3 ms·

That's such a strange way to argue. We use heuristics all the time. As I said elsewhere, the farmer is not a slave, that changes the equation. If all salads wer

by netrus 6y ago

That's such a strange way to argue. We use heuristics all the time. As I said elsewhere, the farmer is not a slave, that changes the equation. If all salads were made by slaves, beef might be the ethical superior choice. But it isn't. If you find someone who wants you do eat them: I guess that's fine? You cannot li ve 100% without harming animals - so it is cognitive dissonance to call for ending 95% of animal suffering (that, again, serves no good reason)?

kempbellt 6y ago
The cognitive dissonance is the perfectionist idealism of veganism, and the assumed "ethical superiority" that constantly gets thrown around while taking zero constructive criticism that the people promoting it are in fact, living at complete odds with it. It's like beating your children to try and instill core values that abuse is bad. "Don't hit, Timmy. Hitting is bad! I'm going to spank you to get my point across." OP made a good point about the imperfections of idealistic veganism and it was dismissed with a, "Nope. This isn't a thing. Our ideals are perfectly defined. You are the problem", which goes directly against the belief that one's ideals are perfectly defined if someone is questioning holes in the definition - i.e, cognitive dissonance...
- Falling3 6y ago
  The OP did not make a good point - they made a Nirvana Fallacy. And your analogy in no way captures that argument anyway.
  - kempbellt 6y ago
    I interpret OPs point to be one that highlights the already existing Nirvana Fallacy that is the core of idealistic veganism. My analogy adds directly to that point.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      Vegans don't have to be vegan for ethical reasons. They can be vegan for health reasons, or environmental reasons, or any combination of reasons. Vegans in general choose to not consume animals or (non-human) animal products, by definition. There is a large variety of adherence and some variety in self-definition, just as there is in any common human community. The Nirvana Fallacy lies in claiming that all vegans are vegan because they wish to be perfectly ethical, or follow a particular definition strictly, and are therefore failing on their own terms. But vegans in general make no such claim to be perfectly ethical. They are not failing on their own terms - they are failing on your invented terms: ones which only highlight your own cognitive dissonance.
      - kempbellt 6y ago
        Individuals have all kinds of reasons for doing the things that they do, which is why I wouldn't use the phrase "vegans in general", and why I haven't addressed my comments to vegans at all. Veganism, however, has strong ethical foundations, and any amount of research shows this. Unless we are considering the mental health benefit that comes with feeling ethically superior by being vegan, there are no valid health conditions that support unilateral veganism. It's akin to swearing off all liquids because of a lactose intolerance when consuming milk. Veganism relies on the assumption that commodification of animals and products created by animals is considered unethical and should be rejected. I don't disagree with the sentiment to a degree, but I also don't agree with it absolutely. I do feel the need to point out that there is a Nirvana Fallacy within veganism itself, as it fails to truly define what is considered an "animal", and what is considered "commodification", and this is where conversations frequently turn into splitting hairs. Many animals (humans and not) engage in symbiotic relationships. Dogs will guard a home, and as a result, will be fed and protected by people in that home. It's how families work, friends, etc. If a sheep sheds wood, naturally, is it anti-vegan to use that wool to create a coat? What about skinning a dead cow (natural causes) for its leather? There's a ton of gray area. Veganism, at face value, is an idealistic platitude based on a beautiful notion, but it doesn't work on its own. There are a lot of great things about it, but it has never held much sway in my mind besides, "That's a cool idea, and I like seeing strides being made to make it easier to make 'vegan' choices, but I cannot bring myself to promote it".

by netrus 6y ago

kempbellt 6y ago

The cognitive dissonance is the perfectionist idealism of veganism, and the assumed "ethical superiority" that constantly gets thrown around while taking zero constructive criticism that the people promoting it are in fact, living at complete odds with it. It's like beating your children to try and instill core values that abuse is bad. "Don't hit, Timmy. Hitting is bad! I'm going to spank you to get my point across." OP made a good point about the imperfections of idealistic veganism and it was dismissed with a, "Nope. This isn't a thing. Our ideals are perfectly defined. You are the problem", which goes directly against the belief that one's ideals are perfectly defined if someone is questioning holes in the definition - i.e, cognitive dissonance...

Falling3 6y ago
The OP did not make a good point - they made a Nirvana Fallacy. And your analogy in no way captures that argument anyway.
- kempbellt 6y ago
  I interpret OPs point to be one that highlights the already existing Nirvana Fallacy that is the core of idealistic veganism. My analogy adds directly to that point.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    Vegans don't have to be vegan for ethical reasons. They can be vegan for health reasons, or environmental reasons, or any combination of reasons. Vegans in general choose to not consume animals or (non-human) animal products, by definition. There is a large variety of adherence and some variety in self-definition, just as there is in any common human community. The Nirvana Fallacy lies in claiming that all vegans are vegan because they wish to be perfectly ethical, or follow a particular definition strictly, and are therefore failing on their own terms. But vegans in general make no such claim to be perfectly ethical. They are not failing on their own terms - they are failing on your invented terms: ones which only highlight your own cognitive dissonance.
    - kempbellt 6y ago
      Individuals have all kinds of reasons for doing the things that they do, which is why I wouldn't use the phrase "vegans in general", and why I haven't addressed my comments to vegans at all. Veganism, however, has strong ethical foundations, and any amount of research shows this. Unless we are considering the mental health benefit that comes with feeling ethically superior by being vegan, there are no valid health conditions that support unilateral veganism. It's akin to swearing off all liquids because of a lactose intolerance when consuming milk. Veganism relies on the assumption that commodification of animals and products created by animals is considered unethical and should be rejected. I don't disagree with the sentiment to a degree, but I also don't agree with it absolutely. I do feel the need to point out that there is a Nirvana Fallacy within veganism itself, as it fails to truly define what is considered an "animal", and what is considered "commodification", and this is where conversations frequently turn into splitting hairs. Many animals (humans and not) engage in symbiotic relationships. Dogs will guard a home, and as a result, will be fed and protected by people in that home. It's how families work, friends, etc. If a sheep sheds wood, naturally, is it anti-vegan to use that wool to create a coat? What about skinning a dead cow (natural causes) for its leather? There's a ton of gray area. Veganism, at face value, is an idealistic platitude based on a beautiful notion, but it doesn't work on its own. There are a lot of great things about it, but it has never held much sway in my mind besides, "That's a cool idea, and I like seeing strides being made to make it easier to make 'vegan' choices, but I cannot bring myself to promote it".