There are various methods that people use to minimize the moral and political substance of the argument for animal rights. The vegan’s motive is painted as psychological: “You just love dogs and cats don’t you?” This argument tries to deflect away from the logic and appeal to consistency that ethical veganism is predicated upon.

Another method addresses itself to this appeal to consistency: “So, you must be perfect then?” Here’s a quick thought.

I don’t have to be consistent to level a criticism against an illogical or poorly reasoned argument: the reasoning remains valid (e.g. you are inconsistent if you believe both X and Y) even if I, myself, am a complete hypocrite. Nor do I have to be “perfect” (whatever that means), for the same reason.

This criticism is ad hominem, in other words, because it is directed at me, not the logic of my criticism of your reasoning. I’ll restate: You have to prove that my criticism of your reasoning is flawed, not that I am a bastard or whatever.