tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9100831227411381411.post8788241613502805903..comments2022-03-26T09:58:10.542-07:00Comments on Mythic Meats: Why (Only) Meat Eaters are HypocritesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15638583285655984499noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9100831227411381411.post-88208754816865073732013-03-04T21:46:07.033-08:002013-03-04T21:46:07.033-08:00Dustin,
This is an interesting mess of an articl...Dustin, <br /><br />This is an interesting mess of an article. I suppose the first thing I would like to contest in it is your statement that carnism is a specific instance of cognitive dissonance. It is not. While certainly preliminary, I just presented the first carnism scale at the EPA conference in New York. The domains for the 97 pilot items were based on those Melanie discusses in her book, and had an alpha of .925. That's higher than most people get on the RWA! Participants (283 of them) also completed the SDO, and carnism was highly correlated at .01. Carnism is a young empirical construct, and we haven't submitted it for the peer review process yet, but so far the evidence for its validity is so overwhelming that when I presented my data the audience literally said wow. So carnism is a LOT more than cognitive dissonance, although the fact that the mean score on the 1-7 scale was 3.36 suggests that dissonance is certainly playing a role in it. <br /><br />What I get from reading your article is that you feel vegans are judging carnists-and we are. Sure, animals die unimaginable deaths in the wild-humans die unimaginable deaths in hospitals. But I'd much rather die eviscerated in a car accident after living a long(ish) free life than painlessly after a life of drab imprisonment and abuse at a quarter of my lifespan. I think it's absurd to think that compromise over who gets to kill who is a more rationale approach to vegan outreach. Killing someone unnecessarily is wrong, regardless of their outgroup, and the only time you see that challenged is when an out-group has yet to be unburdened by moral exclusion. <br /><br />I'm completely open to the idea that the animal rights movement has flaws, but they aren't embedded in a failure to consider carnism's arguments-most vegans grew up agreeing with carnism, recognized it's arguments to be pitiful mockeries of logic, and rejected them. Also, Wren's critique of Joy's work are completely unrelated to your point-Wren is trying to make the case the Joy is welfarist (she's not), and even OUT of context her quote contradicts the point you've attempted to use it to make. Melanie's critics are often in agreement, but in the complete opposite direction you indicate them to be! Come on, Dustin! This is just sad! <br /><br />All of that being said, I'd find this article fascinating without what seems to me to be an anemic attempt at relieving one's own cognitive dissonance and actually examined the vegan arguments' gaps. There are plenty directions to go with that: privileging one kingdom of life over others, some organizations' failure to treat humans as animals, sentiocentric rather than biocentric arguments, etc. If you took the time to actually answer the question you pose on page 4, I think you'd have a great article, rather than a frail rant reeking of unsuccessful invalidation and poor lit reviews. <br /><br />I'm posting anonymously because my Google accounts aren't very accessible, but if you choose to respond to this feel free to email me at cmonteiro@carnism.com. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com