Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,905
- 1,530
- Thread starter
- #41
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?