Cognitive Dissonance

[Foxfyre]

I know that's not what you were arguing. My point was that it's not as hard as you seem to think it is. You keep saying that it's difficult, even though we have told you that it's not.

In fact, in many places in the world very little meat is eaten, because it's more expensive. And in those parts of the world, people are healthy. In fact, in most of the world's "Blue Zones", the diets are mostly plantbased.

For example, in one of the Blue Zones, Loma Linda California, there are a lot of plantbased eaters because it's a place where there are a lot of Seventh Day Adventists.

As for the studies, again, I don't know where you heard that (you have to be careful with studies about food because it's a little-known fact that many of those types of "studies" are industry-funded.) Because from everything I've seen, it's the exact opposite.

Look into The China Study. Dr. T. Colin Campbell has done extensive research on this topic.

I believe that's because we were never meant to eat rotting corpses. It's not real food. I know that sounds like an outrageous thing to say, because in this world, it's as "natural" and common as breathing air, but the important thing is to go back to the very beginning and think about what we were designed to be. We were not designed to eat death. And eating death is what leads to death.

I never said it is hard for those who have the information and the resources to use to be vegan and healthy. I respect those who choose that lifestyle, but many others are not able to have that.

The blue zone of Loma Linda CA for example may not be as affluent as some areas of California but it is way more than most areas of the country. So of course the people there have access to education, information, and resources to pretty much choose whatever lifestyle they want. The poor of Calcutta don't have that option or probably the education to utilize it and Calcutta isn't even among the top ten cities with the poorest people in the world. (I believe the top 10 poorest cities are all in Africa.)

I respect your choices and would never presume to judge you for it. All I am arguing is that your choices are neither practical or probably even possible for most people. For at least some not recommended.

I do not feel guilty for being among the huge majority of Americans who are omnivorous even though I speak out, support with time and money, the ethical treatment of animals. I have a beloved great nephew who is a full time police detective but who helped his wife found and fun this not-for-profit sanctuary for rescued abused farm animals:

Misfits of Oz Farm Sanctuary | Edgewood | New Mexico

Misfits of Oz Farm Sanctuary's website offers a one stop shop for all the sanctuary's news, current misfit animals, support options and merchandise.

www.misfitsofoz.org

And do you have a cat? Or approve of people keeping and loving cats for pets? They can't be healthy and happy without animal fat and protein. Eliminate meat from the American diet and no more cats have a chance to live out their lives in a loving home. Most domestic dogs can actually be vegan but it takes an enormous amount of skill and knowhow and physical effort to keep them healthy on a vegan diet.

There are so many facets to the whole issue that a fixed all or nothing position is simply not practical. The fact that some studies are done/funded by industries does not extrapolate to all studies being done/funded by industries. The fact that some omnivorous humans are cruel or turn a blind eye to animal cruelty does not extrapolate to all omnivorous humans being cruel or turning a blind eye to animal cruelty.

The more of us who do the best we can to purchase our animal protein from ethical sources will go much further in improving the lives of animals than will those demanding that one must be vegan to be ethical.

 

[buttercup]

I never said it is hard for those who have the information and the resources to use to be vegan and healthy. I respect those who choose that lifestyle, but many others are not able to have that.

The blue zone of Loma Linda CA for example may not be as affluent as some areas of California but it is way more than most areas of the country. So of course the people there have access to education, information, and resources to pretty much choose whatever lifestyle they want. The poor of Calcutta don't have that option or probably the education to utilize it and Calcutta isn't even among the top ten cities with the poorest people in the world. (I believe the top 10 poorest cities are all in Africa.)

I respect your choices and would never presume to judge you for it. All I am arguing is that your choices are neither practical or probably even possible for most people. For at least some not recommended.

I do not feel guilty for being among the huge majority of Americans who are omnivorous even though I speak out, support with time and money, the ethical treatment of animals. I have a beloved great nephew who is a full time police detective but who helped his wife found and fun this not-for-profit sanctuary for rescued abused farm animals:

Misfits of Oz Farm Sanctuary | Edgewood | New Mexico

Misfits of Oz Farm Sanctuary's website offers a one stop shop for all the sanctuary's news, current misfit animals, support options and merchandise.

www.misfitsofoz.org

I think you've been misunderstanding what I'm saying. When I say "it's not hard"... I'm not speaking about only people who have information and resources, yada yada. I'm not saying it's not hard for anyone! As long a person is not doing something completely foolish like eating ONLY oreos all day (which is not limited to a plantbased diet, that would apply to any diet) then it's not such the big deal you've making it out to be. We can get all our nutrients from plantbased foods like veggies, fruit, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

And do you have a cat? Or approve of people keeping and loving cats for pets? They can't be healthy and happy without animal fat and protein. Eliminate meat from the American diet and no more cats have a chance to live out their lives in a loving home. Most domestic dogs can actually be vegan but it takes an enormous amount of skill and knowhow and physical effort to keep them healthy on a vegan diet.

No, I don't have a cat, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of rice in China. Cats are said to be obligate carnivores. Humans are not. So why is this an issue.... unless I'm misunderstanding you?

There are so many facets to the whole issue that a fixed all or nothing position is simply not practical. The fact that some studies are done/funded by industries does not extrapolate to all studies being done/funded by industries. The fact that some omnivorous humans are cruel or turn a blind eye to animal cruelty does not extrapolate to all omnivorous humans being cruel or turning a blind eye to animal cruelty.

The more of us who do the best we can to purchase our animal protein from ethical sources will go much further in improving the lives of animals than will those demanding that one must be vegan to be ethical.

I disagree. The only thing impractical about it is that for vegans, depending on where one lives, it can be challenging to find decent food when you go out to eat. But the myth is that it's hard for poor people. That is simply not the case, as some of the simplest and cheapest foods are vegan: vegetables, rice, beans, etc.

 

[buttercup]

jwoodie - The question I asked was an honest question. I wasn't trying to be rude or anything, so I don't know why you gave me that reaction.

 

[jwoodie]

jwoodie - The question I asked was an honest question. I wasn't trying to be rude or anything, so I don't know why you gave me that reaction.

Only humans are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. They were also endowed with omnivorous digestive systems. The (other) animals and plants were placed under human dominion for their use and consumption. I do not condone cruelty of any kind, but I prefer my meat to be dead and cooked before I eat it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you've been misunderstanding what I'm saying. When I say "it's not hard"... I'm not speaking about only people who have information and resources, yada yada. I'm not saying it's not hard for anyone! As long a person is not doing something completely foolish like eating ONLY oreos all day (which is not limited to a plantbased diet, that would apply to any diet) then it's not such the big deal you've making it out to be. We can get all our nutrients from plantbased foods like veggies, fruit, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.




No, I don't have a cat, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of rice in China. Cats are said to be obligate carnivores. Humans are not. So why is this an issue.... unless I'm misunderstanding you?




I disagree. The only thing impractical about it is that for vegans, depending on where one lives, it can be challenging to find decent food when you go out to eat. But the myth is that it's hard for poor people. That is simply not the case, as some of the simplest and cheapest foods are vegan: vegetables, rice, beans, etc.

The point comes back to the whole concept of cognitive dissonance. The vegan who does not eat animal based protein himself/herself but keeps a cat that must have animal protein, in fact meat, to be healthy certainly understands that something had to be killed to provide that meat for the cat.

It's just one of many contradictions when a choice becomes a kind of religion. And in my opinion, it is unreasonable to expect someone in the slums of Calcutta or living in a ghetto in Africa to even know how to combine different foods to create complete proteins much less have access to all the foods to do so. Everybody isn't as privileged as you and I are.

So we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Foxfyre]

Factory farming is not humane and that is where most meat products are sourced. And If eating meat is unnecessary there is no need to kill an animal for food at all. That's how I understand veganism as an ethical stance.



And I'm not one of those thread subject cops.

Conversations evolve from one topic to the next naturally. Questions lead to more questions. I think it adds more to the conversation than requiring everyone to go start another thread if we stray a little bit off topic.

All animal protein doesn't come from factory farming. I try to buy my protein from those who raise it ethically.

Again just because some animals are treated inhumanely, and many of them are probably in most cultures in the world, that does not extrapolate to the fact that omnivores are okay with animal cruelty.

The vegans, if they are going to say that everybody but them is immoral, are going to have to come up with a better argument than that.

 

[buttercup]

Only humans are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. They were also endowed with omnivorous digestive systems. The (other) animals and plants were placed under human dominion for their use and consumption. I do not condone cruelty of any kind, but I prefer my meat to be dead and cooked before I eat it.

I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but from a biblical perspective that is flatly false. Animals have inherent rights too that come from God, and I don't want to take this thread even more off topic, but I could post scriptures to back that up if I wanted to.

As for dominion, I'm sorry but you have a common but deeply wrong idea of dominion actually means, from a biblical perspective. It was never meant to be a license of us to selfishly exploit, terrorize and needlessly kill and eat animals. In fact, it actually means the exact opposite.

We were given dominion as representatives of God, which means according to HIS will, not our own.

And we know from reading the very next verse after the dominion verse that it doesn't mean "The animals are here to be menu items!"..... since the very next verse after the dominion verse says the exact opposite of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know that's not what you were arguing. My point was that it's not as hard as you seem to think it is. You keep saying that it's difficult, even though we have told you that it's not.

In fact, in many places in the world very little meat is eaten, because it's more expensive. And in those parts of the world, people are healthy. In fact, in most of the world's "Blue Zones", the diets are mostly plantbased.

For example, in one of the Blue Zones, Loma Linda California, there are a lot of plantbased eaters because it's a place where there are a lot of Seventh Day Adventists.

As for the studies, again, I don't know where you heard that (you have to be careful with studies about food because it's a little-known fact that many of those types of "studies" are industry-funded.) Because from everything I've seen, it's the exact opposite.

Look into The China Study. Dr. T. Colin Campbell has done extensive research on this topic.

I believe that's because we were never meant to eat rotting corpses. It's not real food. I know that sounds like an outrageous thing to say, because in this world, it's as "natural" and common as breathing air, but the important thing is to go back to the very beginning and think about what we were designed to be. We were not designed to eat death. And eating death is what leads to death.

Oh for heaven's sake Buttercup. Rotting corpses? What kind of cognitive dissonance is that?!!!

And again if you're going to use God's will as an example, you're going to have to tear a lot of pages out of your Bible to make a case that God intended us to eat only fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Sure we can proof text until the cows come home and we can find passages suggesting at least a vegetarian diet is good for us--the Book of Daniel for instance--but certainly the people of the Bible looked at animals as sources of food.

• Genesis 9:3 - Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
• 1 Corinthians 10:25 - So you may eat any meat that is sold in the marketplace without raising questions of conscience.
• Romans 14:3 -The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

 

[buttercup]

The point comes back to the whole concept of cognitive dissonance. The vegan who does not eat animal based protein himself/herself but keeps a cat that must have animal protein, in fact meat, to be healthy certainly understands that something had to be killed to provide that meat for the cat.

It's just one of many contradictions when a choice becomes a kind of religion. And in my opinion, it is unreasonable to expect someone in the slums of Calcutta or living in a ghetto in Africa to even know how to combine different foods to create complete proteins much less have access to all the foods to do so. Everybody isn't as privileged as you and I are.

So we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's not a contradiction if the person with the cat knows that cats are obligate carnivores. Therefore they have no choice. We do. So I don't see why you see that as a contradiction.

As for what you said about poor people, well I don't want to keep repeating myself, but once again, your idea that it's so difficult is simply false. You don't have to know how to "combine foods"..... I've been vegan since 2016, and I have never even really tried to be healthy, but I'm much healthier now than I was in my pre-vegan days. I almost never get sick anymore, even when people around me are sick. And every time I've had my bloodwork done, it always comes back as near perfect. No deficiencies. And again, I'm not even really trying. So I'm a living example that your pre-conceived idea about veganism being so difficult is false. And not just me, but the vegans I know too.

 

[buttercup]

Oh for heaven's sake Buttercup. Rotting corpses? What kind of cognitive dissonance is that?!!!

And again if you're going to use God's will as an example, you're going to have to tear a lot of pages out of your Bible to make a case that God intended us to eat only fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.

• Genesis 9:3 - Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
• 1 Corinthians 10:25 - So you may eat any meat that is sold in the marketplace without raising questions of conscience.
• Romans 14:3
  
  The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

What God WANTS and what God allows to occur in this fallen world are two different things.

God's perfect will is made crystal clear in both the beginning (Genesis 1:29-30) and in the scriptures about the future when God restores what was HIS intent in the first place (Isaiah 11:6-9, etc.)

God never wanted humans and animals to be at each other's throats, in a constant bloodbath, and God doesn't want us to exploit, brutalize and needlessly kill the most innocent among us! Animals are like small children. Innocent. They trust us! And we betray them. Daily. That is NOT what God wants!

So as Christians, should we aim for God's perfect will....or what God might temporarily permit in this fallen world?

I think the answer is undeniable, we should aim for God's perfect will.

And Jesus Himself said just that - "YOUR will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Not our will!

 

[buttercup]

Oh for heaven's sake Buttercup. Rotting corpses? What kind of cognitive dissonance is that?!!!

Not cognitive dissonance. Too blunt? Maybe. I admit, it was a very graphic and provocative way of putting it.

But sometimes that's what's needed. Because the reality is, that's pretty much what meat is. It's the decaying chopped up dead body of a once sentient being who desperately wanted to live.

And I'm posting this to show that it actually is decaying, but in many cases meat is treated to make it look fresh, so that they can sell it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not a contradiction if the person with the cat knows that cats are obligate carnivores. Therefore they have no choice. We do. So I don't see why you see that as a contradiction.

As for what you said about poor people, well I don't want to keep repeating myself, but once again, your idea that it's so difficult is simply false. You don't have to know how to "combine foods"..... I've been vegan since 2016, and I have never even really tried to be healthy, but I'm much healthier now than I was in my pre-vegan days. I almost never get sick anymore, even when people around me are sick. And every time I've had my bloodwork done, it always comes back as near perfect. No deficiencies. And again, I'm not even really trying. So I'm a living example that your pre-conceived idea about veganism being so difficult is false. And not just me, but the vegans I know too.

The animal is just as dead if fed to a human being or to a cat. Humans do not have to keep cats but could choose not to keep domestic carnivores as pets. There is your contradiction in ethics.

 

[Foxfyre]

What God WANTS and what God allows to occur in this fallen world are two different things.

God's perfect will is made crystal clear in both the beginning (Genesis 1:29-30) and in the scriptures about the future when God restores what was HIS intent in the first place (Isaiah 11:6-9, etc.)

God never wanted humans and animals to be at each other's throats, in a constant bloodbath, and God doesn't want us to exploit, brutalize and needlessly kill the most innocent among us! Animals are like small children. Innocent. They trust us! And we betray them. Daily. That is NOT what God wants!

So as Christians, should we aim for God's perfect will....or what God might temporarily permit in this fallen world?

I think the answer is undeniable, we should aim for God's perfect will.

And Jesus Himself said just that - "YOUR will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Not our will!

Nothing in your post pertains to the eating of meat. If God had not intended humankind to be omnivorous I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have made us omnivorous. Now if you are certain God wants you to be vegan, bless you and I wish you nothing but the best. You will have good vegan food to eat at my table and I won't expect animal protein to be served at yours.

But don't tell me God intended humankind to be vegan when almost everything in the Bible pertaining to food contradicts that.

And I would count it as intellectual honesty instead of cognitive dissonance if the vegans could at least admit that killing animals for food need not be brutal.

 

[buttercup]

The animal is just as dead if fed to a human being or to a cat. Humans do not have to keep cats but could choose not to keep domestic carnivores as pets. There is your contradiction in ethics.

Actually, I've heard of many vegans who don't keep cats for that reason. But for the ones who do, I still don't agree that it's a contradiction, since in their mind for the cat it's a necessity. For us it's not. Again, I just don't get why that's a contradiction... but anyway, I don't think this is an issue so important it's worth continuing to argue about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not cognitive dissonance. Too blunt? Maybe. I admit, it was a very graphic and provocative way of putting it.

But sometimes that's what's needed. Because the reality is, that's pretty much what meat is. It's the decaying chopped up dead body of a once sentient being who desperately wanted to live.

And I'm posting this to show that it actually is decaying, but in many cases meat is treated to make it look fresh, so that they can sell it.

You are really straining at gnats to make a case that in the end is dishonest. We do not eat rotting meat any more than you eat rotting vegetables.

 

[buttercup]

Nothing in your post pertains to the eating of meat. If God had not intended humankind to be omnivorous I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have made us omnivorous. Now if you are certain God wants you to be vegan, bless you and I wish you nothing but the best. You will have good vegan food to eat at my table and I won't expect animal protein to be served at yours.

But don't tell me God intended humankind to be vegan when almost everything in the Bible pertaining to food contradicts that.

And I would count it as intellectual honesty instead of cognitive dissonance if the vegans could at least admit that killing animals for food need not be brutal.

What? Of course it has to do with not eating meat. God did not make us omnivorous.

Genesis 1:29-30 is clear.

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.​

Even the most hard-core pro-meat people who are Christians agree that the Garden of Eden (a PARADISE) was not a place of killing and eating animals, it was plantbased!

Yes, God absolutely intended humanity to eat natural food from the earth, not His beloved animals! I'm surprised you're even arguing this.

But now it makes so much more sense why you hold the position you do.

 

[sparky]

The point comes back to the whole concept of cognitive dissonance. The vegan who does not eat animal based protein himself/herself but keeps a cat that must have animal protein, in fact meat, to be healthy certainly understands that something had to be killed to provide that meat for the cat.

We've 3 cats on the farm now

All are hunters.....

And I'm posting this to show that it actually is decaying, but in many cases meat is treated to make it look fresh, so that they can sell it.

Of interest is those that ive served meat never frozen

yes, it's that fresh

They all think it tastes different

Because they all were raised on industrial fare

~S~

 

[buttercup]

You are really straining at gnats to make a case that in the end is dishonest. We do not eat rotting meat any more than you eat rotting vegetables.

Did you look at the video posted? The guy admitted that sometimes the meat is sitting out there for weeks, and if it wasn't for the carbon monoxide it would look dark and grey. So decaying is occuring.

But anyway, this is another minor issue that is not really worth arguing about. I think what is far more important is what you said in the previous post I just replied to.

 

[sparky]

Yes, God absolutely intended humanity to eat natural food from the earth, not His beloved animals! I'm surprised you're even arguing this.

Genesis is a grand metaphor Butter

The beauty being one can interpret according to one's agenda

~S~

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I stand by my posts and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As a Christian you have an obligation to be honest, not "agree to disagree"

Here's the thing for me. In the end, NOTHING survives except God's Word.

Resistance is Futile. God wins in the end. Harming and abusing God's creation has no place for a Christian.

"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain" (God's Kingdom.