A Major Inconsistency

  

You see, I'm pretty much a big research and science nerd. I love facts and figures. And using words like "validity" and "chi square" and "confidence level" all in the same paragraph. Mostly, I adore reading journal articles (a.k.a. those boring sources you have to use in college and make you want to stab your eyes out) and looking for where they went wrong. Did they really test what they were hoping to? What are the confounding variables? If this is a correlational study, why is their discussion rambling on about cause and effect? I like to consider myself a scientific sleuth. But most consider this trait nerdy. I'm quite okay with that. I am, however, not okay when inconsistencies arise in my own life. Such an example arose that I have been forced to write this post in hopes of getting some answers. I'm encouraging you all to join the nerd bandwagon to become a detective of sorts.

Here's the dilemma: animal killing.

Oh here she goes again, you're all thinking. Vegetarian nut job! Ok, so it has something to with vegetarianism. Mainly it has a lot to do with where we draw the lines on where death is ok and where it is not. Here's an example: I'm a vegetarian for moral reasons. I don't eat meat because animals have the same pain receptors and consequently feel pain similarly to humans. Thus, when I think of how a cow was slaughtered, I'd consider what it would feel like for me. I'm guessing it would hurt badly. Since I don't want to be injured or killed, I don't want to put that pain on anything else. This is also the reason I'm against the kill shelters or use of leather or fur or abortion. It's that whole "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" stuff. I can't get over it. The inconsistency in all of this? I willingly and enjoyably kill insects, like ants, black widows, and scorpions for their perceived and real threats they pose to the kiddos. So I'm not little miss "I love everything girl" after all. I'm a living, breathing example of hypocrisy and what I strive not to be.

But how does one remedy such an inconsistency? Do I stop killing insects? Do I just allow the ants to take over my kitchen and continually attack our whole family because all of the nice, non-hurtful deterrents fail? My scientific sleuthing has yet to discover a solution other than to make it abundantly apparent that my words and actions are incongruent.

This is the part where I ask for your skills. What are your thoughts? If you eat meat, but are against kill shelters, how do you remedy that in your mind? If you're a staunch vegetarian for moralistic reasons, but are pro abortion, how do you rectify that? What makes a cow okay to kill and eat, but not a horse or dog or cat or chimpanzee or bald eagle? Where do you draw the line between right and wrong and come to a solution that the choices you have made are sound and consistent?

Ok, this is a lot to think about. I get that. Feel free to take it all in. Comment if you'd like. Please remember to try and be as judgment free as possible. We are here to grow and learn, not to say I am right and you are wrong. I'm just curious as to how people form conclusions for themselves. That's it. Eat meat or don't. Eat a cat or don't. Kill insects but not orangutans. All I ask is that you consider the consistency of your words and actions. Maybe you'll find they parse perfectly. Maybe, like me, you find some errors and need to revise your thesis.

Let's get started!



_________________________________________________________________________________

There are new ways to connect! I've added the e-mail subscription on the top right of the page, an option to add via Friend Connect, and there's always Google+ (Minimalist Mommi) and FaceBook. Hope to see you around :)