At 11:52 -0500 2/18/01, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>At 7:49am +0000 2/18/01, zeb haradon wrote:
>>I think you're assuming that these people think about their beliefs
>>in a logical way and try to resolve the inconsitencies they find.
>>That would be an incorrect assumption. A lot of animal rights
>>people speak favorably of having "animal companions".
>
>Actually, you are right. I find that almost all belief systems are
>totally consistent within themselves. While they may be based on
>unfounded assumptions or erroneous facts, most people really think
>consistently. I know this is a minority view, especially on this
>list.
I hope Zeb corrects me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's quite
what he's saying. I think that he's saying that PETA can have
logical inconsistencies because its members don't even attempt to
resolve them. To assume that they'll alter their belief system in
order to conform to logic is expecting too much.
My experience with members of groups like PETA is that they have this
mental disconnect at the point where logic might conflict with their
dogma. They'll use logic wherever they can to prove their points,
but the moment that logic and dogma are irreconcilable, the dogma
wins.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:45 MDT