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?
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?