3 ms·

> You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice. Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does th

> You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice. Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? I think the difference isn't that one is more moral, it's that one is more familiar. I also don't think he was talking about activists. There are plenty of "hardcore MAGA" types who are pretty passive about it. And even there that doesn't necessarily involve cognitive dissonance. I know plenty of people who vote for Democrats that are able to oppose it on certain particulars while still deciding it's the best voting option. But I think MAGA in particular is a cult of personality, which is very hard to justify intellectually.

9283409232 2y ago
> Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? Yes. If dog legs are readily available in the store then sure.
- skylurk 2y ago
  Last week I met a guy who traveled to China cause he wanted to try dog. It was kinda too weird to do it at home, but he was really curious.
- wpietri 2y ago
  Turns out this varies widely by culture. In many places, it's taboo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat If you'd like a different example that gets the same feeling, try substituting something else considered treif in your culture, like "roasted eyeballs" or "a human hand". My point being that people who are used to eating some kinds of meat see it as perfectly reasonable, but that has a lot to do with what they've been socialized to. In contrast, raised in vegetarian cultures often find eating any meat equally horrific. Which is the position I find intellectually most rational.
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    I don't understand what this has to do with what the original post was about. How is this relevant to someone enjoying the outdoors while simultaneously supporting people who are destroying the outdoors?
    - wpietri 2y ago
      The original post was talking about cognitive dissonance in other people. My point was that we all experience things like this. Food is a convenient example, because the few people who aren't hypocritical about it in some way are very familiar with how other people are. My goal is to get others to realize that cognitive dissonance is not an us vs them thing. I freely grant that MAGA followers, as part of a cult of personality, are notably worse. But it's a human problem. Does that clear it up for you?
      - 9283409232 2y ago
        I guess I'm not understanding how food is a good example to illustrate your point. If one culture finds eating dog normal and another culture doesn't, I don't see either person in this situation as hypocritical.
        wpietri 2y ago
        The dissonance I'm pointing out is that killing and eating some otherwise-equivalent animals is either fine or horrific purely depending on what you're used to. Just running with Americans here, because that's what I'm most familiar with, but Americans are happy to eat burgers and would be horrified to eat dog. They are also happy to eat burgers but would generally be horrified by the killing of the cow. This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs; they're both cute, sociable mammals that raise adorable young. This isn't a rational position, and Americans who think at all about it experience cognitive dissonance.
        9rx 2y ago
        > This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs There is a major difference: Dogs have been deemed workers, thus eating them is seen as a threat to one's livelihood. Same reason Americans won't eat horses. You can't plow the fields tomorrow if you eat the horse tonight, so to speak. It has been an imperative that these animals be off limits for consumption. In other parts of the world where the working animals differ, they have no qualms about eating dogs and horses, but may not eat other animals.
9rx 2y ago
> Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". If that's the best choice in front of me, sure. I'm not going to starve to death just because it is dog. Are you? > I also don't think he was talking about activists. There was said to be support. That requires activism of some sort. You don't have to gather in the streets in mass promotion, wear certain colored hats, or fly party flags, but there has to be some kind of activity to suggest that the support is there. That isn't someone quietly eating a burger (or dog leg) in the corner.
- wpietri 2y ago
  Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. I am pretty clearly discussing one's normal dietary choices. What people do in extremes is an entirely different topic, one I'd be happy to discuss on some other day, but here I think it's a gross distraction from my point.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. We were talking about making tradeoffs amid the choices available to you, where a burger was supposed, for the sake of discussion, to be the best choice available. I assume you haven't randomly changed the subject. If you can choose between a hamburger and a dog leg, then, sure, a hamburger, at least to my taste, would be the better choice. I would choose it. But that doesn't mean I would never eat a dog leg. Where the dog leg is the best choice, why wouldn't you eat it?
    - wpietri 2y ago
      That's not what I was talking about. My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. Eating meat is a convenient example, because almost nobody reading this has no other choice, and almost nobody here hates animals (or at least will admit to it). I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". If you are, godspeed, but it's unrelated to the point I was making.

9283409232 2y ago

> Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? Yes. If dog legs are readily available in the store then sure.

skylurk 2y ago
Last week I met a guy who traveled to China cause he wanted to try dog. It was kinda too weird to do it at home, but he was really curious.
wpietri 2y ago
Turns out this varies widely by culture. In many places, it's taboo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat If you'd like a different example that gets the same feeling, try substituting something else considered treif in your culture, like "roasted eyeballs" or "a human hand". My point being that people who are used to eating some kinds of meat see it as perfectly reasonable, but that has a lot to do with what they've been socialized to. In contrast, raised in vegetarian cultures often find eating any meat equally horrific. Which is the position I find intellectually most rational.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  I don't understand what this has to do with what the original post was about. How is this relevant to someone enjoying the outdoors while simultaneously supporting people who are destroying the outdoors?
  - wpietri 2y ago
    The original post was talking about cognitive dissonance in other people. My point was that we all experience things like this. Food is a convenient example, because the few people who aren't hypocritical about it in some way are very familiar with how other people are. My goal is to get others to realize that cognitive dissonance is not an us vs them thing. I freely grant that MAGA followers, as part of a cult of personality, are notably worse. But it's a human problem. Does that clear it up for you?
    - 9283409232 2y ago
      I guess I'm not understanding how food is a good example to illustrate your point. If one culture finds eating dog normal and another culture doesn't, I don't see either person in this situation as hypocritical.
      - wpietri 2y ago
        The dissonance I'm pointing out is that killing and eating some otherwise-equivalent animals is either fine or horrific purely depending on what you're used to. Just running with Americans here, because that's what I'm most familiar with, but Americans are happy to eat burgers and would be horrified to eat dog. They are also happy to eat burgers but would generally be horrified by the killing of the cow. This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs; they're both cute, sociable mammals that raise adorable young. This isn't a rational position, and Americans who think at all about it experience cognitive dissonance.
        9rx 2y ago
        > This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs There is a major difference: Dogs have been deemed workers, thus eating them is seen as a threat to one's livelihood. Same reason Americans won't eat horses. You can't plow the fields tomorrow if you eat the horse tonight, so to speak. It has been an imperative that these animals be off limits for consumption. In other parts of the world where the working animals differ, they have no qualms about eating dogs and horses, but may not eat other animals.

9rx 2y ago

> Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". If that's the best choice in front of me, sure. I'm not going to starve to death just because it is dog. Are you? > I also don't think he was talking about activists. There was said to be support. That requires activism of some sort. You don't have to gather in the streets in mass promotion, wear certain colored hats, or fly party flags, but there has to be some kind of activity to suggest that the support is there. That isn't someone quietly eating a burger (or dog leg) in the corner.

wpietri 2y ago
Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. I am pretty clearly discussing one's normal dietary choices. What people do in extremes is an entirely different topic, one I'd be happy to discuss on some other day, but here I think it's a gross distraction from my point.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. We were talking about making tradeoffs amid the choices available to you, where a burger was supposed, for the sake of discussion, to be the best choice available. I assume you haven't randomly changed the subject. If you can choose between a hamburger and a dog leg, then, sure, a hamburger, at least to my taste, would be the better choice. I would choose it. But that doesn't mean I would never eat a dog leg. Where the dog leg is the best choice, why wouldn't you eat it?
  - wpietri 2y ago
    That's not what I was talking about. My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. Eating meat is a convenient example, because almost nobody reading this has no other choice, and almost nobody here hates animals (or at least will admit to it). I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". If you are, godspeed, but it's unrelated to the point I was making.