3 ms·

I'm not sure why you think that's relevant. (Note - I am not OP.) Being hypocritical is an indictment at the speaker, not of the speech. The most hypocritical

I'm not sure why you think that's relevant. (Note - I am not OP.) Being hypocritical is an indictment at the speaker, not of the speech. The most hypocritical person to ever live may well be completely right about their most hypocritical belief. It's just not relevant to the the validity of the idea. So why do people constantly try to use it as a counterargument? It seems especially prevalent in these sorts of discussions, and for some reason it's often used as you did here. You have no idea if they are vegan or not, but somehow the mere suggestion that a single person might not be is seen as some kind of refutation of the importance of animal rights in general.

foragerr 5y ago
Textbook ad-hominem
theonething 5y ago
GP is make a moral judgement on what I (and many others) believe and my lifestyle. The implication is my beliefs on medical animal testing and my lifestyle of eating animals is wrong. While it's perfectly fine for GP to make this judgement, I'm not fine with them applying this standard to others while excusing themselves. Why is it wrong for me to ensure they are being consistent when making moral judgements on others? > hypocritical belief. It's just not relevant to the the validity of the idea. I disagree with your premise. GP is not merely talking about the validity of an idea, but again, is making a moral claim about what is right and wrong. In which case, hypocrisy diminishes one's right to make their moral claim. > seen as some kind of refutation of the importance of animal rights in general. Quite a straw man there. So being in favor of medical animal testing means I don't think animals rights in general are important?