20 ms·

Equating eating meat with martyrdom in the year 2026 is, in fact, the same cognitive dissonance you personally deny. I eat meat. And I'm highly, highly morally

Equating eating meat with martyrdom in the year 2026 is, in fact, the same cognitive dissonance you personally deny. I eat meat. And I'm highly, highly morally conflicted. I'll leave it at that to avoid sounding hypothetical—except to mention that the only logical reason I don't go vegetarian/vegan is the work and personal development that'd be required of me. (I'll take being called lazy over disingenuous any day, if we're ostensibly virtue signaling here.)

aziaziazi 6mo ago
Do what you like and as you like, but my two cents: if you want to make something that seems hard, start with one step and continue step by step at your own peace. Big goals are accomplished by proudness of small gaps instead of shame and desires of the missing ones. During 10 year I gently removed some ingredients of my diets/habits and added others in the meantime. It was longer but way easier than I imagined. Good luck, you lazy :-)
- nickburns 6mo ago
  Hey, at my ripe, old age, I only started learning how to properly feed myself more recently than I'd like to admit. So I take your point about acknowledging one's baby steps once you successfully string a few together. Thanks for the encouragement!
alterom 6mo ago
>Equating eating meat with martyrdom in the year 2026 is, in fact, the same cognitive dissonance you personally deny You completely missed the point. In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause. Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life, without possibly making a meaningful impact on unethical farming. I'm well off. You might be. Most people in the US are not. And in the end of the day, poor people are going to buy the cheapest products in the grocery store. So, there's always be a demand as long as there's supply. More than that. We don't really have a choice for where meat comes from anyway. There's no requirement to put that on the label, along with nutritional data. That, by the way, is another example where legislation can make a lot of difference. My point is that abstaining from meat is about as useful as that young man setting himself of fire in the US to help children in Gaza. Same goes about feeling bad about eating meat (while eating it). The impact on the cause is zero. Your energy would be better spent fighting the ag-gag laws, requiring disclosures on the labels, making ethically farmed products cheaper (and factory farmed produce more expensive), and so on. You having morally conflicted feelings doesn't help anyone. And it's simple, really: you are complicit in doing a bad thing. But the complicity is not in doing the thing, it's in supporting the system where in doing it is the rational choice for the majority of people. Your choice in doing or not doing the thing has very little impact on whether the thing happens.
- nickburns 6mo ago
  > In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause. On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.) > Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest. It does however consider the cause/s of other beings. So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term.
  - alterom 6mo ago
    >On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.) The original definition of martyr is: "a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty for declaring belief in and refusing to renounce a religion"[1]. It's suffering for the sake of being true to one's faith; impact of that decision on anyone else not being a factor in whether one is a martyr. Abstaining from meat consumption when it's something you really enjoy is martyrdom in that sense: you are sticking to your moral principles while having no impact on the proliferation of unethical farming. >I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest You think incorrectly. The concept of martyrdom means forgoing the self-interest of self-preservation and not being in pain. There's no martyrdom without sacrifice. >It does however consider the cause/s of other beings. It may, in the modern sense of the word, but it doesn't have to. See the linked definition. The causes for which one martyrs themselves may vary. The unifying factor is suffering in the name of the cause. Not suffering with the effect of making something happen. It's choosing to suffer in the name of something that makes one a martyr. Martyrdom is not an efficient way to bring the cause closer to reality. > So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term. You can maintain it's not the correct usage of the term, dictionaries be damned, but cognitive consonance has nothing to do with that. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
- DangitBobby 6mo ago
  Many individuals independently making the choice has made a difference, both in harm reduction on the demand side and choice on the supply side. It's never been easier or more accessible to be vegetarian/vegan.
TeMPOraL 6mo ago
> I eat meat. And I'm highly, highly morally conflicted. I'll leave it at that to avoid sounding hypothetical—except to mention that the only logical reason I don't go vegetarian/vegan is the work and personal development that'd be required of me. (I'll take being called lazy over disingenuous any day, if we're ostensibly virtue signaling here.) But that is precisely acting as a martyr. You're "highly morally conflicted", which means you suffer inside. You could stop that suffering by either 1) going vegan, so you don't have to worry about it, or 2) deciding to continue eating meat and no longer worry about it. Right now, you're picking the strictly worse combination of continuing to eat meat and remaining conflicted indefinitely. I'm starting to realize that internal moral conflicts are a lot like physical pain - it's an important signal from the body, and you should pay attention to it, but in the end, if you know you're not going to do anything about the underlying cause, then there's no point in continuing to suffer - you just make it go away with painkillers, and carry on living. This does not mean denying the problem - quite the opposite. Constant pain makes it hard to think rationally, and suppressing it puts you in a much better position to address its underlying cause.
- nickburns 6mo ago
  You say I'm 'suffering inside', not me.
  - satvikpendem 6mo ago
    What is confliction if not suffering?
    - nickburns 6mo ago
      What is suffering?

aziaziazi 6mo ago

Do what you like and as you like, but my two cents: if you want to make something that seems hard, start with one step and continue step by step at your own peace. Big goals are accomplished by proudness of small gaps instead of shame and desires of the missing ones. During 10 year I gently removed some ingredients of my diets/habits and added others in the meantime. It was longer but way easier than I imagined. Good luck, you lazy :-)

nickburns 6mo ago
Hey, at my ripe, old age, I only started learning how to properly feed myself more recently than I'd like to admit. So I take your point about acknowledging one's baby steps once you successfully string a few together. Thanks for the encouragement!

alterom 6mo ago

>Equating eating meat with martyrdom in the year 2026 is, in fact, the same cognitive dissonance you personally deny You completely missed the point. In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause. Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life, without possibly making a meaningful impact on unethical farming. I'm well off. You might be. Most people in the US are not. And in the end of the day, poor people are going to buy the cheapest products in the grocery store. So, there's always be a demand as long as there's supply. More than that. We don't really have a choice for where meat comes from anyway. There's no requirement to put that on the label, along with nutritional data. That, by the way, is another example where legislation can make a lot of difference. My point is that abstaining from meat is about as useful as that young man setting himself of fire in the US to help children in Gaza. Same goes about feeling bad about eating meat (while eating it). The impact on the cause is zero. Your energy would be better spent fighting the ag-gag laws, requiring disclosures on the labels, making ethically farmed products cheaper (and factory farmed produce more expensive), and so on. You having morally conflicted feelings doesn't help anyone. And it's simple, really: you are complicit in doing a bad thing. But the complicity is not in doing the thing, it's in supporting the system where in doing it is the rational choice for the majority of people. Your choice in doing or not doing the thing has very little impact on whether the thing happens.

nickburns 6mo ago
> In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause. On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.) > Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest. It does however consider the cause/s of other beings. So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term.
- alterom 6mo ago
  >On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.) The original definition of martyr is: "a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty for declaring belief in and refusing to renounce a religion"[1]. It's suffering for the sake of being true to one's faith; impact of that decision on anyone else not being a factor in whether one is a martyr. Abstaining from meat consumption when it's something you really enjoy is martyrdom in that sense: you are sticking to your moral principles while having no impact on the proliferation of unethical farming. >I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest You think incorrectly. The concept of martyrdom means forgoing the self-interest of self-preservation and not being in pain. There's no martyrdom without sacrifice. >It does however consider the cause/s of other beings. It may, in the modern sense of the word, but it doesn't have to. See the linked definition. The causes for which one martyrs themselves may vary. The unifying factor is suffering in the name of the cause. Not suffering with the effect of making something happen. It's choosing to suffer in the name of something that makes one a martyr. Martyrdom is not an efficient way to bring the cause closer to reality. > So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term. You can maintain it's not the correct usage of the term, dictionaries be damned, but cognitive consonance has nothing to do with that. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
DangitBobby 6mo ago
Many individuals independently making the choice has made a difference, both in harm reduction on the demand side and choice on the supply side. It's never been easier or more accessible to be vegetarian/vegan.

TeMPOraL 6mo ago

> I eat meat. And I'm highly, highly morally conflicted. I'll leave it at that to avoid sounding hypothetical—except to mention that the only logical reason I don't go vegetarian/vegan is the work and personal development that'd be required of me. (I'll take being called lazy over disingenuous any day, if we're ostensibly virtue signaling here.) But that is precisely acting as a martyr. You're "highly morally conflicted", which means you suffer inside. You could stop that suffering by either 1) going vegan, so you don't have to worry about it, or 2) deciding to continue eating meat and no longer worry about it. Right now, you're picking the strictly worse combination of continuing to eat meat and remaining conflicted indefinitely. I'm starting to realize that internal moral conflicts are a lot like physical pain - it's an important signal from the body, and you should pay attention to it, but in the end, if you know you're not going to do anything about the underlying cause, then there's no point in continuing to suffer - you just make it go away with painkillers, and carry on living. This does not mean denying the problem - quite the opposite. Constant pain makes it hard to think rationally, and suppressing it puts you in a much better position to address its underlying cause.

nickburns 6mo ago
You say I'm 'suffering inside', not me.
- satvikpendem 6mo ago
  What is confliction if not suffering?
  - nickburns 6mo ago
    What is suffering?