Why so brainwashed?

[brimstoneSalad]

A. Again, just because my parents buy it does not mean I personally fund it.

Your actions (eating the meat) have a direct causal link to the funding of animal suffering.

You eat the meat. Your parents buy more meat to replace the meat you ate. Your parents aren't just going to waste their money buying meat and throwing it away if you don't eat it. This may be the case for a couple days at most, and after that, they will buy slightly less meat.

Simple cause and effect.

If you don't eat it, your parents will stop buying it. So, in this case, your actions are funding animal suffering.

Bad division/composition fallacy. Just because my parent's fund it, I eat it, does not mean I take part in funding it.

You are inherently misunderstanding the concept of cause and effect. My analysis of the situation is correct; it's not a fallacy.

Now, if your parents were going to buy the same amount of meat no matter what, and just throw away what you didn't eat, then you would be correct. That, however, is not a realistic scenario.
They will buy less meat if you don't eat it.

The same way if someone sells cocaine to get money, and they give you money, does not mean that you sold cocaine to get that money.

This highlights your misunderstanding. Yes, it IS like that, but your conclusion is false. By taking the money from a drug dealer, you are condoning their drug dealing.
That person is dealing cocaine, in part, to be able to give you money. If this person had no need for money (for various purposes, one of them being to give it to you) he or she would no longer sell cocaine.

Do you get it?

Many people actually do sell cocaine to get money to support loved ones. By taking that money, you cause the person to sell more cocaine.

Now, selling cocaine is different from buying meat, of course -- it's much more moral.

You'll balk at that, but that's another misunderstanding on your part of economics.

People sell cocaine because people want to buy cocaine. If YOU don't sell cocaine to the addicts, then somebody else will sell cocaine to them. You don't stop the addiction by not selling drugs.

On the other hand, if YOU don't buy meat, you stop the demand at its source.
The farmer isn't going to keep breeding MORE cows, and the slaughter houses aren't going to keep slaughtering MORE cows, and the store isn't going to keep stocking MORE meat and then just throwing it away because you didn't buy it.
They will all keep doing those things, but a little less of them, because they only produce enough meat to fulfill the demand of the consumers.

As that demand is decreased, production of meat is decreased.

Now pushing cocaine on people who have never used before is a little different from selling, and that is quite immoral because you're creating more demand. But as long as we're just talking about the difference in selling and buying, you have to understand these are not economically comparable (or morally so).

Starving myself until I get food is a bad idea. I can't get my parents to appease me. Again, it's "eat what's on the table."

First world problems. Starving yourself? Really? Nonsense. You've probably never gone a day without food in your life.

You wouldn't even be starving yourself if you didn't eat for a week. Your parents would freak out and feed you whatever you asked for if you didn't eat for a week.

I'm not suggesting starving yourself. I'm saying, if they don't give you anything you can eat, then don't eat it. They'll start giving you more beans and nuts, eventually they'll give up trying to make you eat meat.
They won't force you to eat it, and if they do physically force you, you need to call child protective services.
If they don't give you anything to eat after a few days, likewise, call child protective services.

A social worker will have a talk with them, and they'll give in and give you vegan food. It's not expensive. Beans, some veggies, pasta, bread. They don't have to buy anything fancy.

B. Personally, if you ask me, then I enjoy nuts and beans. I don't know about anything else though.

Nuts and beans are fine. You probably eat all kinds of bread and pasta and such too, right?

Problem #1 ALL meat-eaters are not brainwashed. Again, this is like saying ALL atheists believe in evolution. Some simply claim that they don't know where we come from. Totally incorrect.

Let me quote you here:

Why are Christians (not only Christians, but of course any religion that has ridiculous ideals) so brainwashed?

Not ALL Christians are brainwashed either. You're generalizing here. Not ALL self described Christians even believe in a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

How about you think before you open your mouth?
And yet, you're also mostly right.

See how that works?

Anytime we say anything with language, particularly about a group, we are generalizing a little bit. To completely avoid generalization is a semantic tap-dance that amounts to saying nothing.

When 99.99% of something is true, it's usually fair enough to generalize in conversation.

Some few people who eat meat only do so because they literally have no choice (this is not you, or anybody in the first world unless they are being abused). Those people may not be brainwashed. It's about as common as Christians not believing in god. Probably less so.

It's just as fair for us to say Meat eaters are brainwashed as it is for you to say Christians are brainwashed.
Don't be the pot calling the kettle black.

I only used the term "Meat eater" because it's the one you used, and the one people here were discussing.

The more accurate term would be Carnist.

Meat-eating is not a religion or a moral guideline.

http://carnism.org/

Carnism is, and that's really what we're talking about here. It's a word I doubt you're familiar with, though. It's a particular belief system that condones the eating of meat as normal and/or necessary, and denies (through any manner of rationalization and brainwashing), the wrongness of it.

Meat eaters are Carnists. There may be some very rare exceptions, where people are literally forced to eat meat or die, or force fed. But taking that into account with every word or statement we make is like taking extra special care to remember that not all Christians believe in a god.

Problem #2 You need a citation. Where are you finding out that meat eating is bad as smoking?

Case in point, the denial, the rationalization. You're still defending meat here. Why?

You wouldn't both are 80. Although vague, here's the problem. There's not much of a difference in age from a meat-eater who eats his meat moderately, and a vegan who eats moderately. (And we're talking about health problems. Physical problems, not moral ones.)

Nor much difference between a smoker who smokes "moderately". Some people only smoke one cigarette a week. Does that make cigarettes healthy? No.

Using an unhealthy substance, whether that's meat, tobacco, or lead acetate, in unusual moderation does not indicate that substance is healthy.

Heart disease is the #1 cause of death, and it's contributed to primarily by animal products in non-smokers. In smokers, they get a double-dose.

If you look at the arterial walls of a vegan who has laid off the Omega6-rich and tropical oils (something that's also unhealthy, similar to meat and cigarettes), and a meat-eater, you will see the difference between two 80 year olds.

Problem #3 It has been shown that there are 200 MILLION people over the age of 65. To prove my point, any meat-eater or vegan out there. Do you know anyone or have ever known anyone who is over 75 years old? Now what about meat-eaters over 75. My point exactly, this just simply proves that meat-eating is not dangerous as smoking. The smoking mortality rate is ALOT greater than average humans (which most eat meat)

This is what makes you a carnist -- it's about mindset. Inability to reason properly where meat is concerned. You're ignoring science and basic logic when you are defending meat. You need to try to see more objectively on this topic.

Think about what you said a little more. Smokers who eat meat obviously die sooner than meat eaters who don't smoke.

It is scientific consensus that arteriosclerosis is promoted by the saturated fat in animal products (As well as tropical oils, which are a rare exception among plant foods that are also bad for you). This isn't any more controversial than the idea that the Earth goes around the sun. These things are bad for you. Meat is near the top of the list.

If you don't understand that, you need to do your own research.
If you don't already understand that by doing very basic research (hell, even just on Wikipedia if you want), I'm not going to bend over backwards to find you sources that will satisfy you that meat causes heart disease and cancer, or that the Earth orbits the sun. It's not my job.

This is very important for you to understand: Scientific consensus does not require me to provide "sources".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is not one. Animal products are bad for you. This is consensus, which is a different thing entirely.
This is the default position for anybody who has a basic understanding of health and nutrition.

But just for fun, here's a "source" from FOX-fucking-"news", the most conservative and pro-meat mainstream media outlet you can find:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/03/0 ... udy-shows/

It's a slanted article which ignores the cardiovascular effects (this is just about cancer, and the effects of animal protein), but when even FOX writes articles about the negative health effects of meat, you know animal agriculture is in trouble.

For a person who both smokes and eats meat, which of the habits are actually worse for that particular person depends on how frequently he or she smokes, and how much meat he or she eats. They're on the same general order of magnitude, though, as social health issues.

Drinking is up there too, but that's another subject. There are many things that are bad for you, but meat is one of the most popular and widely consumed among them.

I don't even know where to start. I could possibly try.

Being willing to try is the most important start.

Just realizing that it's possible, and letting go of the excuses, and giving it a go.

To me it feels so uncertain to become a vegan at such an age. What would I even do for school lunches, or normal dinners with family? What about my friends. If I could attempt to do something then I would, but i'm not even sure where to start.

To start, arm yourself with information, and tell your parents you want to quit eating animal products.
Have all of the health arguments ready, so you can diffuse their concerns about it.

You can bring your lunches to school (that's cheaper anyway).

I don't think my family would allow me to do this simply because it's their money.

Allow nothing, it's your body. They have a responsibility to not starve you. They don't have a right to not allow you to not eat meat.

If your parents would only feed you live mice, would that be OK? It's technically food, right? Parents aren't allowed to not give their children acceptable food. If animal products are not acceptable food to you, you don't have to eat them just as you wouldn't have to eat live mice tomorrow if your parents decided that's what they wanted to feed you.

To start, you can eat everything else. The beans, the bread, nuts, etc. You can often find enough to eat that isn't animal products.

Religion is a start, my parents allow me to choose that because I have the right to. They cannot force me to believe.

Right. And you have a right to not eat meat. They can't force you to eat it.

However they can get me to eat. My dad isn't going to go lure out and buy vegan food and support an entire new diet.

He already buys vegan food. He buys nuts and beans and pasta, doesn't he? He probably even buys potatoes, frozen peas, and carrots.

All he has to do is buy slightly more of those things he's already buying, and slightly less meat.

He doesn't have to go out and buy you tofu. But he can't refuse to let you eat beans and vegetables, or not give you enough of them to keep you alive.

That is increasingly misleading. First, religion is the belief in something. Meat-eating is the eating of meat. You see the problem there?

Carnism is the belief. Meat eating is the action which creates and reinforces the belief (in the first world, anyway).

Understand the concept of Cognitive Dissonance. Nobody who chooses to eat meat fails to be brainwashed in some way.
When we make choices to do bad things, we also make excuses for those choices. That's the belief system of Carnism.

The only way you're eating meat without being a carnist is if you're being force-fed with a tube.

With a bit of assumption. I'm going to assume you're adding on stereotypes to meat-eaters. You're adding on stuff like: arrogant, sadistic, supporters of terrorism, killers .etc.

That's a completely false assumption. Please stay on topic.

Have you ever assumed that meat-eaters feel bad about what they eat when they realize it?

If they feel bad, and they don't brainwash themselves, then they stop eating it.

If a meat eater feels bad, and then continues to eat it by choice, then he or she was experiencing a moment of cognitive dissonance.

Seriously, read about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance theory is founded on the assumption that individuals seek consistency between their expectations and their reality. Because of this, people engage in a process called dissonance reduction to bring their cognitions and actions in line with one another. This creation of uniformity allows for a lessening of psychological tension and distress. According to Festinger, dissonance reduction can be achieved in four ways.[1] In an example case where a person has adopted the attitude that they will no longer eat high fat food, but is eating a high-fat doughnut, the four methods of reduction would be:

1. Change behavior or cognition ("I will not eat any more of this doughnut")
2. Justify behavior or cognition by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat every once in a while")
3. Justify behavior or cognition by adding new cognitions ("I'll spend 30 extra minutes at the gym to work this off")
4. Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not high fat")

Somebody who is eating meat, and is aware of the moral issues with that practice, experiences cognitive dissonance. It's a conflict between the inherent belief that one is or aspires to be a good person, and the knowledge of one's actions not being in line with that belief.

Resolving that dissonance, in the case of meat-eating is done in two common ways:

#1 Stop eating meat (become vegetarian) - the person is no longer a meat eater, thus no longer "brainwashed"
#2 Justify the behavior by changing belief: e.g. "Harming animals is not wrong", "Meat is necessary, I have no choice" (this is delusion; brainwashing. See Carnism)

There are as many creative ways to be delusional as there are delusional people. You can come up with any number of irrational excuses; that's all part of the delusion.

No, instead you jump to simple conclusions.

The conclusions are hardly simple, but they are correct. People make excuses for themselves when they eat meat in the same way they make excuses for religious belief.

Read that article for a basic primer on cognitive dissonance. That's information you need to know.

[Sakana]

Brimstone, you're tireless

Totally misleading. These people live on fruit only because it is grown there. Thus, it leads to extremely cheap fruit. Many poor places consider horses as wealth. If you have 50 horses, you would be considered rich. When horses go scarce, fruit become the main source. Since food is abundant (think demand and supply) it is ridiculously cheap to no limit. Comparing rich countries to poor countries gives you a different result

Fruits... horses... just.. I don't even... what are we talking about? ^_^

It doesn't make sense mathematically to say that meat is cheaper. You need a lot of food to sufficiently fatten an animal up. If instead you had just eaten the grains and soy beans (and whatever else plant matter used) directly instead of filtering them through an animal, a lot less nutrition would go to waste. As is, the nutritional value lost in animal aggriculture is estimated to be around 80%. There are other factors that are relevant, but this figure alone should tell us it's a stupid, inefficient way to produce food, and that meat will be an expensive product. So even if we pretend animals are just plants that move around and defecate, the animal aggriculture business is still totally insane. If I've understood it right, in the US your meat industry is heavily subsidized and you are allowed to use all kinds of growth hormones, so the meat does end up being pretty cheap in the end. I highly doubt it's cheaper than a vegan diet, though... and at that point, is it really worth supporting Evil inc. just to save a few $? (It's not)

"A man who wants something will find a way; a man who doesn't will find an excuse."

[xChrizOwnz]

Thank you for showing me the page on carnism. Helps me understand what you mean exactly.

1. You assuming that my family buys more meat because I eat it is a bad assumption at least. If I didn't eat meat and it went bad, that could also lead to them buying more meat. They may simply buy it because it's very cheap that day. There are thousands of other variables that could go into my parents mind when they buy meat. Not only that, but that still however does not mean I condone funding of animal torture. If my friends own a kennel and they torture animals, I buy a few cats/dogs from them, and then I play with them. Does that mean I fund animal torture. No, it does not.

When you say ''in this case'' that leads for gaps in your argument. It just shows how fluid the argument is. You use this argument, focus on one possibility, and make that seem as the most likely/logical cause. However it's not.

2. This does not mean you agree with selling cocaine to get money. Just because you did something (oddly enough) does not mean you agree with those actions. This does not mean you condoned drug dealing. That argument honestly doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to say but: They sell cocaine + you get cocaine money = YOU SUPPORT COCAINE! I do understand what you mean when you said that I was misunderstanding what you were saying. You were trying to say that I condone it. Not that I actually act in it. (I think?)

3. You're coming to a speedy unprofessional conclusion. This is based on generalization and (what I would call) bias. And I have gone a day without food for fun. I've gone a day without sleep for a bet. Childish, but the example will work to get the point across. Generalization isn't a great arguing point no matter what. This is an extreme way to go. Not something I would recommend for any aspiring vegan.

**This is just my opinion. I feel like that's such a immature and kiddy way to get out of your problems. Every time your parents force you to do something you call CPS on them. Lets note that we are talking about slaughtering and putting animals lives on the line. However using this method is a seriously dangerous method. It's such an unpredictable method. Lets say my parents take my phone. Or lock me in the house until I eat. Did you know parents can use the reverse method? A parent can just as easily test your willpower by doing vise versa. Ex: We will keep kid #2 here until he eats his veggies. Or Ex: We will starve kid #1 until he eats, dont worry, he'll eat. I'm not the type to turn all sad and edgy. However, they can just as easily give me beatings for going against what they think is right. Which would also work. Don't worry either, beatings are very common in the South. Especially in the U.S. Beatings are generally used for bad behavior but a parent can basically get away with beating their kid for about anything. Luckily, my parents don't beat me nonstop for anything and everything. **

4. I did not say that ALL Christians are brainwashed. I was specifically stating that any religion with ridiculous ideals, and how could they be brainwashed in such a manner. Although petty, I prefer not generalizing at all. If I do I would also go back and change it. However generalizations do occur often.

5. No one is defending meat here. I would enjoy to see the evidence of such claims. You simply DON'T make claims and not add a citation/reasoning to it.

6. This is a common saying, but ABOUT anything can be o.k with moderation and good prevention skills. Some forms of smoking can be okay with moderation. Drinking can be okay with moderation. There are some things that will not be okay with moderation, but in this argument (which is about smoking. Psst. I need to stay on topic) meat-eating is okay if you're eating it regularly. I don't see any studies that say otherwise. That's why i'd like a citation to find out for myself. As you know I am a skeptic. I am going to doubt what your're saying until I see trustworthy research that says otherwise. Now please don't get the wrong idea. I'm not trying to blatantly ignore any information that you're giving me, however I have not seen such information.

7. I am not ignoring science. As posted above I told you that I would enjoy a citation/research for this type of stuff. I just am not going to ignorantly trust any source without backup and evidence for it. Also, good point. Didn't think about that. Most smokers eat meat, which would make sense generally speaking. You have shown that meat has bad side effects... if you eat the wrong kinds too much. This is not carnist thinking. I'm thinking logically for the "meat side" because I haven't personally seen any vegans outlasting meat-eaters by an insane number of years. Nor have I seen meat-eaters last incredibly longer than vegans. Without evidence, saying either one lasts longer age-wise is a lie.

8. I spotted a HUGE problem with cognitive dissonance, I think I am being misled but here's what I think.

9. The problem with cognitive dissonance is that it will not work on subjective things. Only objective things, or a statement. This can easily be backfired with the same exact line of thinking. Since me and you are on agreement that murder is bad, and also that murder is bad for sentimental animals, it would seem logical that we think the way we do according to cognitive dissonance. However the problem comes when you use an opinion for cognitive dissonance. When the variable becomes a subjective statement, you have a huge problem. Me and you are on agreement. Whatever you see as reality can easily be backfired by someone else according to this. Cognitive dissonance SPECIFICALLY relies on information, not subjective morals or anything else of the sort. Here's an example: Two Christians believe that God exist. These two Christians agree on that term. They say that since God exists, it would only be correct if atheists are brainwashed. There they came up with the solution that atheists are purposely being ignorant of God. That wouldn't become a lie of any sort. I feel like cognitive dissonance can just as easily be used to make someone who is brainwashed feel correct when they are not.

Thanks for responding. I hope I did say anything misleading about cognitive dissonance. I wasn't exactly sure but that's what I came up with when I saw it on Wikipedia.

[brimstoneSalad]

9. That's not how cognitive dissonance works.

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of two conflicting ideas in the same mind, and how they may be resolved.
In short, changing one belief/action or the other, or rationalizing somehow.

"There they came up with the solution that atheists are purposely being ignorant of God. That wouldn't become a lie of any sort."

It's not about two people, it's about one person.

Here are the two beliefs:

1. God is obviously true 2. Atheists don't believe in god

This is a problem for Christians. Therefore, they use a rationalization: 3. Atheists are brainwashed.

It's not true that atheists are brainwashed. But they may wish to believe it is in order to resolve #1 and #2.

Other ways to resolve this are to either realize (the actual truth) that #1 is false. Or to come up with another delusion -- That Atheists believe god exists and hate him because they want to serve the devil, and atheists lie about not believing.

If you understand cognitive dissonance, you can understand a lot about religious psychology. It will also help you understand carnist psychology, or any other worldview based on falsehoods.

7. http://nutritionfacts.org/
All he does is find and read the most recent research, and present the results. That's the most comprehensive and easily digestible source you will find. All claims are cited clearly.

"You have shown that meat has bad side effects... if you eat the wrong kinds too much."

I think the problem here may be ignorance of how cancer works. There's no such thing as a safe amount of carcinogen to consume.
One cigarette can give you cancer; it's a matter of statistics. It's like playing Russian roulette. You can play it a million times, and never be shot in the head, or you can play it once and lose.

When something has carcinogenic effects which outweigh their anti-carcinogenic effects (as is the case of the cancer causing qualities of animal products, and cigarettes) they are unhealthy. Period. Full stop.

It's unhealthy to eat a ton of it. It's unhealthy to eat a gram of it. Just as it's dangerous to play Russian roulette a million times, and it's dangerous to play it once.

Cancer is a statistical beast. You can't just get a little bit of cancer and be OK.

Heart disease does work like that (eating just a little bit of something that causes heart disease can be safe, as long as you don't eat more than your body can handle), but such is not the case with carcinogens.

Meat is carcinogenic. Vegetables are anti-carcinogenic (at least most vegetables, not all).

Animal products are bad for you in any amount due to those properties, just as ionizing radiation is bad for you in any amount, or asbestos, or second hand smoke (or first hand).

More of it is MORE bad for you, but there is no point at which a little bit of it is good.

This is basic logic.

Read about how cancer works.
Read about carcinogens.
Read some articles and watch some videos on nutritionfacts.org

If you do not understand something, feel free to ask questions about it. But stop making these bad arguments, because you don't understand enough about the subject to make any sense at all. You don't know what you're talking about.

"I'm thinking logically for the "meat side" because I haven't personally seen any vegans outlasting meat-eaters by an insane number of years. Nor have I seen meat-eaters last incredibly longer than vegans. Without evidence, saying either one lasts longer age-wise is a lie."

Whether it's smoking or eating meat, avoiding either of those doesn't make you live hundreds of years. You get about ten more years if you don't smoke, six to ten more years not eating meat. A fat free vegan diet has lower mortality than a high fat vegan diet with many vegetable oils (particular Omega 6 oils).

What you have seen or not, however, is irrelevant. We have proof that these things are associated with higher mortality, even in moderation. They will kill you less quickly, the less you eat, but at no level are they benign.

Again, you need to learn more about the subject before you go making assumptions like this.

3. It sounds like your parents are abusive, and you have been normalized to this due to accepted cultural practices. It's not OK for them to do this.

"Lets say my parents take my phone. Or lock me in the house until I eat. Did you know parents can use the reverse method? A parent can just as easily test your willpower by doing vise versa. Ex: We will keep kid #2 here until he eats his veggies. Or Ex: We will starve kid #1 until he eats, dont worry, he'll eat."

Parents can also rape their children, and anally electrocute them until they are obedient. However, none of these things are legal. Everything you described is child abuse.

What parents can technically do, only because nobody stops them, is not what is legal. If you genuinely fear that your parents will do these things to you, you need to call child protective services ahead of time.

#2. Yes, in the cocaine case, it is condoning, because the action of taking the money does not cause more selling of cocaine (probably just selling by that specific person, although not necessarily if there is another money sink the drug dealer would otherwise opt for), since the cocaine sold is proportional to demand.
However, if the person is pushing cocaine, it goes beyond mere condoning, particularly if the person accepting the money is the reason for that pushing. That becomes causal to drug use and its harms.

I was explaining at the end how the case of cocaine sale is different from meat purchase. Selling and buying are very different things in economics. One functions at the whim of demand, the other IS demand. Pushing is where the seller creates demand that wasn't already there, and in that sense becomes more morally comparable to buying.

1. If your parents buy the same amount of meat despite you not eating any, then they are wasteful and idiotic. Or perhaps just wasteful, and so rich they don't pay any attention to how much they are wasting.

"You assuming that my family buys more meat because I eat it is a bad assumption at least."

It is not. It is realistic. All families respond to demand when they see what they have run out of, and decide to buy more. If they know the freezer is full of something (although mistakes are occasionally made), they refrain from buying more even if it's on sale.

"If I didn't eat meat and it went bad, that could also lead to them buying more meat."

If they are idiots, yes. They will do this a couple times at most out of hope that you will eat it, then they will stop because it's a waste of money.

"They may simply buy it because it's very cheap that day."

Not if the freezer is already full. People are generally (although not perfectly) aware of conditional need in the household when they shop.
Your parents are not the exception to the rule. They will buy less meat if you don't eat it.

"There are thousands of other variables that could go into my parents mind when they buy meat."

Yes, there are many variables. Most of those variables are affected by your eating or not eating the meat (such as, some meat product is finished and more is needed vs. there's too much meat left over still). And since all of those variables are mixed together, even in the presence of unrelated variables, your not eating meat causes (over time) less purchase of meat.

This is not complicated. It's an example of cognitive dissonance on your part, and rationalization to avoid it.

You experience cognitive dissonance when you realize that your eating meat is directly connected to animal suffering.
You resolve this cognitive dissonance by claiming:

A. You have no choice, your parents will unleash some abusive cruelty upon you and not allow you to not eat meat (this is false)
B. That even if you don't eat it, your parents will still buy it and it will go to waste instead
(this is false -- they may buy it for a couple weeks, and then realistically they will stop buying so much extra)

These are rationalizations. That's how cognitive dissonance works in psychology. These rationalizations make you feel better about your actions. But they're also the process of you brainwashing yourself on the matter.

That's why it's true that carnists (meat eaters) are inherently brainwashed. When you do something unethical, even if you realize it, psychology forces you to brainwash yourself to deny it, or your culpability to it.

"Not only that, but that still however does not mean I condone funding of animal torture."

Of course it means you're condoning it. But not only are you merely condoning it, you're also supporting it through a direct causal link; you're causing it.

Causing is worse than condoning.

"If my friends own a kennel and they torture animals, I buy a few cats/dogs from them, and then I play with them. Does that mean I fund animal torture. No, it does not."

If they use that money you gave them to buy those animals to continue operation of the shelter and torture animals, then yes, you are funding that,

How is it you don't understand basic economics? Follow the money. Follow the demand. It's a simple causal chain.

"When you say ''in this case'' that leads for gaps in your argument. It just shows how fluid the argument is. You use this argument, focus on one possibility, and make that seem as the most likely/logical cause. However it's not."

The cocaine situation is more one of condoning. The eating meat situation is one of causing.

"In this case" being, in any plausible reality.
You're picking on little words like they support your point, but they don't.

I focus on one possibility because it's the only one reasonable people who have any grasp on human behavior and economics would believe plausible.
It's not just the most likely. In order to believe anything else, we're talking about a degree of ignorance and delusion on the order of tinfoil hats.

[Jebus]

Chris. I hope you can take this in as Brimstone has done a very good job explaining it to you.

Brimstone, I think you are using the concept of Cognitive Dissonance incorrectly. You once used it in the case of a vegan forum member whose girlfriend was non vegan. In that case, there are so many other factors (i.e. reasons he loves his girlfriend) that Cognitive Dissonance may barely be present.

The suggestion that a meat eater or a religious person believing untruths to avoid dissonance rests on the assumption that the person is a rational thinker. However, there would be no point for a rational thinker to replace one case of Cognitive Dissonance (for example, making oneself believe that eating meat is not unhealthy), with another case of Cognitive Dissonance: 1. I am always a rational thinker. 2. In this case, I am ignoring the science and going with my gut feeling.

I believe that in the cases of Carnism and religion Repression is a more important psychological concept. As an example, my mother is visiting me at the moment. She is a calm, intelligent, and rational person but she gets very angry when I try to explain why she shouldn't eat meat. If I try to show her a slaughter house video clip she will just walk away. She knows deep down inside what these videos contain but she lives her life keeping this knowledge as unconscious as possible.

Same thing applies to most intelligent religious people I have met. They want to believe in their religion so badly that they avoid remembering anything they learn that contradict what they believe.

[EquALLity]

If you look at the arterial walls of a vegan who has laid off the Omega6-rich and tropical oils (something that's also unhealthy, similar to meat and cigarettes), and a meat-eater, you will see the difference between two 80 year olds.

Wait, are you saying tropical oils are carcinogenic?

I already knew about the environmental concerns with palm oil, so I just got sustainable.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil

Palm oil contains fatty acid esters (3-MCPD and glycidol fatty acid esters) that are considered carcinogenic.

Oh my. Well, I'll stop eating it, then.

[brimstoneSalad]

Brimstone, I think you are using the concept of Cognitive Dissonance incorrectly.

You mean you think I am overstating its influence?
I'm using it correctly, but I think you disagree about its power over people.

You once used it in the case of a vegan forum member whose girlfriend was non vegan. In that case, there are so many other factors (i.e. reasons he loves his girlfriend) that Cognitive Dissonance may barely be present.

That doesn't matter. When somebody is choosing to cause the death and suffering of animals for their own pleasure, and you know that, it's going to make you uncomfortable when you are 'in love' with them. You will either make excuses for their actions, or think less of veganism. This is a major cause of once committed vegetarians and vegans resuming the consumption of animal products.

In either case, I don't believe that most people actually have legitimate "reasons" for loving their significant others. It's hormonal. It's accident. It is only because we assume ourselves to be rational creatures that we must invent ad hoc reasons to explain why we love somebody. These reasons you speak of are in themselves a product of the rationalization generated from cognitive dissonance.

Tim Minchin - If I didn't have you (somebody else would do)

The suggestion that a meat eater or a religious person believing untruths to avoid dissonance rests on the assumption that the person is a rational thinker. However, there would be no point for a rational thinker to replace one case of Cognitive Dissonance (for example, making oneself believe that eating meat is not unhealthy), with another case of Cognitive Dissonance: 1. I am always a rational thinker. 2. In this case, I am ignoring the science and going with my gut feeling.

Every "sane"/"normal" brain works through the same generally rational mechanisms; there are things that function counter to this (counterintuitive statistics, numbers, etc.), but in terms of general concepts, there aren't people who are naturally comfortable with contradictions just because they haven't learned to be (or consider themselves to be) "rational" in the way you're using it.

Many people do not consider themselves to be "rational", and don't even know what that means, but none the less they suffer from cognitive dissonance when they actually understand something to be a contradiction. Likewise, many people don't have any respect for things labeled "science", don't believe in it, don't care about it. And yet if exposed to the basic logic behind it, they will feel compelled to agree with it.

I think you're categorizing people as rational or irrational incorrectly here: we're all both, to varying degrees, usually based on our capacity to easily understand contradictions and overcome our impulses to give into the desire to rationalize rather than change our understandings of the world.
It is not that "irrational" people don't experience cognitive dissonanace. What makes us rational or irrational first and foremost is precisely how we respond to cognitive dissonance. Irrational people respond to it through denial and rationalization. Rational people are more capable of abandoning their false assumptions instead. That's the difference.

I believe that in the cases of Carnism and religion Repression is a more important psychological concept.

Repression, as you say, is denial. It is denying the contradiction, denying and thereafter avoiding certain facts. It's motivated by cognitive dissonance; it's not an alternative to it.

She is a calm, intelligent, and rational person but she gets very angry when I try to explain why she shouldn't eat meat. If I try to show her a slaughter house video clip she will just walk away.

She gets angry because you're making her experience cognitive dissonance. When you aren't confronting her about it, she builds rationalizations to resolve her dissonance. They're flimsy rationalizations, and they don't stand up to your scrutiny.

The emotional experience of seeing slaughterhouse videos is slightly different. Rather than dismantling rationalizations, it creates a new impulse that says "this is wrong"; one which can easily be denied when out of sight.

She knows deep down inside what these videos contain but she lives her life keeping this knowledge as unconscious as possible.

Cognitive dissonance is resolved to varying degrees through rationalization and denial. Rarely do those mechanisms ever provide a complete resolution. Lingering doubt crops up regularly in the irrational, regarding their poor constructs. As long as nobody pokes these houses of cards, though, they usually serve their purposes.

Same thing applies to most intelligent religious people I have met. They want to believe in their religion so badly that they avoid remembering anything they learn that contradict what they believe.

This is just denial -- of the fact itself, or of the contradiction. Resolving cognitive dissonance by rationalization and denial is not a sound resolution. It's weak, and it's why people like this are plagued by doubt and discomfort throughout their lives. It takes a substantial amount of mental "energy" to maintain these delusions.

You can believe in square circles if either you don't understand why it's a contradiction, you deny that it is a contradiction, or you give them a pass and say it's OK for them to be contradictory because Jesus (and then don't think about it, because if you think about it, you'll accidentally poke holes in your own argument, like handling wet tissue paper).

[brimstoneSalad]

Wait, are you saying tropical oils are carcinogenic?

No, I was saying they promote cardiovascular disease.

Unfortunately, some misguided vegans try to promote plant-derived saturated fats as magically good because they come from plants. The evidence does not bear that out.

Plant saturated fat is also bad, particularly palm oil (due to the kinds of fatty acids in it). Coconut oil is slightly less bad, but still bad for you.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil

Palm oil contains fatty acid esters (3-MCPD and glycidol fatty acid esters) that are considered carcinogenic.

Oh my. Well, I'll stop eating it, then.

That's not surprising. But that's not what I was saying.

I was just talking about heart disease, with regards to tropical oils.


Carcinogens are a more complicated topic, and they also occur in meaningful amounts in some plants (tobacco is a shining example of this).

Animal products cause cancer. Most plants prevent cancer -- but some also cause cancer (it's just much more rare in commonly eaten plants).

So, it's not always safe to just say "It's a plant, therefore healthy". Some plants are bad for us too. Although it's usually true that plant food (particularly that which is commonly eaten) is healthy.

[EquALLity]

Animal products cause cancer.

Dairy and eggs too? I thought it was just meat when cooked at high temperatures with sugar and amino acids.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... oked-meats

Hm, this is confusing. So sugar needs to be present, but meat doesn't have sugar, and yet HCAs are still forming. What?

The PAHs make sense.

UPDATE- Though now that I think about it, I think I saw something correlating dairy consumption with prostate cancer.

Oh, yes, here: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/prostat ... mond-milk/

[brimstoneSalad]

Sugars are everywhere. They're not just talking about sucrose.

Animal tissue contains various kinds of sugars, both free (such as in the form of glucose), and in molecular compounds that make up parts of cells and various other structural and functional materials.

Glycoproteins are a good example.

It's possible that HCAs and PAHs amount to the majority of carcinogenicity from animal tissue consumption, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

The bottom line, whatever the cancer is caused by on a biochemical level, is that meat, consumed as a package, is strongly correlated (even when controlling for other lifestyle variables) with various kind of cancers. Most of them reproductive; so there seems to be a hormonal link.

There's also the choline link:

http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/11/19/wh ... ogression/

While Choline isn't itself carcinogenic, it apparently increases the virulence of cancer and promotes its spread.
Could this be the rest of the puzzle? Maybe.

But evidence is only mounting lately, as more research is done, regarding the negative health effects of animal products.

Eggs whites, I'm not too clear on. Although this is hardly a whole-food product. When you isolate one thing or another from animal products, you change the equation.
Is gelatin harmful? As a purified/processed product, probably not (although I wouldn't put money on it).

You could extract water from meat and purify it, and obviously it would be harmless (water is water).

At least where traditional animal products are concerned, the generalization proves pretty consistent: animal products promote cancer, while (most) plant products are protective against it.