically consistent with that justification to harm others. The same with apathy, also not a justification to needlessly exploit animals.
Senal@programming.dev 4 hours ago
In reference to my other conversation regarding the comparison of products that use electronics vs meat consumption, I would ask if “convenience” was a valid justification.
Given the horrors of the electronics supply chain (slavery, horrific working conditions, cartels etc) im not sure why convenience electronics (phones, laptops, pc’s) use would be OK, but meat consumption would not.
Im not saying the horrors are equivalent and it’s not a dig at you, I’m genuinely trying to figure out why one kind of horror is OK, but another is not and how people make those calls.
bearboiblake@pawb.social 11 hours ago
I’d ask them to sit down and watch a documentary about the animal agriculture industry (such as Earthlings) to be sure they really do know the truth.
Senal@programming.dev 11 hours ago
and then , once they acknowledge that ?
The reason i ask is that I’ve never heard an opinion from someone with the viewpoint it seems you hold talk about what they’d think in that situation.
and my follow up would be to ask why meat and not electronics (explained below) or textiles or megacorps ?
In general i struggle with why people place these ethical and moral rubicons in the places they do (i do mostly understand why the lines exist)
I mentioned in another comment about the horrific shit that goes in to basically all electronics (there are numerous documentaries and articles on the horrors of cobalt mining for instance) and it seems odd that people are ok with that but not the meat industry, or perhaps fine with both of those but draw the line at baby animals.
Again, i understand why the lines exist, it’s the seemingly arbitrary nature of where they are placed for different circumstances that eludes me.
I’m asking so i can gather opinions enough that hopefully i can understand, eventually
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I love how vegans are literally always someone who fell for fake propaganda and never someone with real knowledge or experience of the agricultural industry. I watched several of my vegan friends do a 180 in vet school once they started internships and saw first hand how the animal industry operates, and realized their ex-conviction was based on sensationalized lies.
toomanypancakes@piefed.world 10 hours ago
Some people are just sociopathic and don’t have any empathy for others.
Senal@programming.dev 10 hours ago
See my answer below for context on why i asked
FishFace@piefed.social 9 hours ago
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
bearboiblake@pawb.social 9 hours ago
Most people agree that raping dogs is bad. Maybe they genuinely believe that raping dogs is okay, or maybe they’re just saying that to deal with their cognitive dissonance. I would prefer that it’s cognitive dissonance, but if they’re a dog rape apologist, then they’re a piece of shit anyways.
I hope it’s cognitive dissonance and not authentic approval of dog rape.
FishFace@piefed.social 9 hours ago
But just to be clear, the evolution of your conversation did not show any evidence of an inconsistency in their beliefs that would amount to cognitive dissonance? Because otherwise you would have brought that up, I assume.
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
“I lead someone who disagrees with me into saying something stupid once, therefore everyone who disagrees with me must have cognitive dissonance.”
Lol