Peter Singer elaborates on the zoophilia article and boy did this one give me whiplash.
Peter Singer elaborates on the zoophilia article and boy did this one give me whiplash.
Journal of Controversial Ideas
This sounds like the name of a publication that posts articles promoting race science and Holocaust denial
You asked me whether it is my view
Yes, it absolutely is his view. Nobody who didn't think that would answer the question in such a way. He's saying yes, but he's too much of a coward to come right out and say it.
(Cw: transphobia [big surprise])
Let's have a look at the first issue!
Are women 'adult human females'
Is it ever appropriate to wear blackface?
"Defending the defense of 'dumb ideas' on campus"Why would anyone with a finite lifespan waste their time on reading this dreck, much less writing it?
I'm now convinced he wrote the article.
These anti-zoophilia liberals are trying to CANCEL this HERO
I do not like the final paragraph. I don't like most of this, but that final paragraph was written with one hand, and that is what I do not like about it.
That's his secret. He's always writing his takes one-handed.
i looked up the journal and...
Black Pete, King Balthasar, and the New Orleans Zulus: Can Black Make-Up Traditions Ever Be Justified?
In this article, I challenge the widely held view that black make-up traditions are categorically wrong.
Why Shouldn’t Race Be a Costume?―A (Qualified) Defense of Wearing Cross-Racial Make-Up During Halloween
This article challenges the view that wearing cross-racial make-up on such occasions as part of personal costumes—as opposed to costumes that are integral to specific cultural traditions, such as the New Orleans Zulu parade—is always wrong.
Philosophical Reflections on “the Filthiest, Dirtiest, Nastiest Word in the English Language”1
When, if ever, is it morally permissible to utter the word “joker”? (NB: The word “joker” is a placeholder for another word, the mere utterance of which certain people find unsettling or offensive. See the prolegomenon of this article for an explanation.)
While the general rule of thumb is that you should never take professional philosophers very seriously, as their income always is derivative entirely from their closeness to powerful patrons (with exceptions like Socrates who was supposedly a stone mason when not being annoying in public, see the existential comics bit about professional philosophers being less serious about their craft than professional bodybuilders), Peter Singer is someone who you should absolutely not take seriously because all of his work is deeply tied into both the Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation.
Especially if you actually (unlike most people who skim the cliff's notes, hear it second-hand or just read the title) read his works, particularly his seminal piece in famines, you will realize that all that he ever argues for is utilitarianism, but he has no real qualms around how that maximum utility is achieved (though heaven forbid you mention the achievements of communism), with his personal belief in maximum utility being achieved not by actual wealth redistribution (though he spends the majority of his paper talking about it), but instead (as he slips in right at the end) population control.
That's right. The liberal academic darling of why it is good to give away your money specifically believes that that money shouldn't be re-distributed or that maybe the real value is being exploited, no it's that in order for less poor people to starve, there needs to be less poor people. Liberal academics everyone! Spending 25 pages to only say one sentence!
Peter Singer is someone who you should absolutely not take seriously because all of his work is deeply tied into both the Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation.
Truly his nonsense about efficient utilitarianism was made in a Bill Gates lab. I dont even need a direct connection to Gates to believe it because it is tailor made for philanthropic colonialism, developmentalism, white saviorism, and rejecting any kind of orientation toward, or responsibility for, your own immediate community (if you live in the global north).
with exceptions like Socrates who was supposedly a stone mason when not being annoying in public
I think that the story here was that he came from a family of sculptors (see Euthyphro) but that by the time he took up being a gadfly, he was an ascetic who relied on savings and alms. He is usually called a stonemason because we usually think of sculptors, especially Greek sculptors, as working with stone, but this is in large part because the wood sculptures didn't survive.
On the other hand I might be mistaken. Apparently his father helped to build the Parthenon (which is indeed stone). Now I'm trying to figure out where I got the idea of Socrates working with wood. Maybe I'm inverting the "Jesus was a carpenter" (he was actually a stonemason) thing in my head, but I think I read it in the footnotes of a Euthyphro translation or something.
I do not ever recall anyone ever claiming that he worked with wood, though it has been awhile since I read any dialogues (particularly in Greek, I don't mias that). I think there is a small portion of one of the Xenophon dialogues that goes into it abit (as Xenophon generally speaking was less interested in just using Socrates as an ideas mouthpiece than Plato).
I agree whatever his previous profession, by the time he was a public philosopher, he pretty much survived by dinners with patrons and his personal savings, but critically, and probably why he was executed, he eschewed teaching the elite's children for money (which is what Plato would end up doing) preferring to do all of his teaching either outside the city, in the forum, or while drunk at private residences for a pittance.
Edit: Most of the most famous platonic dialogues are him 'in debate' (though if he was actually having these discussions is obviously apocryphal) with the leading 'virtue' teachers who were the premier teachers of the children of Athenian elites, with Plato basically using these dialogues as a method of advertisement to the elites as why his academic style curriculum was better, basically using Socrates as a mouthpiece to point out how full of shit they were.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Singer, in particular, pisses me off for two reasons. The first reason is that people in liberal academia, particularly the humanities, reference him constantly as an example of a 'good honest utilitarian who maybe takes his conclusions abit to far' (as in he advocated for people to only make about 60,000 a year per person circa 2003). This was annoying because being lectured by tenured professors on how much I should be donating when I become a professor is a joke and most people in the world don't make 60,000 a year period, so this 'advice' is practically useless.
And the second reason is what I mentioned before, despite loudly and vocally advocating for him as a 'good person' (and liberal alternative to Marxism), they haven't actually read anything he has written, or if they have they didn't actually read it very closely. What Singer always, inevitably, advocates for is non-profit foundation work as the maximum utility (because then no one is unhappy about losing their money), which maximum ulitility conveniently always centers around whatever projects the billionaires whose tables he is eating from are funding. He isn't even a naive liberal's idea of a liberal, he's a libertarian in liberal's clothing.
When I was younger and more energetic doing my bachelors, I would literally get into shouting matches with 'know-it-all' liberal grad students who would tell me I was naive for advocating for even moderate redistribution (I have since radicalized even further much to my own chagrin), when I would tell them what they were essentially backing full-throated libertarianism with no understanding of even basic LTV by advocating for the Singer approach.
These kinds of discussions (and the potential loan debt) were what convinced me not to pursue a doctorate. If that is the level of academic honesty that is required for success, I didn't want any part of it. The sacrifice just wasn't worth it.
Canada must love him
am I missing something or did he not actually answer the question or give his opinion on the question
Virgin utilitarian: writes tl;dr papers on why fucking animals is okay aktually
Chad virtue ethicist: "Would Jesus/Socrates/Confucius/Buddha/Aurelius fuck animals? No? Then I shouldn't fuck animals."
Yup those are the only two choices.
nah im not touching this with a ten foot pole
Now imagine you are an animal that is taken good care of but also the owner does not bang you...
I’m just thinking about how easily he could’ve said he doesn’t think animals should be abused whether the abuse is sexual or not, instead of writing a paragraph of soft core zoophilia erotica.
Permanently Deleted
The most normal utilitarian
Don't pretend like a dog never made you horny.
That is by far the most unsettling usage of that emoji I have ever seen. Thanks please fuck off lol.
Well you know, there's this show called Helluva Boss, and-
Imagine a world in which we neither tortured animals to death for food or raped them for funBit Idea: A t-shirt that says "I fucking love animals" with a strategically placed transposition proofing mark.
welp, that cat won't be going back in the bag.. Now it has to live in fear of ol Peter Pumpkineater
journal of controversial ideas? no thanks i already can go browse r/askreddit
controversial ideas
r/askreddit
Not controversial among the circlejerkers.
You are missing the last line:
Which animal would you rather be?
Which is furthermore underlined in the screenshots he posts, strengthening the implication.
I'd much rather be slaughtered than fucked by Peter Singer, thank you very much.
Me protecting the dogs in my home from Peter Singer like
You know what is even more horrifying and why I cut it off where I did?
It's the euthanasia bit at the end, What the fuck after all that has you voluntarily describing how you would "gently" murders you once you are "terminally ill" which reads really fucking dark to me given the above context.
I had a super-quickie look at his Wikipedia page which goes on and on and on and on. I've seen the Hexbear posts about him but I basically ignored anything about him until now so I still know nearly nothing about him. But I would bet that if he has a pet - he has a hankering to have sex with it.
Criticism
Singer was criticised by Nathan J. Robinson, founder of Current Affairs, for comments in an op-ed defending Anna Stubblefield, a carer and professor who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault against a man with severe physical and intellectual disabilities. The op-ed questioned whether the victim was capable of giving or withholding consent, and stated that "It seems reasonable to assume that the experience was pleasurable to him; for even if he is cognitively impaired, he was capable of struggling to resist."
Robinson called the statements "outrageous" and "morally repulsive", and said that they implied that it might be permissible to rape or sexually assault disabled people.
Now I'm really wondering what skeletons are in this guy's closet.
I wish he talked like a typical person and simply said what he thinks: "Look, consent is complicated..."
[victim] didn't fight back
now where have i head that before?
You can take the creep out of Epstein's island, but you can't take Epstein's island out of the creep.
Well that was upsetting to read.
Anyhoo, I've been vegan for 8 days and counting, and not once have I wanted to fuck an animal.
Congratulations and well done! Not fucking animals is the hardest part of being vegan! But fr tho good job and if you need any recipes or anything you come to me, capiche?
Gabagool
Deranged Hexbear trolls do not miss.
this man is a wall candidate now for sure
People should have stopped taking anything this guy says seriously decades ago. Peter Singer was always a quack/charlatan. From his definition of specieisism, to being a misanthrope, his disregard of ethics, I don't know why anyone would take him seriously.
Lmao this is some v*ush-tier shit
Peter Singer needs to be cooked into a nice mushy stew
only ethical meat consumption.
yum yum
Permanently Deleted
Idk about that, but utilitarianism definitely was
Don't make me go in here, yall better not be having a struggle sesh
Pretty sure we are all unified in thinking that Peter is a fucking weirdo.
Duh, just referencing the previous article's struggle session
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Okay, now let's combine the best of both worlds. Immovable and slaughtered eventually and loving sexual contact everyday. Where do we go from here?
I don't support human euthanasia, but perhaps Singer should consider that it would be a utilitarian benefit to the rest of us for him to be gently put to sleep if he's going to keep making statements like this, and therefore choose to apply for physician-assisted suicide.
Where's the lie, folks?
I think that he published the article because he agrees with it, but I am doubtful he actually wrote it himself. Singer has a history of bad takes, but what little of his I've read is not as bad as the JCI article which rested its argument on at least one obviously unfounded assumption. (Maybe he has just fallen very far in his old age, Famine, Affluence, and Morality was fifty years ago.)
