How is advocating that someone be consistent not advocating consistency?

The word consistent doesn't appear in the post.

If I don't want Alice to do X, and my first attempt is to convince Alice with Y not to do X, what's a good second attempt?

Doing Y again? It's an option but not necessarily ideal. It might be better to do Z whether or not that's consistent with Y.

Gram Stone didn't say something about whether to change approaches or to strive to be consistent.

"Logically, there is no reason for me to be angry that I can not find my comb. This isn't a big deal."

That's not what the pitch happens to be. The word logically doesn't appear in the article above or in the actual attempt of Gram Stone. In his attempt he points at a variety of memes like CBT and NVC. He makes the stoic pitch that the only thing we control is our reaction. He talks about cost benefits considerations. He doesn't talk about logic.

Your sentence sounds much like: "Because there no logical reason I shouldn't feel angry." A pitch that's inconsistent with with CBT and NVC principles.