But just to be clear, the evolution of your conversation did not show any evidence of an inconsistency in their beliefs that would amount to cognitive dissonance? Because otherwise you would have brought that up, I assume.
I did make an assumption that if you asked them if it’s okay for a person to rape their own dog, they would have said no.
I thought that was a pretty safe assumption to make, as I personally would like to believe that being opposed to raping dogs is a shared value for humanity.
Is having cognitive dissonance somehow worse than being a dog rapist to you? I genuinely don’t understand what you might be trying to get at, here.
Accusing someone of cognitive dissonance is a way of saying you proved them wrong - you found some inconsistency in their thought they couldn’t resolve.
If instead they think that it’s ok to fuck a dog, you didn’t do that. You found someone who disagrees with you (and, I’m sure, the vast majority of people) which is not special. You should describe what you found - someone who thinks it’s ok to hurt animals - instead of accusing them of inconsistency.
It matters because disagreement doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That’s something else you’re taking on the task of convincing people of. You shouldn’t cheat by lying about their beliefs, even if you do think at least one of their beliefs is disgusting - you can just let other people conclude their beliefs are disgusting.
They’re more than welcome to reply and correct the record if they disagree with my assumption. I am very comfortable with my arguments, I think they’re very compelling and persuasive, but I appreciate the candid and constructive feedback. All the best! <3
But just to be clear, the evolution of your conversation did not show any evidence of an inconsistency in their beliefs that would amount to cognitive dissonance? Because otherwise you would have brought that up, I assume.
I did make an assumption that if you asked them if it’s okay for a person to rape their own dog, they would have said no.
I thought that was a pretty safe assumption to make, as I personally would like to believe that being opposed to raping dogs is a shared value for humanity.
Is having cognitive dissonance somehow worse than being a dog rapist to you? I genuinely don’t understand what you might be trying to get at, here.
Accusing someone of cognitive dissonance is a way of saying you proved them wrong - you found some inconsistency in their thought they couldn’t resolve.
If instead they think that it’s ok to fuck a dog, you didn’t do that. You found someone who disagrees with you (and, I’m sure, the vast majority of people) which is not special. You should describe what you found - someone who thinks it’s ok to hurt animals - instead of accusing them of inconsistency.
It matters because disagreement doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That’s something else you’re taking on the task of convincing people of. You shouldn’t cheat by lying about their beliefs, even if you do think at least one of their beliefs is disgusting - you can just let other people conclude their beliefs are disgusting.
They’re more than welcome to reply and correct the record if they disagree with my assumption. I am very comfortable with my arguments, I think they’re very compelling and persuasive, but I appreciate the candid and constructive feedback. All the best! <3
Cheers, see ya!