[sweetheart]

That's generally true, but I don't think it is in this case, as when I argue about this I argue in good faith. When people downvote someone for saying that one cannot claim to care about animal welfare while paying for their exploitation, I can be generally certain that the reason for the downvotes is because they don't like having cognitive dissonance pointed out.

Do you have specific suggestions for what would be a more reasonable way to point out such dissonance?

[lotharbot]

> "when I argue about this I argue in good faith"

Look back over your comments from the last couple weeks. You've routinely made comments about people being afraid to talk to you, or said you hope they find the courage they currently lack. The way you carry yourself in general, you act like you think you can teach others but they can't teach you, and many of your critiques tend toward simplistic snark that you think should be conversation-ending. Your supposition that people downvote you simply because they don't like having cognitive dissonance pointed out (even when other vegetarians and vegans are telling you that you're hurting the cause) suggests your sense of self-righteousness does not come with the requisite degree of self-awareness.

Look up the idea of "cage-stage Calvinism".

[sweetheart]

I think the majority of the first part of what you've said is mostly captured in "you act like you think you can teach others but they can't teach you", so I'll respond to that first:

I am open to being taught, I just expect something better than silliness like "I can care for animals and also eat them for pleasure" when it comes to what I find convincing. Please, by all means, teach me something. I am genuinely open to it. If you read through the many conversations I've had on this topic in the past, you'll also find thorough explanations as to precisely why I find these carnist arguments so tired and ineffective. Just because I am once again, for the umpteenth time, saying that people who claim to care for animal welfare while actively harming animals are hypocrites doesn't mean I'm close-minded, it just means that this delusion is ubiquitous.

> many of your critiques tend toward simplistic snark

This is probably more true than I would like to admit, but in my defense I am arguing for what I know to be the ending of the subjugation of trillions of sentient creatures, so forgive me for being _extremely_ upset when I need to convince people of what is an obvious truth: one cannot claim to value animal welfare while participating in the unnecessary abuse of those animals.

> even when other vegetarians and vegans are telling you that you're hurting the cause

Being a vegan or vegetarian does not make someone more likely to know what is good for the cause. Knowing what makes an effective social movement is a completely different area of knowledge, so the fact that other folks who eat fewer or no animals disagree with my strategy doesn't say much.

[lotharbot]

> "I am genuinely open to it."

I genuinely don't believe you.

> "I am arguing for what I know to be.... obvious truth" ... "delusion" ... "hypocrites" ... "silliness" ...

and this is why. Again, look up "cage-stage Calvinism". Nobody ever has a good conversation with a cage-stager because they're so busy talking about "obvious truth" and "delusion" and not really listening, just sort of generically pattern-matching and then declaring their doctrine.

[sweetheart]

I read a couple articles on it when you first mentioned it. I see what you're saying, I just don't think it applies in this case. I think you're either trying to say that outrage over great evil is either always unwarranted, or that perceiving something as being a great evil is always wrong, or that the concerns about the treatment of animals in modern society doesn't count as a great evil. But I disagree with all of those things. There are some pretty significant differences between an outraged zealot and an outraged rights activist that come into play here.

> not really listening

I have listened for multiple decades. I listen to others talk about it at _great_ length. You can continue to simply believe that I am deaf to reason, or acting unreasonable in some way, but that's simply incorrect. You make it seem as if I am digging my heels in despite evidence that anything I say is wrong/unsound/false, but that's simply not the case.

[lotharbot]

> "you're either trying to say"

None of the above, but this is more of the same issue. You're interacting with my words, but you're so quick to jump to a defense that you haven't really heard me.

I'm going to check out now. Peace.

[hutzlibu]

"Do you have specific suggestions for what would be a more reasonable way to point out such dissonance?"

You could start by being open to the possibility that your position is not the absolute truth.

And then maybe make arguments as to where you think the other arguments are not consistent, instead of snarky comments very close to personal insults.

In other words, focus on the arguments and not the person.

More concretely, you understood my position wrong, and then made a self evident conclusion in your head - and shared that conclusion. Which is not very advanced debating style.

[sweetheart]

> You could start by being open to the possibility that your position is not the absolute truth.

I have done that. In fact for decades I was convinced that the exploitation of animals was okay/fine/moral/necessary, etc.

The open-mindedness that you encourage was the catalyst for believing so strongly in this.

> And then maybe make arguments as to where you think the other arguments are not consistent, instead of snarky comments very close to personal insults.

That's exactly what I've done. I said the argument is silly because it is self-contradicting. And what psuedo-insult are you referring to?

[hutzlibu]

"And what psuedo-insult are you referring to? "

"The human brain is a wild thing when it can form this single thought and think it to be consistent."

How is that not an insult to my brainfunction?

"In fact for decades I was convinced that the exploitation of animals was okay/fine/moral/necessary"

And the point is, we are not talking about vegetarism here. At least I am not. I am talking about avoiding unnecessary animal suffering.

So you say eating meat is unnecessary in general. Fine, that is your opinion. My opinion is different, I believe to my body it is necessary, or at least I am better off with meat, than without.

Now you could try to change my opinion by providing me with studies saying vegan livestyle is better or as healthy (to which I would likely respond with, "yeah I know that study, those are the flaws preventing a generalisation"). But you did not do this.

And if you want to know why I believe eating meat is allright?

Because there would be no more trees, with no pretadors eating the deers and co. and I like trees as well. So nothing moraly wrong with killing and eating meat for me.

But putting the animal in miserable conditions is indeed unnecessary suffering to be avoided and not allright with me.

What exactly is not coherent in that line of thought?

[sweetheart]

> How is that not an insult to my brainfunction?

I didn't say your brain, I referred to brains in general. Mine is capable of the same dissonance. If you thought I was trying to personally insult you, then I'm sorry; I can see why you'd read it that way but that wasn't the intent. I'm insulting _everybody's_ brain function, my own included.

> I am talking about avoiding unnecessary animal suffering.

Veganism is a philosophy based solely on this principal, so by discussing animal welfare in any context, we are effectively discussing veganism and animal ethics. I say all of this because we _were_ talking about "vegetarianism", as you put it, even if you claim that we weren't.

> Now you could try to change my opinion

But I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out the dissonance for you to do what you want with. I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything - it's your job to convince yourself.

> Conclusion: you want to know why I believe eating meat is allright? Suppressed Premise: Eating meat is okay if it keeps trees on Planet Earth > Premise B: Because there would be no more trees > Premise C: But putting the animal in miserable conditions is indeed unnecessary suffering

> What exactly is not coherent in that line of thought?

This is incoherent because premise B is untrue, and generally the conditions that animals raised for meat in violate premise 3.

[hutzlibu]

Your line of reasoning look very confused and muddy. Let's make it simple.

In the ecological cycles of this planet, animals have to eat animals for it to work. So some suffering is necessary.

So I see nothing wrong with me being an animal, that eats other animals and creates some suffering.

So where is the contradiction to avoid more suffering, wherever possible?