Hypotheticals, hypocrisy and untruths

ANIMAL liberationists – people either hate 'em or love 'em. So what do you think of animal libbers? Do you think they play an important role in working to reduce cruelty to animals? [discussion]

I've always thought that web-based discussions can have a positive effect on participants and readers. Not always of course and not for every participant, but sometimes people learn valuable lessons from online discussions between people arguing different viewpoints. In fact, my own views on many issues have often changed based on discussions I've read, or been involved with online. Re-examining, evaluating and making adjustments to my beliefs is typically a pretty slow and on-going process, but well thought out viewpoints that are clearly presented in sometimes otherwise rowdy discussions have on occasion jolted me into changing my own thinking about all sorts of issues.

So I find it disappointing and discouraging to read something like this train wreck of a thread. So many lousy talking points, poorly thought out arguments and ad hominems. So little sensible discourse. Do any of the readers of such a discussion take away anything new or useful? Do the posters even think through what they are writing? A few examples:

Appeals to hypotheticals:

"Send them back to the "Ice Age" and watch them cry when they see that the ONLY way to keep warm is to skin an animal and use its hyde [sic] to keep warm."

This argumentative technique is unfortunately common and trys to "force" otherwise compassionate people into admitting that yes, under some unlikely circumstances that they'll never find themselves in, they would kill or otherwise harm other living creatures. A generic form of this goes something like... "If you were starving to death on a desert island, would you... etc etc". By utilising unlikely hypotheticals that have absolutely no bearing on the reality that most of us live in today, the user of such arguments attempts to discredit their opponents ethical stance and justify their own animal killing ways. Of course, simply pointing out that your ethical choices are shaped by the world and reality that you actually inhabit, as opposed to some unlikely fantasy world is often met with hostility, or a shift to some other argumentative technique...

Accusations of hypocrisy:

"I would like to ask this of all of the “activists”, how many of you have a pair of leather shoes or a leather belt or bag or even a purse??????"

A just cause doesn't become unjust simply because all supporters aren't practicing what they preach. Either the cause (animal liberation in this case) is just and worthwhile or it isn't. Implicit in this type of argument is the notion that if you aren't perfect then you're whole viewpoint can be dismissed - ridiculous but I imagine very convenient - simply dismissing the entire argument of the so-called hypocrite means you don't have to examine your own beliefs and actions at all.

Blatant untruths:

"The laws relating to animal treatment, are already far harsher than those laws relating to other human beings."

As far as I know, I can't confine a human for it's entire life, slaughter it and then feast on it's flesh. For non-human animals though, this practice isn't just condoned, it's actively encouraged and endorsed. Be warned though, that questioning this practice leads to idiotic discussions involving many poorly thought out arguments.