Cognitive Dissonance

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, cognitive dissonance is: "A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat."

If cognitive dissonance is a condition of being opposed to the slaughter of other animals and eating their flesh, then is it not also cognitive dissonance to be opposed to the slaughter of other animals and to support new weapons for slaughtering other animals, even if those weapons are assumed to be painless? And is it not also cognitive dissonance to oppose the exploitation of other animals and still use, buy, sell, or otherwise deal in the results of other animals' exploitation? And if that is cognitive dissonance, is it not also cognitive dissonance to oppose the exploitation of other animals and to advocate new weapons for exploiting other animals, even if those weapons are assumed to be less painful?

If so, then cognitive dissonance might help explain why so many nonhuman animal advocates refuse to question the incompatibility of such beliefs and actions; to do so would invite internal discomfort and anxiety. After all, believing it is wrong to slaughter other animals is different than believing other animals should be slaughtered without pain. The latter is incompatible with the former. Likewise, believing it is wrong to exploit other animals and using, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in the results of their exploitation is incompatible. Same goes for believing it is wrong to exploit other animals and believing other animals should be exploited less painfully.