On Jul 31, 7:22 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:49:10 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> [..]
> >> I have said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
> >> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
> >> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
> >> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.
>
> >Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
> >don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
> >as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
> >explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights. And he also
> >thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
> >you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture.
>
> That's correct, and Jon has tackled him before on this
> issue with,
>
> "Rights trump interests, if you believe in rights at all.
> In fact, if you are trying to bend "right" as you are
> trying, then you deserve all the grief "aras" will give
> you over where you draw the line.
>

But Jon draws the line somewhere too. One of his favourite anti-AR
philosophers is Tibor Machan, a libertarian who maintains that
nonhuman animals have no rights. However, even Tibor Machan agrees
that we may forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a
cat. I'm sure Jon would concede this point too. And if you believe
that, then you may as well say that the cat has an enforceable right
not to be harmed in that way. Everyone draws the line somewhere. Jon's
trying to escape the charge of hypocrisy by refusing to grant nonhuman
animals any entitlement to any sort of consideration at all, but no-
one goes to this extreme any more than anyone goes to the extreme of
boycotting all commercial agriculture. Which is why all this nonsense
about "if you draw the line anywhere at all, and you don't stop
supporting commercial agriculture, then you're a hypocrite" is so
silly.


> Take your example of abuse of animals. If you
> interpret an anti-abuse law that states you are not
> permitted to beat your pets as the codification of
> some right, then what is the right? It clearly isn't the
> specific wording of the law itself. It has to be some
> broader and much less specific right, the respect of
> which has taken this particular form. Is it the right
> not to be capriciously - i.e., unnecessarily - harmed
> by humans? If that's it, then you have just
> acknowledged that humans DO NOT have the right
> to raise animals for food, because that harm is clearly
> not necessary from a nutritional standpoint."
> Jonathan Ball to Dutch 2003-09-14http://tinyurl.com/3x2h4c
>

So Ball is opposed to laws preventing abuse of pets, is he? It just
goes to show that his position is basically self-refuting.

> >This is a crucial part of his case that I am a hypocrite.
> >So this disagreement of yours with him is quite important.
>
> I agree that it is, so it's no surprise to see Jon trying
> to insist that Dutch doesn't believe in animal rights.
>
> >If you are right, then he has no case
> >that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.
>
> True, but he won't.

Ah well, some things never change.