4 ms·

It's heartening to hear your story. It's hard to come to terms with cognitive dissonance and change your behavior.

by asciimo 10y ago

codezero 10y ago
It's very very hard. I am lucky to have a wife who has been vegan for many many years to help support me.
wahern 10y ago
I resolved the cognitive dissonance by actually eating dog on a trip to South Korea. Choosing not to eat meat doesn't really resolve all the problems. Not that eating dog does. But, for example, on a recent walk through Golden Gate Park I noticed signs that referred to "dog guardians" rather than "dog owners". I found that interesting. I neither agree nor disagree with that terminology, but it just goes to show that the issue isn't a binary matter of choosing to eat or not eat animals. I've been eating much less meat lately, for various reasons. But I tend to think that by choosing to be vegan some people are taking the easy way out--in the present sociocultural environment being vegan is our "get out of jail free card" in terms of dealing with the issue of humane treatment of animals. But without a more sophisticated and nuanced line drawing, it's a facile choice. Eating animals is only one dimension among many in regards to their humane treatment. And in some respects it's the least interesting and even the least harmful.
- mping 10y ago
  You're missing the point. Cognitive dissonance is only to point that people are not entirely rational. For most people I know, they are vegetarian or vegan because of ethics, not to be more rational with their choices. If there are any other "better" choices to do by all means go ahead. People should do what they think its best, not just talk. And if you think they are getting a "get out of jail free card", give it a try for a week and see how hard it is.
  - wahern 10y ago
    By "easier" I meant in terms of ethics, not in terms of effort. But neither did I mean to imply that it's necessarily a cop-out to go vegan, or that people aren't making a sincere and challenging choice to do so. But consider that the poster said, more-or-less, that he couldn't even _fathom_ eating dog. It was just totally repugnant. And so to resolve his cognitive dissonance regarding his inability to differentiate eating dog meat from other meat, he decided to go vegan. In some minor but meaningful sense, that's the easy way out. Once upon a time I couldn't fathom eating dog meat, either. My point is that people assume that the _obvious_ ethical choice is to just go meatless. But do they ever even consider the polar opposite choice? I made a choice to explore and better understand my cultural prejudices by choosing to eat dog meat. How can we ever evolve our sense of what humane treatment is until we better understand our traditional as well as contemporary relationship with animals, including our inherent biases? If eating dog is viscerally repugnant, but eating a pig or cow is merely intellectually troubling, by going vegan you've done nothing to resolve a substantial aspect of your relationship to animals. There are many other aspects to going vegan, and I'm not criticizing veganism per se. I'm simply pointing out that it's an _incomplete_ choice in itself. Eating dog is also incomplete--perhaps much more incomplete. But if you can't even fathom it as an option--if your cultural prejudices are so strong that you can't even fathom they're a product of your unique cultural upbringing, rather than some divine hint to go vegan--how could you ever expect to have an objective perspective about the issue?

It's heartening to hear your story. It's hard to come to terms with cognitive dissonance and change your behavior.

by asciimo 10y ago

It's heartening to hear your story. It's hard to come to terms with cognitive dissonance and change your behavior.

codezero 10y ago

It's very very hard. I am lucky to have a wife who has been vegan for many many years to help support me.

wahern 10y ago

I resolved the cognitive dissonance by actually eating dog on a trip to South Korea. Choosing not to eat meat doesn't really resolve all the problems. Not that eating dog does. But, for example, on a recent walk through Golden Gate Park I noticed signs that referred to "dog guardians" rather than "dog owners". I found that interesting. I neither agree nor disagree with that terminology, but it just goes to show that the issue isn't a binary matter of choosing to eat or not eat animals. I've been eating much less meat lately, for various reasons. But I tend to think that by choosing to be vegan some people are taking the easy way out--in the present sociocultural environment being vegan is our "get out of jail free card" in terms of dealing with the issue of humane treatment of animals. But without a more sophisticated and nuanced line drawing, it's a facile choice. Eating animals is only one dimension among many in regards to their humane treatment. And in some respects it's the least interesting and even the least harmful.

mping 10y ago
You're missing the point. Cognitive dissonance is only to point that people are not entirely rational. For most people I know, they are vegetarian or vegan because of ethics, not to be more rational with their choices. If there are any other "better" choices to do by all means go ahead. People should do what they think its best, not just talk. And if you think they are getting a "get out of jail free card", give it a try for a week and see how hard it is.
- wahern 10y ago
  By "easier" I meant in terms of ethics, not in terms of effort. But neither did I mean to imply that it's necessarily a cop-out to go vegan, or that people aren't making a sincere and challenging choice to do so. But consider that the poster said, more-or-less, that he couldn't even _fathom_ eating dog. It was just totally repugnant. And so to resolve his cognitive dissonance regarding his inability to differentiate eating dog meat from other meat, he decided to go vegan. In some minor but meaningful sense, that's the easy way out. Once upon a time I couldn't fathom eating dog meat, either. My point is that people assume that the _obvious_ ethical choice is to just go meatless. But do they ever even consider the polar opposite choice? I made a choice to explore and better understand my cultural prejudices by choosing to eat dog meat. How can we ever evolve our sense of what humane treatment is until we better understand our traditional as well as contemporary relationship with animals, including our inherent biases? If eating dog is viscerally repugnant, but eating a pig or cow is merely intellectually troubling, by going vegan you've done nothing to resolve a substantial aspect of your relationship to animals. There are many other aspects to going vegan, and I'm not criticizing veganism per se. I'm simply pointing out that it's an _incomplete_ choice in itself. Eating dog is also incomplete--perhaps much more incomplete. But if you can't even fathom it as an option--if your cultural prejudices are so strong that you can't even fathom they're a product of your unique cultural upbringing, rather than some divine hint to go vegan--how could you ever expect to have an objective perspective about the issue?