Am I missing something ?
Cognitive dissonance.

We were talking about the fall of civilization, so you've kind of quoted me out of context there. In that case let me say that *almost* nobody on this planet lives in that situation.

If you think vegans are doing it for anything other than the animals and environment you're just projecting your insecurities at the issue to help satisfy your cognitive dissonance.

You're just nit-picking to avoid the true issue, whether intentionally or subconsciously.

Like I said before, I wasn't always vegan, so I know what's going on, I've said those exact same things you have. Until one day something clicked, and I realised I was wrong.

I think the issue really is that people don't truly understand veganism, because if they did they would be vegan.

and here they come!

trotting out the morality and ethics tropes,while totally being oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

vegans are the epitome of cognitive dissonance,and if i have to point out the reasons i am going to start cock punching some people!

It's totally intellectually dishonest to use one standard of reason and knowledge for everything else, and then abandon that system entirely for one particular idea just because you would prefer it to be true. Shame on you Destin, how do you live with that kind of cognitive dissonance?

Some people are just so afraid these days to admit that sarcasm has far surpassed their cognitive ability and intellect.

Some people are just so afraid these days to admit that technology has far surpassed their cognitive ability and intellect.

Even if the lamb has the best treatment in the world, to eat it, it has to be killed as an infant, it's only months old.

I'm not blaming anyone, I was just as oblivious as anyone else to all of this for most of my life, and that's why I like to point it out these days, and perhaps help someone just like the younger me to identify the inconsistencies in the thought (or lack of thought) process. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to see the beauty of a young deer and feel obligated to save her life one minute, and next minute eat something just as young and precious without even a single neuron firing about what had to happen to the lamb in order for it to end up on a plate.

People will stop for ducks crossing a round, and then go through a fried chicken drive through. People will spend 1/2 their lunch break admiring pictures of kittens, but eat a lamb or veal (and when you compare a lamb to a kitten they look very similar and just as cute).

If that younger me was reading this, I know I'd be getting angry and frustrated at this comment, ready to throw a barrage of counter arguments such as "lions eat animals". But that is only a good thing, that frustration, anger and annoyance is the logical side your brain fighting tradition and habit side. It's a good thing if it's causing you frustration, because it means you do have a logical side at least and even perhaps on a subconscious level the brain is trying to work out the inconsistencies


And of course sheep are very much victims of factory farming these day : http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/press_releases.php?release=150

That's all I usually ask of meat eaters, is to admit and understand the decision they are making: that they're pleasure is worth the death of a sentient being. And plenty are happy to admit that, and I salute those people. It's those living in a cognitive dissonance fantasy that disturbs me. Again, the great part about being human is our ability to self-reflect and hopefully see ourselves as we truly are.

In response to "my body has been hard-coded to prefer as a food source", if you look at how the body, physiologically, responds to meat vs plants in our diets, you realize very quickly that our bodies were made much more for plants than meat. What we are hard-coded to do is eat shit tons of fats, sweets, and oils. And I don't think you'd argue that those are good for the body despite it being "hard-coded" to want them.

Lastly, the amount of scientific evidence saying that plant-based diets are (far) more healthy than meat-based ones is becoming as voluminous as climate change evidence. The food and pharmaceutical companies are using the same tactics that the tobacco industries used just a few decades ago to cause public confusion when the (not-funded-by-corporations) scientific community was in agreement that tobacco was demonstrably carcinogenic. If you want to make the health/better-for-your-body/don't-fight-nature argument for meat, you better start realizing you're sounding more and more like a climate change denier.

I feel like those people can't possibly be real.

I mean, angry dumb rednecks voting for Trump, that I understand.

But the level of cognitive dissonance on display here is just.... they've got to be taking the piss right?

How can anyone think that "the wall just got 10 feet higher" is anyway a reasonable response to "Mexico isn't going to pay for it".

That's not even stupid, it's actually delusional; as in, you are disconnected from reality and maybe you should put on this nice jacket with really long sleeves.

Putting a "PUSH" sign is not a step in the right direction, it's papering over the cracks.

Even something as simple as a "push" sign requires a cognitive effort.

The one word I was waiting for in this video was affordance. A handle always affords pulling, a panel affords pushing. This really isn't rocket science

So...the feds holding property they've held at least since 1907 as a wildlife refuge, or surroundings they've purchased since then, and leasing it to people like these at ridiculously low prices is 'creeping into our lives' and 'overgrowth of government'?
Um...yeah...how does that work?
These people committed arson on federal land DURING A WILDFIRE and were found guilty, and are sentenced under federal MINIMUM guidelines, not given the max, and these Bundy people are finding that an overreach of government...how?
The cognitive dissonance in their last statement would be hilarious if it wasn't an actual mindset so many people AGREE with when talking about white groups, but scoff at as self serving drivel when applied to black groups.
THESE people think the law is rigged against them? What should the Black Lives Matter people think when it's PROVEN the law is rigged against them, and it's their LIFE at stake, not their right to do whatever they want on other people's property, including arson, without consequence.
And can you imagine the terrified outrage on Fox if a group of armed BLM (Black Lives Matter) people took over a BLM (Bureau of Land Management) office, like these nutjobs did? Now consider the ridicule if they did it to 'protest' the mandatory sentencing of a convicted arsonist....who's black.

Oh...interesting to find out this as well....
-Many of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus. This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed federal environmental restrictions.

Sweet Zombie Jesus!

@krelokk
what the fuck are you talking about?
WHO or WHAT is evil in this scenario?
WHO was being a bully here?
WHO was being bullied?

are you implying that because elliot had the audacity to call guthrie out for her hypocritical,unsubstantiated bullshit that somehow translates to EVIL?

in what fucking reality do you live in where that makes even the slightest bit of sense?

is my disagreeing with your comment somehow mean I am now evil?

you need to define your terms sir,because i may need to purchase you a dictionary.

who is the bully?

is it the relatively unknown video game creator,who had SIX followers on twitter and worked in a restaurant?
THAT guy is a bully?
seriously? that guy is bully?
who was later the focus of an online witch hunt which not only contacted his employer but also his friends and family?who received a constant barrage of phone calls,emails and twitters admonishing the man for creating a video game that has had ALL kinds of people as its focus,but since HIS game featured sarkesian this must,therefore translate to him hating women,while simultaneously ignoring the hundreds of other face-punch games which feature people from beiber to hillary clinton.

but THIS guy is a bully?
do you even know what bully means?
talk about cognitive dissonance.

or is it elliot?
where guthrie found it within her rights to abuse a court system to prosecute and ruin a man to make a political point?
THAT guy is a bully as well?

they got the man fired.
he is 80k in the hole due to legal fees,yet never once threatened guthrie (she admitted this in open court).never made sexual comments (again guthrie admitted this as well) and yet guthrie and her followers made spurious and unsubstantiated claims that elliot was a pedophile (which guthrie later retracted) with absolutely ZERO consequences.

and THIS guy is the bully?

your assertions make absolutely zero sense and are intellectually and morally inconsistent.

hey,it is totally within your rights to support whomever you wish,but at least have the honesty and decency to be morally consistent.

because if you want to hold to your ideology that words have effect and therefore consequences,(which i agree with) then by that metric guthrie is JUST as evil and guilty as burr and elliot.according to your logic this whole bunch should be prosecuted for "evil" and "bully" behavior.

"siccing" the internet on an individual or group of individuals and utilizing your political popularity and weight to harass,attack and disparage is,quite frankly,fucking bullying.

calling a person a pedophile and then requesting that be retweeted as a form of punishment is not only bullying,but it is slanderous and criminally libel.

so again,
when you use terms like "evil' and "bullying",
i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

Ugh. That tofucken looks disgusting. If they're going to try to sell veganism, they should try to not make the alternative look like a vomit box.

And they totally, totally overdid it with the cursing. After the 18th fuck, it's not funny anymore. It just makes you sound like a 15-year old who just learned how to cuss.

And, I'm sorry @newtboy, but even animals raised in 'humane' conditions are still treated horrendously by any human standard for any other sentient being. If we treated our mentally handicapped like even the best animals in the best farms, it'd be considered an atrocity.

Keep on cognitive dissonancing the shit out of that. Just admit to yourself that your enjoyment is more important than another being's suffering. Just admit it! And say, "I'm an asshole because my hunger is more important than suffering." proudly. Stop dancing around with that "humane slaughter" nonsense.