I'll respond here with more straight-forward critical thinking.

So a lot of what you are saying is correct.

Did my response contain many different independent propositions or assumptions? Which things that I said do you consider to be 'correct' and which were incorrect? You've pretty much just repeated yourself, so it's unclear how you could have thought that anything I said was true when it when we were in disagreement, unless you've just not really processed what I said.

I should have said in my comment “when you say this, it personally makes me feel like you mean this” instead of the wording I used to refute their comment. The point I was trying to make with the understanding of humans if that maybe the humans in the video were brought up in life thinking that it’s not wrong to treat animals like that. Why not inform the humans who are mistreating animals that they are doing so instead of say for instance, saving the animals. Yes, you saved that one or few animals, but those people did not learn their lesson and will just find other animals to abuse, unless you show them what they are doing is wrong.

Are you trying to say that pointing out contradictions in someone's thinking hinders changing their behaviors that are motivated by that thinking? If so, like I asked previously, how could you possibly change someone's behaviors without contradicting them? And why would you unless you agreed with them?

It seems like you're trying to capture the idea behind the folk idea "give a man a fish, he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime", or so on. But that assumes you share the goal of wanting the man to eat, or in this case for animals not to be harmed. If you agree, how could you be offended by being contradicted?