# Cognitive Dissonance



## Blues Man

I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.

Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.


Let's start with a working definition then some examples.

*Cognitive Dissonance*
_*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_

It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.  

Examples:

One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.

People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.

One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.

Example:

A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.

and one more

The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable. 

I think we all see people do this every day.  

Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?

If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?


----------



## Toro

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful human trait.  

We all do it.  

It's a way to reinforce our belief system when confronted with information that contradicts our worldview.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Cognitive Dissonance like.....
there are no riots
there is no voter fraud


----------



## Blues Man

Toro said:


> Cognitive dissonance is a powerful human trait.
> 
> We all do it.
> 
> It's a way to reinforce our belief system when confronted with information that contradicts our worldview.



I realize that but why do we not want to live in accordance with our beliefs so we don't subject ourselves to it?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Cognitive Dissonance like..... 
the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
Trump colluded with the Russians?
Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
late ballots are legitimate?
man made global warming?


----------



## Blues Man

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Cognitive Dissonance like.....
> the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
> Trump colluded with the Russians?
> Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
> late ballots are legitimate?
> man made global warming?



I believe I touched on political examples already.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to make lists?


----------



## andy753

A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.


----------



## Blues Man

andy753 said:


> A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.


Good example.

A generalized political example is that it is impossible for many people to admit that the guy they didn't vote for could do anything right and the guy they did vote for can do nothing wrong.

I always find it amusing that republicans think every republican president is the best ever just as democrats think the same of democrat presidents.


----------



## Gdjjr

It can be easily spelled- intellectual dishonesty- especially where politics are concerned- it seems Public Education failed to pass on the knowledge of honest vs dishonest in its passing on of information- facts and evidence mean nothing as long as feels is involved- opinion because it is felt rules the day-


----------



## LA RAM FAN

andy753 said:


> A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.


that is a perfect example,two other prime ones are covid 19 and the election fraud.


----------



## Blues Man

Gdjjr said:


> It can be easily spelled- intellectual dishonesty- especially where politics are concerned- it seems Public Education failed to pass on the knowledge of honest vs dishonest in its passing on of information- facts and evidence mean nothing as long as feels is involved- opinion because it is felt rules the day-


The problem is most people are barely aware of it.

It's an aspect of the innate duplicitousness of human beings.


----------



## Gdjjr

Blues Man said:


> The problem is most people are barely aware of it.


Yes- there is very little self-awareness in this Country-


----------



## Blues Man

Gdjjr said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is most people are barely aware of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes- there is very little self-awareness in this Country-
Click to expand...

in human beings in general.

People aren't any different here than they are anywhere


----------



## Gdjjr

Blues Man said:


> People aren't any different here than they are anywhere


I don't concern myself with elsewhere- what they do is their business- when one tries to make my business his business then self-awareness is too late and that happens all too often, here- when one, here, refuses to acknowledge the simple premise that all men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights and believes forcing his will on me is just- he is just about to learn self-awareness is free- I will exercise my right to defend myself-


----------



## Blues Man

Gdjjr said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> People aren't any different here than they are anywhere
> 
> 
> 
> I don't concern myself with elsewhere- what they do is their business- when one tries to make my business his business then self-awareness is too late and that happens all too often, here- when one, here, refuses to acknowledge the simple premise that all men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights and believes forcing his will on me is just- he is just about to learn self-awareness is free- I will exercise my right to defend myself-
Click to expand...

It happens everywhere.

people are not different just because they live in a different country.


----------



## Gdjjr

Blues Man said:


> people are not different just because they live in a different country.


IDGAF about other places- but, anecdotally, most foreigners I've met are pretty self-aware vs very few here, in fact I can count on 3 fingers the people I know here who are- myself and my 2 sons- one more so than the other-


----------



## Ringtone

andy753 said:


> A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.



The underlying essence of birtherism is the fallacious belief that one must necessarily be born on U.S. soil in order to be a natural-born citizen.  Most birthers were never even aware of the fact that had Obama been born in Kenya just a few months later, he would have been a natural-born citizen.  By the way, it was Clinton supporters who started the birther movement.


----------



## Misaki

Only replying to the initial post.

Generally, contradictory (or perhaps hypocritical might be a better word) attitudes are undesirable. You might say that the baby birds example does not display contradiction; although the situations are similar, they are not the same. There are things that people are allowed to do privately that they can't do publicly, and things that could be legal or illegal based on intentions. We do not expect people who kill the baby chickens to find sadistic pleasure in what they do; if they did, and openly expressed this pleasure to a wide audience, society might find some excuse to legally punish them (there are lots of unenforced laws).

In the case of the sour grapes, we start from the assumption that one should not think dishonestly; this is, for example, one of the recommendations of Miyamoto Musashi:




__





						The Book of Five Rings - Nine Main Principles
					

The most famous book on sword fighting and the Way of the warrior, The Book of Five Rings was written by legendary samurai Musashi Miyamoto.



					www.musashimiyamoto.com
				




If one thinks dishonestly, one is more likely to make mistakes. But avoiding mistakes is not the only goal. Humans also often have the goal of avoiding "cognitive dissonance", not just between different thoughts in their own mind, but also thoughts in their mind and the minds of others. Of particular relevance here is the question, "If someone thinks you are happy, are you?" (Similarly, if someone thinks you are unhappy.)

If we care about someone, we try to be unhappy if they are unhappy. The fox is, obviously, not a human, but as a fellow mammal, we can pretend that the fox has similar thoughts. The fox convinces itself that it is happy, so that others who care about it will also be happy.

There are also signalling considerations; someone who wants an unattainable goal is sometimes seen as less competent. This could be influenced by the first consideration; someone who is unable to understand that their unmet desires and sadness could weigh down on others could be considered less intelligent, and just as we have silly rules like "you must wear formal clothing in this particular situation", which becomes a rule simply because people think it's a rule, the same could be said in this case of signalling one's intelligence by hiding their disappointment.

Anyway, the general solution to situations that seem to describe what I suppose you might say is "a seeming lack of concern for situations that would suggest cognitive dissonance" is to make society more flexible in adopting solutions to problems large and small, including problems based on inaccuracy of signals. In a way, this is the domain of what people think of as art. For specific problems, we might propose solutions (like the concept of media literacy, also known as knowing whether to investigate whether something is "fake news" instead of blindly assuming that a publication is infallible), but art has been used to teach people that all signals are potentially fallible, even if 99.9% of people think a certain signal, like someone holding a particular title or office, is complete assurance about a related property.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

Blues Man said:


> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?


I thought something similar twenty years ago, and pledged to find the root of the problem and then deliberate a solution.

The problem is a lack of a reliable knowledge classification system - a hierarchy listing of all that that is known.


----------



## Blues Man

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought something similar twenty years ago, and pledged to find the root of the problem and then deliberate a solution.
> 
> The problem is a lack of a reliable knowledge classification system - a hierarchy listing of all that that is known.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple.

Duplicity is such a part of human behavior that I don't think a new classification system will have much of an effect besides how do you get everyone to agree on the order of that list?


----------



## ding

The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.


----------



## ding

Relativistic rationalizations are the original sin and the root cause of all of man's problems.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

Blues Man said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought something similar twenty years ago, and pledged to find the root of the problem and then deliberate a solution.
> 
> The problem is a lack of a reliable knowledge classification system - a hierarchy listing of all that that is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it's that simple.
> 
> Duplicity is such a part of human behavior that I don't think a new classification system will have much of an effect besides how do you get everyone to agree on the order of that list?
Click to expand...

the same way we agree to the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems. Somebody else does it and businesses that need a classification list subscribe to it.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.


That's crap.

The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways

Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.


----------



## Blues Man

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought something similar twenty years ago, and pledged to find the root of the problem and then deliberate a solution.
> 
> The problem is a lack of a reliable knowledge classification system - a hierarchy listing of all that that is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it's that simple.
> 
> Duplicity is such a part of human behavior that I don't think a new classification system will have much of an effect besides how do you get everyone to agree on the order of that list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the same way we agree to the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems. Somebody else does it and businesses that need a classification list subscribe to it.
Click to expand...

Good luck in my experience people are different than books


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
Click to expand...

It's psychology 101.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
Click to expand...


Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
Click to expand...

So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

So, which of these seems easier to remember?


Class 000 – Computer science, general information
Class 100 – Philosophy and psychology
Class 200 – Religion
Class 300 – Social sciences
Class 400 – Language
Class 500 – Science
Class 600 – Technology
Class 700 – Arts and recreation
Class 800 – Literature
Class 900 – History and geography
Reality
Nature
Technology
Life
Society
Culture
Time
Class A – General Works
Class B – Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
Class C – Auxiliary Sciences of History
Class D – World History
Class E – History of America
Class F – Local History of the Americas
Class G – Geography, Anthropology, Recreation
Class H – Social Sciences
Class J – Political Science
Class K – Law
Class L – Education
Class M – Music
Class N – Fine Arts
Class P – Language and Literature
Class Q – Science
Class R – Medicine
Class S – Agriculture
Class T – Technology
Class U – Military Science
Class V – Naval Science
Class Z – Bibliography, Library Science


----------



## ding

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> So, which of these seems easier to remember?
> 
> 
> Class 000 – Computer science, general information
> Class 100 – Philosophy and psychology
> Class 200 – Religion
> Class 300 – Social sciences
> Class 400 – Language
> Class 500 – Science
> Class 600 – Technology
> Class 700 – Arts and recreation
> Class 800 – Literature
> Class 900 – History and geography
> Reality
> Nature
> Technology
> Life
> Society
> Culture
> Time
> Class A – General Works
> Class B – Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
> Class C – Auxiliary Sciences of History
> Class D – World History
> Class E – History of America
> Class F – Local History of the Americas
> Class G – Geography, Anthropology, Recreation
> Class H – Social Sciences
> Class J – Political Science
> Class K – Law
> Class L – Education
> Class M – Music
> Class N – Fine Arts
> Class P – Language and Literature
> Class Q – Science
> Class R – Medicine
> Class S – Agriculture
> Class T – Technology
> Class U – Military Science
> Class V – Naval Science
> Class Z – Bibliography, Library Science


I'll play.


Reality
Nature
Technology
Life
Society
Culture
Time


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
Click to expand...


It's more like compartmentalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
Click to expand...

I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
Click to expand...

Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.
Click to expand...

No.  They don't.  Let's take a guy who thinks being faithful to his wife is important.  If he cheats on her he will either change his views or he will confess his transgression.  But in this case it is highly unlikely that he will maintain his belief that being faithful to his wife is important.  More than likely he will rationalize that his life with his wife was made better by his infidelity.  That's the norm.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They don't.  Let's take a guy who thinks being faithful to his wife is important.  If he cheats on her he will either change his views or he will confess his transgression.  But in this case it is highly unlikely that he will maintain his belief that being faithful to his wife is important.  More than likely he will rationalize that his life with his wife was made better by his infidelity.  That's the norm.
Click to expand...

you assume that all wives forgive their husbands' transgressions.  Infidelity often ends up in divorce.

Let's use this from the OP

A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.

People just tend to ignore the fact that the eggs they eat on a daily basis cause more baby birds to be macerated while still alive than the guy running over baby birds with his mower could kill in a lifetime.

That is compartmentalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They don't.  Let's take a guy who thinks being faithful to his wife is important.  If he cheats on her he will either change his views or he will confess his transgression.  But in this case it is highly unlikely that he will maintain his belief that being faithful to his wife is important.  More than likely he will rationalize that his life with his wife was made better by his infidelity.  That's the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you assume that all wives forgive their husbands' transgressions.  Infidelity often ends up in divorce.
> 
> Let's use this from the OP
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> People just tend to ignore the fact that the eggs they eat on a daily basis cause more baby birds to be macerated while still alive than the guy running over baby birds with his mower could kill in a lifetime.
> 
> That is compartmentalization.
Click to expand...

Sure.  That's a possible consequence to confessing.  Of course she might find out any way which in that case confessing would have been a better alternative to her finding out from someone else.  So I'm not assuming everything turns out well.  I am only telling you that until one speaks out loud their sins those sins will hold power over them.  But to the point the human mind cannot live in conflict. 

Your analogy sounds more like a rationalization than a compartmentalization.  Compartmentalizations usually occur with victims of serious crimes.  There were no victims in your analogy.  Other than the baby chicks that is.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They don't.  Let's take a guy who thinks being faithful to his wife is important.  If he cheats on her he will either change his views or he will confess his transgression.  But in this case it is highly unlikely that he will maintain his belief that being faithful to his wife is important.  More than likely he will rationalize that his life with his wife was made better by his infidelity.  That's the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you assume that all wives forgive their husbands' transgressions.  Infidelity often ends up in divorce.
> 
> Let's use this from the OP
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> People just tend to ignore the fact that the eggs they eat on a daily basis cause more baby birds to be macerated while still alive than the guy running over baby birds with his mower could kill in a lifetime.
> 
> That is compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That's a possible consequence to confessing.  Of course she might find out any way which in that case confessing would have been a better alternative to her finding out from someone else.  So I'm not assuming everything turns out well.  I am only telling you that until one speaks out loud their sins those sins will hold power over them.  But to the point the human mind cannot live in conflict.
> 
> Your analogy sounds more like a rationalization than a compartmentalization.  Compartmentalizations usually occur with victims of serious crimes.  There were no victims in your analogy.  Other than the baby chicks that is.
Click to expand...

So there were victims.

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.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They don't.  Let's take a guy who thinks being faithful to his wife is important.  If he cheats on her he will either change his views or he will confess his transgression.  But in this case it is highly unlikely that he will maintain his belief that being faithful to his wife is important.  More than likely he will rationalize that his life with his wife was made better by his infidelity.  That's the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you assume that all wives forgive their husbands' transgressions.  Infidelity often ends up in divorce.
> 
> Let's use this from the OP
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> People just tend to ignore the fact that the eggs they eat on a daily basis cause more baby birds to be macerated while still alive than the guy running over baby birds with his mower could kill in a lifetime.
> 
> That is compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That's a possible consequence to confessing.  Of course she might find out any way which in that case confessing would have been a better alternative to her finding out from someone else.  So I'm not assuming everything turns out well.  I am only telling you that until one speaks out loud their sins those sins will hold power over them.  But to the point the human mind cannot live in conflict.
> 
> Your analogy sounds more like a rationalization than a compartmentalization.  Compartmentalizations usually occur with victims of serious crimes.  There were no victims in your analogy.  Other than the baby chicks that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there were victims.
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing the victims (chicks) compartmentalized their getting run over with a lawn mower?  

_Compartmentalizing_ is a common coping mechanism for _trauma victims_. _The_ mind separated _trauma_ from my feelings and emotions.​








						Compartmentalizing & Trauma
					

Compartmentalizing: A Commentary on Trauma   I had an old bookshelf. It seemed worthy of its task. I loaded it with tomes of theology, my children’s storybooks that I couldn’t bear to box up, education books from college, and my favorite fiction fun reads. It was a happy hodgepodge of words and...




					hisheartfoundation.org


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> 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.


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)?  

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?


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human mind cannot live in conflict.  Which is why man rationalizes his behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap.
> 
> The human every single day people behave in contradictory ways
> 
> Duplicitousness is a universal human trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's psychology 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fact of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are rationalizations which is how most humans resolve their conflict.  There's your cognitive dissonance right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that compartmentalization and rationalization are two different things.  Either can be used to prevent the mind from living in conflict but until the mind faces reality whatever conflict there is will hold power over the individual until it is confronted with reality.  Most people just change their belief to eliminate the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people simply ignore the conflicts and compartmentalize their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They don't.  Let's take a guy who thinks being faithful to his wife is important.  If he cheats on her he will either change his views or he will confess his transgression.  But in this case it is highly unlikely that he will maintain his belief that being faithful to his wife is important.  More than likely he will rationalize that his life with his wife was made better by his infidelity.  That's the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you assume that all wives forgive their husbands' transgressions.  Infidelity often ends up in divorce.
> 
> Let's use this from the OP
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> People just tend to ignore the fact that the eggs they eat on a daily basis cause more baby birds to be macerated while still alive than the guy running over baby birds with his mower could kill in a lifetime.
> 
> That is compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That's a possible consequence to confessing.  Of course she might find out any way which in that case confessing would have been a better alternative to her finding out from someone else.  So I'm not assuming everything turns out well.  I am only telling you that until one speaks out loud their sins those sins will hold power over them.  But to the point the human mind cannot live in conflict.
> 
> Your analogy sounds more like a rationalization than a compartmentalization.  Compartmentalizations usually occur with victims of serious crimes.  There were no victims in your analogy.  Other than the baby chicks that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there were victims.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you arguing the victims (chicks) compartmentalized their getting run over with a lawn mower?
> 
> _Compartmentalizing_ is a common coping mechanism for _trauma victims_. _The_ mind separated _trauma_ from my feelings and emotions.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalizing & Trauma
> 
> 
> Compartmentalizing: A Commentary on Trauma   I had an old bookshelf. It seemed worthy of its task. I loaded it with tomes of theology, my children’s storybooks that I couldn’t bear to box up, education books from college, and my favorite fiction fun reads. It was a happy hodgepodge of words and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hisheartfoundation.org
Click to expand...



People compartmentalize and not only trauma victims.





__





						Compartmentalization (psychology) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
Click to expand...

Once again we disagree on definitions.


Blues Man said:


> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.




THIS is Psych 101.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
Click to expand...

So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...

I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
Click to expand...

People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
Click to expand...

You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Oh yeah nothing.
Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality.  People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization).  Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality.  It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
Click to expand...

I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.  






						Compartmentalization
					

Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...




					www.psychologytoday.com
				




Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Oh yeah nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality.  People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization).  Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality.  It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.
Click to expand...


And people deny reality all the time.

It's what people do.

It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.

That is the reality of humans


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Click to expand...

Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Oh yeah nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality.  People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization).  Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality.  It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people deny reality all the time.
> 
> It's what people do.
> 
> It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.
> 
> That is the reality of humans
Click to expand...

Like I said, the human mind cannot live in conflict so when behaviors don't match beliefs they change their beliefs and rationalize doing so.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
Click to expand...

And you think wrong  again


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Oh yeah nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality.  People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization).  Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality.  It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people deny reality all the time.
> 
> It's what people do.
> 
> It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.
> 
> That is the reality of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the human mind cannot live in conflict so when behaviors don't match beliefs they change their beliefs and rationalize doing so.
Click to expand...

Which is why people compartmentalize dissonant beliefs.

I gave you 2 links that explained compartmentalization as a defense mechanism


----------



## iamwhatiseem

It all falls down to this...

We judge ourselves by intent; we judge others by results.
This is exactly how we consistently criticize others for doing the exact same thing we, ourselves do, on a regular basis.
It is also how we formulate "situation ethics". How we move the goal post of judgement for those we agree with, as opposed to those we do not.
  This very thing is being played out, en masse, all across the nation.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

And to mention, this human behavioral fallacy is being exacerbated by basing beliefs on idealism rather than realism.
At that point, facts become irrelevant. And replaced by group think.


----------



## Blues Man

iamwhatiseem said:


> It all falls down to this...
> 
> We judge ourselves by intent; we judge others by results.
> This is exactly how we consistently criticize others for doing the exact same thing we, ourselves do, on a regular basis.
> It is also how we formulate "situation ethics". How we move the goal post of judgement for those we agree with, as opposed to those we do not.
> This very thing is being played out, en masse, all across the nation.


It's just one more example of how human concepts of ethics are relative.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> People aren't any different here than they are anywhere
> 
> 
> 
> I don't concern myself with elsewhere- what they do is their business- when one tries to make my business his business then self-awareness is too late and that happens all too often, here- when one, here, refuses to acknowledge the simple premise that all men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights and believes forcing his will on me is just- he is just about to learn self-awareness is free- I will exercise my right to defend myself-
Click to expand...

Really? Even this topic is an invitation for a weak old man to play tough boy?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Blues Man said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all falls down to this...
> 
> We judge ourselves by intent; we judge others by results.
> This is exactly how we consistently criticize others for doing the exact same thing we, ourselves do, on a regular basis.
> It is also how we formulate "situation ethics". How we move the goal post of judgement for those we agree with, as opposed to those we do not.
> This very thing is being played out, en masse, all across the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just one more example of how human concepts of ethics are relative.
Click to expand...

  Which, itself, is not always a problem. 
The problem is when society, in the name of solving one problem, creates a fix that is actually the same mechanism that IS the problem they are attempting to fix. Or, when protesting one thing, engage in the exact same behavior while protesting the very same one.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Blues Man said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive Dissonance like.....
> the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
> Trump colluded with the Russians?
> Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
> late ballots are legitimate?
> man made global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I touched on political examples already.
> 
> Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to make lists?
Click to expand...


There is no discernable cognition in anyone of his posts, thus he never experiences cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Rye Catcher

andy753 said:


> A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.



Great example.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Rye Catcher said:


> andy753 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great example.
Click to expand...

It is actually.
Another is a different set of people, despite one evidence failure after another, despite chief witnesses so full of holes you could run a football team through them - people still believed Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
Click to expand...

Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we disagree on definitions.
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Compartmentalization* is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is Psych 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms.  People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Oh yeah nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality.  People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization).  Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality.  It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people deny reality all the time.
> 
> It's what people do.
> 
> It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.
> 
> That is the reality of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the human mind cannot live in conflict so when behaviors don't match beliefs they change their beliefs and rationalize doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why people compartmentalize dissonant beliefs.
> 
> I gave you 2 links that explained compartmentalization as a defense mechanism
Click to expand...

No, that would be rationalizations.  Compartmentalization occurs when the event is to great to remember.  You don't rationalize being brutally raped.  You don't compartmentalize doing the opposite of what you believe.  You just change the belief.


----------



## Esdraelon

Blues Man said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive Dissonance like.....
> the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
> Trump colluded with the Russians?
> Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
> late ballots are legitimate?
> man made global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I touched on political examples already.
> 
> Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to make lists?
Click to expand...




Blues Man said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can be easily spelled- intellectual dishonesty- especially where politics are concerned- it seems Public Education failed to pass on the knowledge of honest vs dishonest in its passing on of information- facts and evidence mean nothing as long as feels is involved- opinion because it is felt rules the day-
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is most people are barely aware of it.
> 
> It's an aspect of the innate duplicitousness of human beings.
Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question.  Human nature is immutable at the level of the masses.  PEOPLE can change, humanity?  Not so much.  This the key truth that motivated our Founders to create a Constitution that tried to effectively tie the hands of people who would rule over us.  They understood that human nature includes a lust for power over others AND ALWAYS WOULD.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

ESDRAELON said:


> I think you've answered your own question.  Human nature is immutable at the level of the masses.  PEOPLE can change, humanity?  Not so much.  This the key truth that motivated our Founders to create a Constitution that tried to effectively tie the hands of people who would rule over us.  They understood that human nature includes a lust for power over others AND ALWAYS WOULD.



Indeed, I have said for years that the constitution is one of the greatest articles written in the history of mankind.
And is exactly why our government constantly seeks to weaken it.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Blues Man said:


> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?


Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
Click to expand...

again you are wrong


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
Click to expand...

rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.

We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.


----------



## Blues Man

Turtlesoup said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
Click to expand...

The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.

It seems you are misinformed.









						Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
					

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?




					www.vox.com


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
Click to expand...

When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
Click to expand...

No they do not block it from their memory.

Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.

Blocking memories is dissociation.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
Click to expand...

Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
Click to expand...

Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
Click to expand...

Compartmentalization has nothing to do with denying reality.  READ THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
Click to expand...

No shit Sherlock

It doesn't mean blocking from memory.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
Click to expand...

Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalization has nothing to do with denying reality.  READ THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS
Click to expand...

Sure it does.  Denying reality by ignoring reality.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
Click to expand...

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalization has nothing to do with denying reality.  READ THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it does.  Denying reality by ignoring reality.
Click to expand...


Compartmentalization of one's own conflicting belifs has nothing to do with the physical world


----------



## Turtlesoup

Blues Man said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
Click to expand...


I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.


----------



## Blues Man

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
Click to expand...




Turtlesoup said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
Click to expand...

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalization has nothing to do with denying reality.  READ THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it does.  Denying reality by ignoring reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization of one's own conflicting belifs has nothing to do with the physical world
Click to expand...

The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.  Blocking something out is denying reality or the state of things as they actually exist.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
Click to expand...

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?

I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
Click to expand...

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
Click to expand...

You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.
Click to expand...

He absolutely did change his belief.  His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food.  He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He absolutely did change his belief.  His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food.  He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.
Click to expand...


No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
Click to expand...

So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He absolutely did change his belief.  His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food.  He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes
Click to expand...

No.  He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.

I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
Click to expand...


You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.

I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.

You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He absolutely did change his belief.  His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food.  He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.
> 
> I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.
Click to expand...


It's not up to me to judge the behaviors of others. 

i do what I do for my own reasons if someone asks me why I tell them why but I never try to tell anyone else what they should do.

I don't have to live with anyone's choices but my own.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He absolutely did change his belief.  His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food.  He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.
> 
> I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not up to me to judge the behaviors of others.
> 
> i do what I do for my own reasons if someone asks me why I tell them why but I never try to tell anyone else what they should do.
> 
> I don't have to live with anyone's choices but my own.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  It's not up to me to judge the person.  I would be an idiot if I didn't judge their behaviors and actions.  You don't understand the difference or why it's important.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
Click to expand...

Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel.  Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you change your belief which is a rationalization.  Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict.  Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He absolutely did change his belief.  His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food.  He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.
> 
> I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not up to me to judge the behaviors of others.
> 
> i do what I do for my own reasons if someone asks me why I tell them why but I never try to tell anyone else what they should do.
> 
> I don't have to live with anyone's choices but my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It's not up to me to judge the person.  I would be an idiot if I didn't judge their behaviors and actions.  You don't understand the difference or why it's important.
Click to expand...


If another person chooses to eat animals it's none of my business.

I have chosen not to for my own reasons and I have no right or authority to force those reasons on anyone else.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
Click to expand...

So you are a vegan?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Cognitive Dissonance like.....
> the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
> Trump colluded with the Russians?
> Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
> late ballots are legitimate?
> man made global warming?



I ignore it all. Too much cognitive dissonance for me.

My world view is I don’t care. I have to protect that worldview at all cost.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
Click to expand...

No. 

What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?

I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...

Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization 

And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
Click to expand...

Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me. 

The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
Click to expand...


 your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.

And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.

I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
Click to expand...

My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?

So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?  

You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
Click to expand...


You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
Click to expand...

And how is that not selfish? And weak?  

Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
Click to expand...

Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong

You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
Click to expand...


I don't preach right and wrong like you do.

I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
Click to expand...

Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
Click to expand...

I don't have a hard time living with my choices.  If I did I would rationalize my behaviors as being good and just like you do.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
Click to expand...

I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.

I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a hard time living with my choices.  If I did I would rationalize my behaviors as being good and just like you do.
Click to expand...

No you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.
Click to expand...

Except you always try to do right and believe that no one would continue doing wrong.  AND you hold others to your views of right and wrong even if you say you don't because you argue for an absolute right and wrong which are always your views of right and wrong.  

I'm perfectly fine with you making choices.  I seriously couldn't care less.  Why should I?  I don't suffer the consequences of your choices.  You do.  So why should I care?


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a hard time living with my choices.  If I did I would rationalize my behaviors as being good and just like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
Click to expand...

They aren't excuses.  They are the truth.  I eat meat because I like it.  I am too selfish and weak not to eat meat.  Those aren't excuses.  They are the root cause of why I choose to do wrong.  If I were less selfish and stronger I wouldn't eat meat.  You can't rationalize doing  wrong if you admit to doing wrong.  That's called a confession.  It's not a rationalization.  

YOU rationalize.  I don't.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.





Blues Man said:


> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization



I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.    

That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you always try to do right and believe that no one would continue doing wrong.  AND you hold others to your views of right and wrong even if you say you don't because you argue for an absolute right and wrong which are always your views of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with you making choices.  I seriously couldn't care less.  Why should I?  I don't suffer the consequences of your choices.  You do.  So why should I care?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have the right to judge anyone else's behavior.  Once again that's your thing not mine.  And all I do is try to make choices I can live with and by doing that you somehow think that I am telling you how to live.  That's you being defensive.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
Click to expand...


But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.  

Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.

I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.

The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a hard time living with my choices.  If I did I would rationalize my behaviors as being good and just like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't excuses.  They are the truth.  I eat meat because I like it.  I am too selfish and weak not to eat meat.  Those aren't excuses.  They are the root cause of why I choose to do wrong.  If I were less selfish and stronger I wouldn't eat meat.  You can't rationalize doing  wrong if you admit to doing wrong.  That's called a confession.  It's not a rationalization.
> 
> YOU rationalize.  I don't.
Click to expand...


Blaming your choice on character flaws is rationalizing.

The only reason you eat meat is because you like it and don't want to stop so you blame it on some character flaw that you have no control over.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you always try to do right and believe that no one would continue doing wrong.  AND you hold others to your views of right and wrong even if you say you don't because you argue for an absolute right and wrong which are always your views of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with you making choices.  I seriously couldn't care less.  Why should I?  I don't suffer the consequences of your choices.  You do.  So why should I care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I have the right to judge anyone else's behavior.  Once again that's your thing not mine.  And all I do is try to make choices I can live with and by doing that you somehow think that I am telling you how to live.  That's you being defensive.
Click to expand...

You just judge the person  

Which is worse.  

I don't judge the person because that's one of the ways bias is created.  I judge behaviors and actions because that's how lessons are learned.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.

You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you always try to do right and believe that no one would continue doing wrong.  AND you hold others to your views of right and wrong even if you say you don't because you argue for an absolute right and wrong which are always your views of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with you making choices.  I seriously couldn't care less.  Why should I?  I don't suffer the consequences of your choices.  You do.  So why should I care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I have the right to judge anyone else's behavior.  Once again that's your thing not mine.  And all I do is try to make choices I can live with and by doing that you somehow think that I am telling you how to live.  That's you being defensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just judge the person
> 
> Which is worse.
> 
> I don't judge the person because that's one of the ways bias is created.  I judge behaviors and actions because that's how lessons are learned.
Click to expand...

A person is nothing but the sum total of his thoughts and actions

by judging actions you judge the person because all actions are chosen by the person carrying them out.

By your own admission

You choose to be selfish
You choose to be weak

So you are judging yourself not just your actions

Behaviors don't occur in a vacuum as they all begin with a thought and that thought originates in the person.  They cannot be separated


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a hard time living with my choices.  If I did I would rationalize my behaviors as being good and just like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't excuses.  They are the truth.  I eat meat because I like it.  I am too selfish and weak not to eat meat.  Those aren't excuses.  They are the root cause of why I choose to do wrong.  If I were less selfish and stronger I wouldn't eat meat.  You can't rationalize doing  wrong if you admit to doing wrong.  That's called a confession.  It's not a rationalization.
> 
> YOU rationalize.  I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blaming your choice on character flaws is rationalizing.
> 
> The only reason you eat meat is because you like it and don't want to stop so you blame it on some character flaw that you have no control over.
Click to expand...

Being selfish and weak are indeed character flaws.  Admitting one's character flaws are not rationalizations.  They are confessions.  

Again... the reason I eat meat is because I enjoy it and am too selfish and weak to stop.  Apparently you believe anyone who doesn't do perfect things rationalizes even though you don't hold your self to that same standard.  Hypocrisy anyone?


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you always try to do right and believe that no one would continue doing wrong.  AND you hold others to your views of right and wrong even if you say you don't because you argue for an absolute right and wrong which are always your views of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with you making choices.  I seriously couldn't care less.  Why should I?  I don't suffer the consequences of your choices.  You do.  So why should I care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I have the right to judge anyone else's behavior.  Once again that's your thing not mine.  And all I do is try to make choices I can live with and by doing that you somehow think that I am telling you how to live.  That's you being defensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just judge the person
> 
> Which is worse.
> 
> I don't judge the person because that's one of the ways bias is created.  I judge behaviors and actions because that's how lessons are learned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A person is nothing but the sum total of his thoughts and actions
> 
> by judging actions you judge the person because all actions are chosen by the person carrying them out.
> 
> By your own admission
> 
> You choose to be selfish
> You choose to be weak
> 
> So you are judging yourself not just your actions
> 
> Behaviors don't occur in a vacuum as they all begin with a thought and that thought originates in the person.  They cannot be separated
Click to expand...

No.  Judging actions instead of people disassociates the judgement of the action from the person.  For example  just because someone lies does not make them a liar.  Honest men can sometimes be dishonest.  Bias is created when the person is judged instead of the action.  Which is what YOU do and is why you can't see reality.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
Click to expand...




ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
Click to expand...

Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I? 

I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I don't do that.  But if I did I would be rationalizing it.  Not compartmentalizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments.  As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction. That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.
> 
> That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think wrong  again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise.  As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize.  Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory.  When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality.  Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs.  Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they do not block it from their memory.
> 
> Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
> 
> Blocking memories is dissociation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit Sherlock
> 
> It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same difference.  It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing.  To keep from having to think about it.  Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized.  Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality.  Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something.  it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.
> 
> Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette.  You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs  you don't block them from your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional bullshit..  A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed.   The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male.  GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers.   You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.
> 
> It seems you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year
> 
> 
> Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste.  Apparently, not all of them do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.
> 
> I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong?  Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?
> 
> I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.  A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated.  YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food.  I have no authority to judge your actions.
> 
> I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons.  I do not tell others what they should do.
> 
> You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice assumption.  Too bad it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a vegan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> What part of I admit that what I do is wrong don't you understand?
> 
> I don't rationalize that what I do is right like you do.  When I do wrong I admit it.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you say you know eating animals is wrong but you invent reasons to keep on eating animals.  THAT is rationalization
> 
> And I never said what I do is right or wrong.  Judging the behaviors of others is what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you understand that I can choose to do something that is wrong; that I can choose to not be good?  Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp.  There is no rationalization.  If you want to know why I choose to do wrong instead of right, just ask me.
> 
> The fact that you can't recognize that people can choose to do wrong or choose to do evil proves you believe that everyone must either do good or rationalize that they are doing good.  You won't even allow for the fact that people can choose to do wrong; that people can choose to do evil.  That's how much you refuse to abandon the concept of good and evil.  You assume everyone must either do good or rationalize that the are doing good.  I am not doing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your reason for knowingly doing something you think is wrong is a rationalization.
> 
> And i know people choose to do all kinds of things the question is why would anyone willingly choose to do something wrong when that wrong thing is completely unnecessary.
> 
> I posted in other thread that I used to shoplift when I was young because I didn't want to spend any time with my fucked up foster parents so I used to rationalize my shoplifting because some days the only thing i would have to eat was the couple things I could pocket.  But as soon as I had the means to be able earn enough money to eat and buy clothes etc I stopped stealing stuff and I tried to make amends for my crimes by donating to food banks and clothing drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reason for knowingly doing something wrong is a rationalization?  Really?
> 
> So I have rationalized that I am weak and selfish for eating meat?  And that makes sense to you?
> 
> You have some strange views on rationalizations.  Why do you think I eat meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat meat because you enjoy it since that is the only reason to eat meat this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how is that not selfish? And weak?
> 
> Yes, I enjoy eating meat but that's the reason I eat meat.  It's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You enjoy it but you also seem to enjoy your self flagellation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I say I enjoy it already?  You got me.  I do enjoy it.  It's because I am selfish and weak that I keep doing it even though I admit it is wrong
> 
> You probably can't understand this because you can't conceive ever doing anything you believe is wrong.  That's just because you will rationalize it away like you are trying to argue I am rationalizing it away despite my repeated statements that I know eating meat is wrong but I do it because I like it and because I am too selfish and weak to not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't preach right and wrong like you do.
> 
> I make choices that I can live with.  I really don't care if you have a hard time living with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your words don't match your behaviors.  That is correct.  You say you don't believe in right and wrong but you act like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do what I do for my own reasons not to be compliant to someone else's idea of right and wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you do something I wouldn't do because you and you alone are the one that has to live with your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you always try to do right and believe that no one would continue doing wrong.  AND you hold others to your views of right and wrong even if you say you don't because you argue for an absolute right and wrong which are always your views of right and wrong.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with you making choices.  I seriously couldn't care less.  Why should I?  I don't suffer the consequences of your choices.  You do.  So why should I care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I have the right to judge anyone else's behavior.  Once again that's your thing not mine.  And all I do is try to make choices I can live with and by doing that you somehow think that I am telling you how to live.  That's you being defensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just judge the person
> 
> Which is worse.
> 
> I don't judge the person because that's one of the ways bias is created.  I judge behaviors and actions because that's how lessons are learned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A person is nothing but the sum total of his thoughts and actions
> 
> by judging actions you judge the person because all actions are chosen by the person carrying them out.
> 
> By your own admission
> 
> You choose to be selfish
> You choose to be weak
> 
> So you are judging yourself not just your actions
> 
> Behaviors don't occur in a vacuum as they all begin with a thought and that thought originates in the person.  They cannot be separated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Judging actions instead of people disassociates the judgement of the action from the person.  For example  just because someone lies does not make them a liar.  Honest men can sometimes be dishonest.  Bias is created when the person is judged instead of the action.  Which is what YOU do and is why you can't see reality.
Click to expand...

If someone lies by definition he is a liar.

The action of lying results from a choice.  The choice is originated by the person.

Nothing exists in a vacuum.

And if I take what a person says as neither the truth nor a lie I am not judging the person or the action.

I remain neutral and can wait to see if what that person said was true or not.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
Click to expand...

Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
Click to expand...

And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
Click to expand...

No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
Click to expand...

I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
Click to expand...

That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
Click to expand...

That's still a rationalization.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
Click to expand...

No it is not.

When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
Click to expand...

Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.  

You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
Click to expand...

And who are you to determine what my reality is?

And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.

I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.

What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.

So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
Click to expand...

An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
Click to expand...


You have no way of objectively defining my reality.

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
Click to expand...

Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
Click to expand...

You are not objective.

I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.

So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
Click to expand...

 I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
Click to expand...




ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
Click to expand...

So not only do you not live in accordance to your own person values you are happy to be known as disingenuous.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not only do you not live in accordance to your own person values you are happy to be known as disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.  It's my gift to you.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not only do you not live in accordance to your own person values you are happy to be known as disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.  It's my gift to you.
Click to expand...

I don't accept gifts from disingenuous people


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not only do you not live in accordance to your own person values you are happy to be known as disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.  It's my gift to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't accept gifts from disingenuous people
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.


----------



## Blues Man

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not only do you not live in accordance to your own person values you are happy to be known as disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.  It's my gift to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't accept gifts from disingenuous people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.
Click to expand...

As if you have plaything to do with my peace.  You don't.


----------



## ding

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to.  So I rationalize that belief because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I didn't say it was OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make a lot of lame excuses which is just a type of rationalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it quite ironic that you can have reasons that aren't rationalizations but I can't.
> 
> That's pretty hypocritical behavior, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who is consciously choosing to break your own code of what is right and wrong so every  time you do something you think is wrong you have to rationalize it.
> 
> Or if you are unconsciously choosing to do things you think are wrong you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't have to rationalize the behaviors that are in line with my personal beliefs.
> 
> I've already admitted that I do not trust people even if I don't have a reason not to*. ** So I rationalize that belie*f because I want to believe that most people are basically decent but I have a hard time getting over my past and still am a very distrustful person.
> 
> The way I get around this undesirable belief is that I don't ever ask anyone for anything because then I never have to trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit that I don't always meet the standard but that does not negate the standard.  But choosing to do wrong and admitting that wrong was done is not a rationalization.  Choosing to do wrong and denying wrong was done is a rationalization.
> 
> You literally just rationalized why it's OK for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i said I rationalized in my post but I never said it was OK did I?
> 
> I said I work around that by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them by doing that I do not have to trust them.  I do this so I can be neither trusting nor distrusting.  That way of dealing with people removes the need to rationalize my distrust because I can be completely neutral in my dealings with people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some rationalizations are OK, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about rationalizations which are untrue.  In your post you rationalized why it is OK for you to be distrustful of others.  Of course that lack of trust is based upon your biases which are preventing you from seeing reality.  And for the record you are still rationalizing why it's ok for you to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And i also told you how I changed my perception so I no longer have to rationalize my distrustful nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What you told me was that you work around your distrust by not asking people for anything or expecting anything of them so that you do not have to trust them.  That's you rationalizing that it's OK to be distrustful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work around having to rationalize my distrust by not asking or expecting anything from anyone.  By not asking anyone for anything or expecting from anyone anything I do not have to trust them so i can be completely neutral and neither trust nor distrust anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a wonderful rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Since I have stopped expecting anything from anyone I have no need to be distrustful.  This is a choice that works for me and doesn't contradict any of my own personal values so there is no need to rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> When one lives in accordance to one's own values there is no need to rationalize because there is no internal conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  You only see it that way because you are blinded from seeing reality.  You are a textbook example of the dunnng-kruger effect.
> 
> You see yourself as better than you are in terms of not making rationalizations but you literally just rationalized your distrust of others as good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who are you to determine what my reality is?
> 
> And again you are pinning your value judgments on my statements and then attributing them to me.
> 
> I never once said distrusting people was good or bad.
> 
> What I did actually say was that by not expecting or asking anything from anyone I have removed the need to trust or distrust anyone so I can remain neutral in all my interpersonal dealings.
> 
> So if I no longer have reason to distrust anyone I have no need to rationalize my distrust because it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outside observer.  Look, I don't really care what you do or believe.  Everything works for good.  I'm at peace.  I don't need to rationalize like you do.  If you want to rationalize that you aren't distrustful, that you aren't judgmental that you don't rationalize that some killing is good and just, that's your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no way of objectively defining my reality.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never once said that any killing was "good"?  And until you can find a post where I actually said that and quote it I would ask you to stop lying about what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference between being objective and subjective is bias.  As for your belief that you don't see some killing as good, that's already been addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not objective.
> 
> I don't see any killing as "good" and I never once said it was "good" to kill for any reason.
> 
> So unless you can quote me saying what you claim I say you are proving yourself once again to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you to see me that way.  Just like I couldn't be happier for you to believe you don't rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not only do you not live in accordance to your own person values you are happy to be known as disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.  It's my gift to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't accept gifts from disingenuous people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, I'm happy for you to see me anyway that gives you peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if you have plaything to do with my peace.  You don't.
Click to expand...

Get it out of your system, brother.


----------



## Mindful

Ding and the labyrinth. lol.

Must have a profound reason for it.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.


Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
Click to expand...


Took you long enough to find your way through it.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough to find your way through it.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize I was on the clock.  My bad.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough to find your way through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't realize I was on the clock.  My bad.
Click to expand...


I didn’t either.


----------



## Blues Man

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough to find your way through it.
Click to expand...

He hasn't


----------



## Mindful

Blues Man said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough to find your way through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He hasn't
Click to expand...


He tries to make his blunderings my fault.


----------



## Blues Man

Mindful said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough to find your way through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He hasn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He tries to make his blunderings my fault.
Click to expand...

That's his signature move.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.
> 
> Must have a profound reason for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process.  I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough to find your way through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't realize I was on the clock.  My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t either.
Click to expand...

Your comment that it took me long enough to find my way through it implies otherwise.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> implies otherwise.


How many times have you used that vague expression?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> implies otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you used that vague expression?
Click to expand...

It's only vague to you because you left out the rest of the conversation, my dear.  See?



Mindful said:


> Ding and the labyrinth. lol.





ding said:


> Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. I can see why that might seem like a labyrinth to you.





Mindful said:


> Took you long enough to find your way through it.





ding said:


> I didn't realize I was on the clock. My bad.





Mindful said:


> I didn’t either.





ding said:


> Your comment that it took me long enough to find my way through it implies otherwise.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> It's only vague to you because you left out the rest of the conversation, my dear. See?



See what?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only vague to you because you left out the rest of the conversation, my dear. See?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what?
Click to expand...

Your obtuseness.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Your obtuseness.



That would be you.

Personified.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
Click to expand...

Says the person who couldn't wouldn't follow the conversation.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
Click to expand...

It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
Click to expand...


In to what?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
Click to expand...

Your obtuseness.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
Click to expand...


How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
Click to expand...

It has always been determined by you, my dear.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
Click to expand...


Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
Click to expand...

Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
Click to expand...


You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
Click to expand...

One needs to to deal with you.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
Click to expand...


You’re not dealing very well.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
Click to expand...

You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
Click to expand...


And I was selective about that observation.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
Click to expand...

I don't see where you were.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
Click to expand...


Of course you wouldn’t.

Because you are deliberately awkward.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.  

But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.
> 
> But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.
Click to expand...


And you said _l _was exhausting?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.
> 
> But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you said _l _was exhausting?
Click to expand...

You are indeed.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.
> 
> But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you said _l _was exhausting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are indeed.
Click to expand...


No. You are.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.
> 
> But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you said _l _was exhausting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You are.
Click to expand...

Sometimes


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.
> 
> But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you said _l _was exhausting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes
Click to expand...


Stop that. It drives me mad.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Personified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's kind of sad that you desire these conversations to devolve into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is this whatever it is going to go on for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been determine by you, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t you take responsibility for _anything _in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every day.  What is it that you believe I am not taking responsibility for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve got some stamina. I’ll say that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not dealing very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already acknowledged my stamina, silly goose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was selective about that observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn’t.
> 
> Because you are deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I'm awkward but I don't think deliberately so.
> 
> But I didn't see what you were being selective about because you didn't qualify what you were being selective about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you said _l _was exhausting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop that. It drives me mad.
Click to expand...

Good


----------



## LA RAM FAN

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Cognitive Dissonance like.....
> the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
> Trump colluded with the Russians?
> Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
> late ballots are legitimate?
> man made global warming?


so very true,you nailed it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Blues Man said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a powerful human trait.
> 
> We all do it.
> 
> It's a way to reinforce our belief system when confronted with information that contradicts our worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that but why do we not want to live in accordance with our beliefs so we don't subject ourselves to it?
Click to expand...

that is what toto and half the rest of Americans experience when it comes to Trummpt,the virus and 9/11 being an inside job.


----------



## Muhammed

Blues Man said:


> I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.
> 
> Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else.  When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy.  Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom.  I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them.  Both of them have helped to live an examined life.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> Let's start with a working definition then some examples.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> _*Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.*_
> 
> It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.
> 
> People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support.  This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.
> 
> One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.
> 
> Example:
> 
> A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades.  A man with his child witness the event and call the cops.  The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty.  The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child.  Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive.  But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.
> 
> and one more
> 
> The sour grapes phenomenon.  This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.
> 
> I think we all see people do this every day.
> 
> Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash?  Does it bother people as much as it should?  Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?
> 
> If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?


I think one of the most hilarious recent examples of mass cognitive dissonance came from those believe the Washington "Jimmy's World" Post, which claimed that Trump was lying every time he said we were building a new southern border wall while at the same time claiming that people were cutting through the wall with reciprocating saws. 

Cognitive dissonance is a common symptom of TDS.


----------

