“We need to switch to alternative energies such as wind, solar, and tidal.
The poor are lazy …
I don’t think these fit. Regardless of whether you agree with them, they are specific assertions, not general claims about reasoning with consistently anti-epistemological effects.
Actually the poor are lazy and animal rights seem to fit to me. Animal rights were a hard sell for me, but thinking about it I had to come to the conclusion, that the bottom line “we should treat animals well” was probably either motivated by “I don’t want to eat sick food” or “Awww, cuute!”. Not by “I believe that animals in general need rights, because...” What? They react faster to stimuli than plants? They show complex behaviour? In that case, do you not kill mosquitos? Do you want rights for some fungi as well? How about programs that show complex behaviour? It seems like this was written after the bottom line.
Similarly, since we do not live in an equal world, simply saying that the poor were lazy makes sense if your motivation is to not feel guilty about not trying to help them.
Alternative energies however… I think time proved our dear OP wrong on that front. We may not need to use any one of these specifically, but we need to get away from fossil fuels and until we have fusion or solar farms in orbit, alternative energies are the longest term option. Even nuclear runs out of fuel in a relatively short amount of time.