Cognitive Dissonance (Some *food* for thought)

[lilymc]

This vid is a must watch. I think she explains it so clearly, and what she's saying is pretty hard to deny… at least in regard to most of the population. If you watch it, watch it the whole way through.



BTW, I'm not posting this to get into any big debates. The only point I wanted to make was about cognitive dissonance. So please feel free to comment on that, but anything beyond that I'm not going to get into, because I don't have much time, and I'm not in the mood for that right now. That can be for another time/thread.

[TheTexan]

Why? Because chicken is good. Pork is good, bacon is gooood

[TheTexan]

She's cute but probably not worth the crazy

[lilymc]

She's cute but probably not worth the crazy

What in particular did she say that you thought was crazy? Please be specific.

[dannno]

If the chicken gets run over by a car, nobody can eat it..

[TheTexan]

What in particular did she say that you thought was crazy? Please be specific.

Uh, every word

[lilymc]

Uh, every word

OK, for a second I forgot that you're a troll account. I'm not really in the mood to entertain that right now. But if you do come up with anything specific that she said that was untrue, please do post it. If you're not going to be specific, have a good night!

[lilymc]

If the chicken gets run over by a car, nobody can eat it..

Funny, but you know that's not why people slowed down to avoid hitting the chicken.

[Danke]

She's cute but probably not worth the crazy

...

[dannno]

Funny, but you know that's not why people slowed down to avoid hitting the chicken.

Well it's certainly a big part of the reason.. It will die unnecessarily, there is the fact that you don't know what kind of injuries you will put it through, it may make your car messy.. there are a lot of reasons, and the weight of each varies.

I used to be vegetarian and part of the reason was because I liked that I didn't have to be constantly contributing to the slaughter of animals, I could still eat tasty food and be healthy. But then I thought about it.. I thought a lot about nutrition, but putting that aside for a moment - If everybody stopped eating meat, the ranchers would sell their land and release the animals back into the wild, and eventually they would be eaten by predators. The population of predators would grow, and some of them would end up eating people and children.

When you're vegan, you contribute to deforestation and the destruction of natural habitat to farm vegetables and grains which kills animals and prevents future generations from living. Every year the land gets plowed over and various voles and varmints are killed. There you grow grains and plants and eat them.

Meat eaters, in addition to growing vegetables also have grazing animals and such which work well in concert with the farming of vegetables. But those animals are alive. They are protected. They live their lives in relative safety from apex predators that come out from the woods and eat them alive.

Many farmers do kill relatively humanely and treat their animals relatively humanely. I like to strive to support those farmers and I would hope everyone would. I think there is a lot of video footage of things that are unfortunate that does happen, but I don't think there is a very good record of the frequency some of those things happen.

To that end I've always imagined websites that hookup consumers with information about where they are buying from. I would love to scan some meat or vegetables at the store on my phone and have a video from the farm they came from appear and show me the type of environment they are grown in and information about what type of fertilizers and pesticides might be used.

But the point is all those cows, all those chickens, all those animals out there that you care about are alive BECAUSE people like me pay farmers to raise them and take care of them. Meat eaters don't just create death like in the memes you post, they invest in life.

[lilymc]

Well it's certainly a big part of the reason.. It will die unnecessarily, there is the fact that you don't know what kind of injuries you will put it through, it may make your car messy.. there are a lot of reasons, and the weight of each varies.

I used to be vegetarian and part of the reason was because I liked that I didn't have to be constantly contributing to the slaughter of animals, I could still eat tasty food and be healthy. But then I thought about it.. I thought a lot about nutrition, but putting that aside for a moment - If everybody stopped eating meat, the ranchers would sell their land and release the animals back into the wild, and eventually they would be eaten by predators. The population of predators would grow, and some of them would end up eating people and children.

When you're vegan, you contribute to deforestation and the destruction of natural habitat to farm vegetables and grains which kills animals and prevents future generations from living. Every year the land gets plowed over and various voles and varmints are killed. There you grow grains and plants and eat them.

Meat eaters, in addition to growing vegetables also have grazing animals and such which work well in concert with the farming of vegetables. But those animals are alive. They are protected. They live their lives in relative safety from apex predators that come out from the woods and eat them alive.

Many farmers do kill relatively humanely and treat their animals relatively humanely. I like to strive to support those farmers and I would hope everyone would. I think there is a lot of video footage of things that are unfortunate that does happen, but I don't think there is a very good record of the frequency some of those things happen.

To that end I've always imagined websites that hookup consumers with information about where they are buying from. I would love to scan some meat or vegetables at the store on my phone and have a video from the farm they came from appear and show me the type of environment they are grown in and information about what type of fertilizers and pesticides might be used.

But the point is all those cows, all those chickens, all those animals out there that you care about are alive BECAUSE people like me pay farmers to raise them and take care of them. Meat eaters don't just create death like in the memes you post, they invest in life.

Oh my goodness, so many false statements, misunderstandings and misguided (albeit well-intentioned) ideas in one post. Too many to go through right now. I really do have to work. But I'll try to get back to it later.

Like I said in the OP though, I didn't post this thread to debate veganism, but to discuss the clear and obvious cognitive dissonance that takes place every day. But amazingly (and this is what is absolutely crazy to me) you do not even admit that takes place! You attribute people not wanting to hit the chicken because they want him to safely walk back to the slaughterhouse to get butchered there??? What about the people who cheer for the little pig in movies like Babe, but then the next day eat pork chops or bacon? To deny that obvious cognitive dissonance is either to be dishonest, or completely blind. Come on. You're fooling yourself if you believe those silly excuses. But of all people here, it does make sense that you would be the one to deny the cognitive dissonance. You're so deeply entrenched in your position, you simply cannot concede anything, not even one inch.

[dannno]

Oh my goodness, so many false statements, misunderstandings and misguided (albeit well-intentioned) ideas in one post. Too many to go through right now. I really do have to work. But I'll try to get back to it later.

I hope you do come back later, read it again and consider it because there are actually zero false statements in there. Ranchers create life, all those pigs you are fond of would not exist without people who eat meat. Millions of pigs are alive because of people who eat meat. Only wild boars would exist, they are not cute.

You attribute people not wanting to hit the chicken because they want him to safely walk back to the slaughterhouse to get butchered there???

Yes, of course, because 9 times out of 10 it will be less painful that way and they will not die in vein.

What about the people who cheer for the little pig in movies like Babe, but then the next day eat pork chops or bacon?

I explained that in my post that you need to review and respond to - Babe is ONLY alive because there is a farm and a ranch which only exists because people eat meat.

To deny that obvious cognitive dissonance is either to be dishonest, or completely blind. Come on. You're fooling yourself if you believe those silly excuses. But of all people here, it does make sense that you would be the one to deny the cognitive dissonance. You're so deeply entrenched in your position, you simply cannot concede anything, not even one inch.

It's not cognitive dissonance to want to give farm animals a good life and then eat them - especially when the alternative is an empty field with a few rodents that get chopped up each year. That is what veganism is. There would be no farm animals. It's you that has cognitive dissonance. Explain how there would be farm animals if people didn't eat meat. A few people might have them as pets, but 99.999% of them would die out. Because vegans claim they like life? So they replace the animals with an empty field of chopped up rodents and plants.. That doesn't make any sense.

[angelatc]

Uh, every word

Maybe you didn't understand. She clearly stated she does not want debate.

[Anti Federalist]

Like I said in the OP though, I didn't post this thread to debate veganism, but to discuss the clear and obvious cognitive dissonance that takes place every day. But amazingly (and this is what is absolutely crazy to me) you do not even admit that takes place! You attribute people not wanting to hit the chicken because they want him to safely walk back to the slaughterhouse to get butchered there??? What about the people who cheer for the little pig in movies like Babe, but then the next day eat pork chops or bacon? To deny that obvious cognitive dissonance is either to be dishonest, or completely blind. Come on. You're fooling yourself if you believe those silly excuses. But of all people here, it does make sense that you would be the one to deny the cognitive dissonance. You're so deeply entrenched in your position, you simply cannot concede anything, not even one inch.

No moral trepidation or internal mental struggle here.

Animals are resources. They are not cute, anthropomorphized "furry people".

I'll eat a fluffy bunny, an adorable piglet, my own dog if it came down to it.

[TheTexan]

No moral trepidation or internal mental struggle here.

Animals are resources. They are not cute, anthropomorphized "furry people".

I'll eat a fluffy bunny, an adorable piglet, my own dog if it came down to it.

[Swordsmyth]

What about the people who cheer for the little pig in movies like Babe, but then the next day eat pork chops or bacon? To deny that obvious cognitive dissonance is either to be dishonest, or completely blind. Come on. You're fooling yourself if you believe those silly excuses. But of all people here, it does make sense that you would be the one to deny the cognitive dissonance. You're so deeply entrenched in your position, you simply cannot concede anything, not even one inch.

There is a difference between fictional fantasy for entertainment and REAL life, I think R2D2 is cute but I don't believe machines really are people with personalities.

[Brian4Liberty]

This vid is a must watch. I think she explains it so clearly, and what she's saying is pretty hard to deny… at least in regard to most of the population. If you watch it, watch it the whole way through.
...
BTW, I'm not posting this to get into any big debates. The only point I wanted to make was about cognitive dissonance. So please feel free to comment on that, but anything beyond that I'm not going to get into, because I don't have much time, and I'm not in the mood for that right now. That can be for another time/thread.

I see what you did there. A couple of minutes on the "cognitive dissonance" part, the rest is a standard horrors of a slaughterhouse piece. "Watch it to the end", eh?

[lilymc]

No moral trepidation or internal mental struggle here.

Animals are resources. They are not cute, anthropomorphized "furry people".

I'll eat a fluffy bunny, an adorable piglet, my own dog if it came down to it.

As I've told you before, I know that this does not apply to you. You've made it perfectly clear that you put animals on the same level as a piece of wood. I think that is downright bizarre and very sad, as it is absolutely not true, but like I've told you before, at least you're consistent. However, the cognitive dissonance does apply to most people, especially Americans, because most people love animals and have that instinct to love and protect them. But at the same time, they go to the grocery store to buy and eat the dismembered corpses of innocent animals, that in other settings they would probably want to pet and admire.

[H_H]

The only point I wanted to make was about cognitive dissonance. So please feel free to comment on that, but anything beyond that I'm not going to get into,

The phrase "cognitive dissonance" = someone not adhering to my own particular worldview. As generally used.

Am I right?

Prove me wrong.

[Brian4Liberty]

I hope you do come back later, read it again and consider it because there are actually zero false statements in there. Ranchers create life, all those pigs you are fond of would not exist without people who eat meat. Millions of pigs are alive because of people who eat meat. Only wild boars would exist, they are not cute.

Yes, of course, because 9 times out of 10 it will be less painful that way and they will not die in vein.

I explained that in my post that you need to review and respond to - Babe is ONLY alive because there is a farm and a ranch which only exists because people eat meat.

It's not cognitive dissonance to want to give farm animals a good life and then eat them - especially when the alternative is an empty field with a few rodents that get chopped up each year. That is what veganism is. There would be no farm animals. It's you that has cognitive dissonance. Explain how there would be farm animals if people didn't eat meat. A few people might have them as pets, but 99.999% of them would die out. Because vegans claim they like life? So they replace the animals with an empty field of chopped up rodents and plants.. That doesn't make any sense.

I know vegatarians that have said that they would rather see farm animals go extinct than to have them butchered.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, literally destroying the planet would be best, thus eliminating any pain.

[VIDEODROME]

There is still a lot of debate about optimal human diet and it seems that meat as a source of protein should be a part of it.

As a consumer, I can try to follow any labels that say the animal was Free Range or whatever. At the restaurant, I don't have much control or information about where meat is sourced.


I would not stop my car for a chicken mostly because that messes with traffic and could create a hazard for other people. As a Truck Driver I have wiped out many animals on the highway and there is no way I'm swerving or stopping a big rig for an animal that gets in my way.


Also as a Truck Driver, I have been to some farms that treat animals this way and I don't agree with it, so like I said before I can look for the Free Range label.




For what it's worth, this is what I would prefer to see as the norm. The animal loses it's life to become our food; we could at least give it a quick exit from the world with minimal pain. I suppose one issue is it would be hard to make this the norm while supplying the vast amount of meat consumed, so I would consider having meat as a moderate part the protein in my diet along with Free Range eggs for breakfast.

[lilymc]

There is a difference between fictional fantasy for entertainment and REAL life, I think R2D2 is cute but I don't believe machines really are people with personalities.

I'm sorry, but it is a fact that pigs are one of the most intelligent animals, usually ranked more intelligent than dogs. I highly doubt you would torture your dog, then kill and eat him… But you see nothing wrong with doing that to an animal that is even more intelligent than your dog. Pigs are not only as or more intelligent than dogs, but they have personalities just like dogs do. Don't twist my words, I never said that pigs were people, or that any other animals are people, but it is absurd and completely blind to act as if they are not sentient beings who feel love, joy, pain, suffering, fear, boredom, so many things that you give them zero credit for.

[H_H]

I know vegatarians that have said that they would rather see farm animals go extinct than to have them butchered.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, literally destroying the planet would be best, thus eliminating any pain.

Only if it's a moral "must be!" and not an aesthetic "I prefer". Aesthetics don't have to be taken to logical and extreme conclusions. In fact, relatively rarely do things need to be taken to extreme absolutes. No life lives at absolute zero.*

There's no dissonance -- cognitive, moral, spiritual, emotional, or otherwise -- in saying "I'm not going to run over that deer" on the way to... go hunt deer! There's likewise no dissonance in saying "I think no animals getting butchered by humans would be the best way to run things" and at the same time say "but I'm fine with predators killing prey in nature, and I really don't care about any pain experienced by plants."

It's not dissonance. It's just preferences. And, in at least some of these cases, a rejection of crazy, nonsensical, absolutist ideology. Give me pragmatic "dissonance" over insane and unworkable "consistency" any day.

* Well, except for tardigrades. See, even that statement about absolutes is not absolute!

[lilymc]

The phrase "cognitive dissonance" = someone not adhering to my own particular worldview. As generally used.

Am I right?

Prove me wrong.

Nope, not even close. The dictionary definition is: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. For example, someone saying they love animals, yet purchasing products that are the result of exploitation, misery cruelty and unnecessary killing. In other words, when a person's beliefs and innate instincts do not match up with what they're doing on a daily basis… But there is an avoidance there, a deliberate putting one's head in the sand, and compartmentalization, in order to continue with what they're doing.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm sorry, but it is a fact that pigs are one of the most intelligent animals, usually ranked more intelligent than dogs. I highly doubt you would torture your dog, then kill and eat him… But you see nothing wrong with doing that to an animal that is even more intelligent than your dog. Pigs are not only as or more intelligent than dogs, but they have personalities just like dogs do. Don't twist my words, I never said that pigs were people, or that any other animals are people, but it is absurd and completely blind to act as if they are not sentient beings who feel love, joy, pain, suffering, fear, boredom, so many things that you give them zero credit for.

But they are still animals, my point is that there is no cognitive dissonance involved in the difference between entertainment and real life.

[oyarde]

...

I had the bunnies in the daily .

[lilymc]

But they are still animals, my point is that there is no cognitive dissonance involved in the difference between entertainment and real life.

Yes it is, because movie or no movie, pigs actually are intelligent, feeling animals, and MOST people (especially people who love animals) would not have the instinct to harm and torture an innocent pig if, for example, there was one that was brought into a room of people. They would probably want to pet him, and be kind to the pig. That is what is cognitive dissonance, to have that instinct yet to turn around and eat ham or bacon the next day.

[dannno]

Nope, not even close. The dictionary definition is: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. For example, someone saying they love animals, yet purchasing products that are the result of exploitation, misery cruelty and unnecessary killing. In other words, when a person's beliefs and innate instincts do not match up with what they're doing on a daily basis… But there is an avoidance there, a deliberate putting one's head in the sand, and compartmentalization, in order to continue with what they're doing.

Purchasing meat buys food for the animals that are still alive and have some life ahead of them. It also buys fences to help keep predators out.

[RJB]

If a pig is an intellectual giant, then let the pig use logic to defend itself.

[VIDEODROME]

What if you have a Pet Dog? What are you supposed to feed it if you want to be consistent liking animals, but dogs eat meat even if ground up by petfood companies?

I sort of agree with AF that animals are resources, but mostly that they are Tools. We bred cats and dogs to hang around killing pests or to help with hunting or for protection and they gradually became companions. I guess they lucked out become pals with humans that way. The other animals mentioned were bred for food.

So what we have here is a legacy. I do think we can avoid being so ruthless or unnecessarily cruel when killing animals, but that is why they exist until something else comes along. People are still in the early stages of basically growing meat so I'm curious to see how that works even though some cells are needed from a real animal to get it started. I would try a Lab Burger though.