3 ms·

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

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.
        wpietri 2y ago
        Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? For the vast majority of both, they are pets. Moreover, there are plenty of other animals Americans would flinch at eating that clearly aren't working animals.
        9rx 2y ago
        > What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? Historically, ~100%. I considered caveating that while it is far less true today, the transition is still relatively recent and cultural norms haven't caught up yet, but I assumed you would have the capacity to figure that out on your own. My bad for assuming.

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.
      - wpietri 2y ago
        Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? For the vast majority of both, they are pets. Moreover, there are plenty of other animals Americans would flinch at eating that clearly aren't working animals.
        9rx 2y ago
        > What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? Historically, ~100%. I considered caveating that while it is far less true today, the transition is still relatively recent and cultural norms haven't caught up yet, but I assumed you would have the capacity to figure that out on your own. My bad for assuming.