3 ms·

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 extreme

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.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > That's not what I was talking about. That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it? > My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. That point was already made earlier in this thread. For what reason does it need to be pointed out again? > I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". You submitted the idea of the dog leg. Why would you introduce it if you don't want to talk about it?
    - wpietri 2y ago
      > That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it? Because you replied to me in a spirit of contradiction while apparently missing my point. I had some hope of clearing that up, but I see now that was a mistake.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        Your point wasn't missed. But your point was made! Thus there was nothing else that could be done with it. Hence why we carried it forward into its natural progression. For the sake of my understanding, are you trying to suggest that you didn't make a point by, counterintuitively and contradictorily, telling us that you made a point? Or what is it that you are trying to do here?

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.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > That's not what I was talking about. That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it? > My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. That point was already made earlier in this thread. For what reason does it need to be pointed out again? > I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". You submitted the idea of the dog leg. Why would you introduce it if you don't want to talk about it?
  - wpietri 2y ago
    > That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it? Because you replied to me in a spirit of contradiction while apparently missing my point. I had some hope of clearing that up, but I see now that was a mistake.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      Your point wasn't missed. But your point was made! Thus there was nothing else that could be done with it. Hence why we carried it forward into its natural progression. For the sake of my understanding, are you trying to suggest that you didn't make a point by, counterintuitively and contradictorily, telling us that you made a point? Or what is it that you are trying to do here?