i think we mostly care about people, and place humans, sometimes other animals (usually pets), childrens' toys, and occasionally some machines or fictional characters into the "person" or "not person" buckets depending on our personal attachment and a bunch of arbitrary social norms.
You think "we" do that? I don't. I make it a point to carefully consider who should be given my empathy or condemnation based on material reality.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is to be honest. Yeah, unfortunately there are plenty of people who base their sphere of empathy not on a materialist examination of the world but on societal norms, and that's the problem here (along many of the problems we rightly rail about as leftists). It's what I mean when I talk about arbitrary lines differentiating the human animal from all others to justify the way some humans treat all others.
Are you equating pets to children's toys? Hopefully you're just pointing out how ridiculous that is? One of those things is a lifeform that has the capacity to experience their existence, the other is an inanimate object no different than a rock. These things are not comparable. Same thing with a machine. There is a material difference between an animal (homo sapien or pig) and a machine, just as there is between a human and an LLM. That some people might be so ignorant as to think an LLM and a human being deserve equal consideration and empathy is not a valid or coherant argument that sentient beings who happen not to be human are ok to torture and kill.
You can call it person-hood if you like, but that just obsfucates things because people tend to think of "person" as "human" and what we're talking about here is the capacity to suffer and to experience, which is not exclusive to humanity. It's just another example of using the bias that's already built in to language as a means to prove a point through circular reasoning, something we should be familiar with and wary of as leftists.
A less circle-jerking version of this bait post might be a pig versus terry schaivo's corpse being kept "alive" by a heap of medical devices.
How is that less circle-jerking? Why is this version "circle-jerking" at all? The difference in either version is a lever to choose between something that can experience and suffer and something that can't.
Are you equating pets to children's toys? Hopefully you're just pointing out how ridiculous that is? One of those things is a lifeform that has the capacity to experience their existence, the other is an inanimate object no different than a rock. These things are not comparable. Same thing with a machine. There is a material difference between an animal (homo sapien or pig) and a machine, just as there is between a human and an LLM. That some people might be so ignorant as to think an LLM and a human being deserve equal consideration and empathy is not a valid or coherant argument that sentient beings who happen not to be human are ok to torture and kill.
i have seen people become very attached to a stuffed toy or a motorcycle or the characters on a TV show etc. these things are personified and elevated to the level of a human person. In that way they are actually very similar to how these people feel about their pet versus how they feel about some mixture of several cows they eat in a burger.
i'm not making excuses for the ingroup and the outgroup framework not being formed using marxist philosophy, just describing how non-vegans seem to operate without running into cognitive dissonance.
I agree, non-vegans (or certainly at least anti-vegans, even in this thread) can only operate by avoiding facing their cognitive dissonance through child-like abstractions. But a puerile affection for a stuffed animal has zilch to do with the material basis behind veganism and the very real suffering on an unimaginable scale that carnists subject sentient life to for profit and treats.
i don't think people are dodging any dissonance because the framework doesn't have any contradictions to resolve. The outgroup doesn't matter. Once you start thinking the outgroup matters that's when contradictions appear and people who make that leap cram their dissonance into a little corner and become pescatarian or some other half-measure, or eliminated it by becoming vegans.
everybody else just keeps on eating the food they're used to because the food animals aren't people and any consideration for the suffering of a pig in new jersey that can't turn around in its stall is as much of a treat for the virtue-signaler as the bacon that comes from it.
Are you saying carnists don't experience cognitive dissonance about eating dead animals? Because they do. Why would carnists get so irrationally angry at the mere existence of vegans if they didn't? "Oh, you're vegan? Well I'm going to eat an extra burger today, just to spite you." Carnists say that shit so often it's a damn meme, and you think they're not facing cognitive dissonance. Why do carnists hate it when you call their "food" what it is: corpses? They know that's what they eat, but they hate being reminded of that fact. That's like, textbook cognitive dissonance right there.
That's like, textbook cognitive dissonance right there.
'Cognitive dissonance' is about as real a thing as Oedipus complexes. It was proposed by some authors in the 50's to explain why people felt uncomfortable when they were put on the spot and had their views challenged as part of some study. There's no logic short circuit in the brain that trips everytime some law of formal logic gets violated.
There is something in a carnist's brain that trips and causes them to lash out at vegans, that is undeniable. Maybe we shouldn't call it "cognitive dissonance", but if not, we need a new term for it, because it's real, I've experienced it.
People don't like getting dunked on or looking intellectually inferior. Simple as.
When a vegan makes even a halfways cogent argument, the carnist gets mad not because he knows he's wrong, but because he knows he's right but can't muster the intellectual tools to show that.
No, it's more than that. The level of anger you face when you point out it's possible to live without eating dead animals is much higher than the level of anger you face when you point out that voting for Joe Biden doesn't really help anything.
How is it self-aggrandizing to say that carnists know what they're doing is wrong but have put up intellectual and emotional walls against that knowledge? I seriously don't get that.
Also, what's up with the edit to your previous comment? You think carnists are right but just aren't good enough at debating to counter vegan arguments? How do you come to that conclusion?
Edit: You know what? It doesn't matter. I don't want to argue with you about whether cognitive dissonance is real or not. Frankly, you're probably right, it probably isn't. If you're not vegan, please consider becoming vegan. I'm out.
any consideration for the suffering of a pig in new jersey that can't turn around in its stall is as much of a treat for the virtue-signaler as the bacon that comes from it.
Lmao take of the year DAE caring about suffering is the same as benefiting from it carnists try not to paint yourselves into rhetorical corners challenge
You think "we" do that? I don't. I make it a point to carefully consider who should be given my empathy or condemnation based on material reality.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is to be honest. Yeah, unfortunately there are plenty of people who base their sphere of empathy not on a materialist examination of the world but on societal norms, and that's the problem here (along many of the problems we rightly rail about as leftists). It's what I mean when I talk about arbitrary lines differentiating the human animal from all others to justify the way some humans treat all others.
Are you equating pets to children's toys?
Hopefully you're just pointing out how ridiculous that is? One of those things is a lifeform that has the capacity to experience their existence, the other is an inanimate object no different than a rock. These things are not comparable. Same thing with a machine. There is a material difference between an animal (homo sapien or pig) and a machine, just as there is between a human and an LLM. That some people might be so ignorant as to think an LLM and a human being deserve equal consideration and empathy is not a valid or coherant argument that sentient beings who happen not to be human are ok to torture and kill.
You can call it person-hood if you like, but that just obsfucates things because people tend to think of "person" as "human" and what we're talking about here is the capacity to suffer and to experience, which is not exclusive to humanity. It's just another example of using the bias that's already built in to language as a means to prove a point through circular reasoning, something we should be familiar with and wary of as leftists.
How is that less circle-jerking? Why is this version "circle-jerking" at all? The difference in either version is a lever to choose between something that can experience and suffer and something that can't.
i have seen people become very attached to a stuffed toy or a motorcycle or the characters on a TV show etc. these things are personified and elevated to the level of a human person. In that way they are actually very similar to how these people feel about their pet versus how they feel about some mixture of several cows they eat in a burger.
i'm not making excuses for the ingroup and the outgroup framework not being formed using marxist philosophy, just describing how non-vegans seem to operate without running into cognitive dissonance.
I agree, non-vegans (or certainly at least anti-vegans, even in this thread) can only operate by avoiding facing their cognitive dissonance through child-like abstractions. But a puerile affection for a stuffed animal has zilch to do with the material basis behind veganism and the very real suffering on an unimaginable scale that carnists subject sentient life to for profit and treats.
i don't think people are dodging any dissonance because the framework doesn't have any contradictions to resolve. The outgroup doesn't matter. Once you start thinking the outgroup matters that's when contradictions appear and people who make that leap cram their dissonance into a little corner and become pescatarian or some other half-measure, or eliminated it by becoming vegans.
everybody else just keeps on eating the food they're used to because the food animals aren't people and any consideration for the suffering of a pig in new jersey that can't turn around in its stall is as much of a treat for the virtue-signaler as the bacon that comes from it.
Are you saying carnists don't experience cognitive dissonance about eating dead animals? Because they do. Why would carnists get so irrationally angry at the mere existence of vegans if they didn't? "Oh, you're vegan? Well I'm going to eat an extra burger today, just to spite you." Carnists say that shit so often it's a damn meme, and you think they're not facing cognitive dissonance. Why do carnists hate it when you call their "food" what it is: corpses? They know that's what they eat, but they hate being reminded of that fact. That's like, textbook cognitive dissonance right there.
'Cognitive dissonance' is about as real a thing as Oedipus complexes. It was proposed by some authors in the 50's to explain why people felt uncomfortable when they were put on the spot and had their views challenged as part of some study. There's no logic short circuit in the brain that trips everytime some law of formal logic gets violated.
There is something in a carnist's brain that trips and causes them to lash out at vegans, that is undeniable. Maybe we shouldn't call it "cognitive dissonance", but if not, we need a new term for it, because it's real, I've experienced it.
People don't like getting dunked on or looking intellectually inferior. Simple as.
When a vegan makes even a halfways cogent argument, the carnist gets mad not because he knows he's wrong, but because he knows he's right but can't muster the intellectual tools to show that.
No, it's more than that. The level of anger you face when you point out it's possible to live without eating dead animals is much higher than the level of anger you face when you point out that voting for Joe Biden doesn't really help anything.
I mean I don't buy that have you seen some of these blue no matter who people.
In any case, probably best not to immediately reach for the most self-aggrandizing explanation of the phenomenon as possible.
How is it self-aggrandizing to say that carnists know what they're doing is wrong but have put up intellectual and emotional walls against that knowledge? I seriously don't get that.
Also, what's up with the edit to your previous comment? You think carnists are right but just aren't good enough at debating to counter vegan arguments? How do you come to that conclusion?
Edit: You know what? It doesn't matter. I don't want to argue with you about whether cognitive dissonance is real or not. Frankly, you're probably right, it probably isn't. If you're not vegan, please consider becoming vegan. I'm out.
Lmao take of the year
DAE caring about suffering is the same as benefiting from it carnists try not to paint yourselves into rhetorical corners challenge