Obama's Anti-Speciesists In Charge

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
How is it that seemingly normal folks have endorsed, voted for lunatics? Animals...the same as human beings????
Ecologists have warned that the consideration that we show to different species often depends on how cute we find them, or how aesthetically pleasing. Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation | ResearchGate






1. Recall the old joke: “My family had a petting zoo for folks who like animals, and a heavy petting zoo for folks who REALLY like animals.” Not quite so funny is that Obama-selected Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer wrote a book called “Animal Liberation,” considered to be the founder of the animal rights movement. Animal Liberation at 30 by Peter Singer | The New York Review of Books

a. “…despite obvious differences between humans and nonhuman animals, we share with them a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us, have interests. If we ignore or discount their interests, simply on the grounds that they are not members of our species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists who think that those who belong to their race or sex have superior moral status, simply in virtue of their race or sex, and irrespective of other characteristics or qualities.” Singer, work cited.

2. But Singer goes a good deal further, encouraging bestiality, having sex with animals: “bestiality…ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings.”
Now, here I’d like all to consider the connection of this view to all Leftist doctrines: neo-Marxism is an avowed enemy of Judeo-Christian tradition. If unable to see the connections here, consider what Singer says here: “The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God.”
Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer

a. Singer, part of the Obama administration, is rife with the lunacy of all Leftism. He states that, as racism is unjustifiable, so, then, is speciesism.






3. Understanding the above also explains why the theory of evolution is so essential to Leftism. If Leftists can prove to the population that, contrary to religious doctrine, we are just another species in the biosphere, then they can be convinced that we need not treat other people any differently than any animals.

4. John Holdren- did I mention Obama picked him to be ‘Science Czar’?-well, check this out:
“John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much.
Ehrlich, Ehrlich, and Holdren, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/EHLRICH1.PDF
This is what an Obama vote empowered. Lunatics.






5. Notice the pattern? Note how neatly this folds into environmentalism: Environmentalists view mankind as a virus, a disease that must be eradicated. In 2011, the wife of John Holdren’s pal Paul Ehrlich wrote a piece in the LATimes, comparing humanity to cancer: “Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.”
Overpopulation: Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society - Los Angeles Times

6. Singer, Holdren, are hardly the only maniacs in high office. Cass Sundstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, wrote that animals should be given legal standing and could sue humans. The lunatics are running the asylum….and they’ve even elected another lunatic to be President.




The Left works tirelessly to shatter Judeo-Christian traditions.
Animals, the same rights as people?
You don’t have to be much of an artist to know where to draw the line.
 
The left and populaton control, I actually think they believe animal life is more importanat than human life


Many more seats would be open on the metro if some liberal environmentalists had their way. Left-leaning politicians, pundits and activists have often encouraged population control, for what they say is the solution to climate change and other planetary problems. In a recent interview with StarTalk Radio host Neil deGrasse Tyson, HBO Real Time host Bill Maher offered his suggestion.
"The planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

Maher isn’t alone in his extreme view. Here are some other like-minded personalities who think we need to control the number of people.

Canadian environmental activist Paul Watson:

“We need to radically and intelligently reduce human population to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.”

New York Time's Columnist Thomas Friedman:

“Population growth and global warming push up food prices, which lead to political instability, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, and so on in a vicious circle.”

University of Texas at Austin biology professor Eric R. Pianka:

“I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

Michael Fox, former vice-president of The Humane Society of the United States wrote:

"Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth."

Everyone’s favorite environmentalist, Al Gore:

"One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children they have, the spacing of the children.

Bill Maher Touts Population Control, Claims 'We Need to Promote Death' - Townhall.com Staff
 
Last edited:

...People take Bill seriously? :lol:

Anyway, back to the OP, while that's pretty crazy, wanting something and getting it are not the same thing. So Obama has a few crazies. Bush had Karl Rove. What's the difference between a leftyloon and a rightyloon other than a D or and R next to their name?

We need to get people like that out of government entirely. Replace them with more sensible people.
 
Ah, Peter Singer, a continual font of out of context quotes for Wing-nuts to go Wing-nutty on...

Four lunatics: Singer, Holdren, Sunstein, Obama.
But...if you feel left out....add your name.

None respect human life.


"...out of context quotes..."
I notice that you failed to provide the suggested context.
Must mean that I've framed the debate perfectly.
 

...People take Bill seriously? :lol:

Anyway, back to the OP, while that's pretty crazy, wanting something and getting it are not the same thing. So Obama has a few crazies. Bush had Karl Rove. What's the difference between a leftyloon and a rightyloon other than a D or and R next to their name?

We need to get people like that out of government entirely. Replace them with more sensible people.

"Bush had Karl Rove. What's the difference between a leftyloon and a rightyloon other than a D or and R next to their name?"

What a juvenile argument.

Can you provide examples of Rove positing effluvia comparable to the OP?

No?

Well, then back to the dumb row.
 
"Bush had Karl Rove. What's the difference between a leftyloon and a rightyloon other than a D or and R next to their name?"

What a juvenile argument.

Can you provide examples of Rove positing effluvia comparable to the OP?

No?

Well, then back to the dumb row.

Woah, hold on there now, I never said that the people you quoted and Rove are one and the same.

I'm just pointing out that they're both crazy. Just look at Rove's meltdown during the election for proof of that. Or take a look at the rather insane lengths he went to try and get Mittens elected.

They're both crazy. Liberals can defend their guys all they want, but it won't wash off the crazy that these people have.
 
"Bush had Karl Rove. What's the difference between a leftyloon and a rightyloon other than a D or and R next to their name?"

What a juvenile argument.

Can you provide examples of Rove positing effluvia comparable to the OP?

No?

Well, then back to the dumb row.

Woah, hold on there now, I never said that the people you quoted and Rove are one and the same.

I'm just pointing out that they're both crazy. Just look at Rove's meltdown during the election for proof of that. Or take a look at the rather insane lengths he went to try and get Mittens elected.

They're both crazy. Liberals can defend their guys all they want, but it won't wash off the crazy that these people have.

1. "Woah, hold on there now, I never said that the people you quoted and Rove are one and the same."
You created a post that reeks of equvalence.......
I'm trying to hold back...but it's just sttooooo .....sssstttttoooop....

...inane.

2. To criticize what a political analyst does for a living, and has done successfully for years, and say that compares with beliefs such as

...endorsing bestiality....

....mass sterilization of populations.....


...beliefs that animals should have the right to sue human beings.....


.....and refusing to allow doctors to give medical aid to infants born as a result of a poorly performed abortion.....


What the heck is wrong with you???


You must have been in the same emergency room with Michael Sauer, and for the same reason.
 
Ah, Peter Singer, a continual font of out of context quotes for Wing-nuts to go Wing-nutty on...

Four lunatics: Singer, Holdren, Sunstein, Obama.
But...if you feel left out....add your name.

None respect human life.


"...out of context quotes..."
I notice that you failed to provide the suggested context.
Must mean that I've framed the debate perfectly.

No, not really.. but whenever a RWer goes nuts about Singer, it's usually something they take out of context..
 
Ah, Peter Singer, a continual font of out of context quotes for Wing-nuts to go Wing-nutty on...

Four lunatics: Singer, Holdren, Sunstein, Obama.
But...if you feel left out....add your name.

None respect human life.


"...out of context quotes..."
I notice that you failed to provide the suggested context.
Must mean that I've framed the debate perfectly.

You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life. He merely correctly asserts that there is no rational justification for speciesism. Try to actually know what you are talking about as opposed to just being polemical to get attention.
 
Last edited:
Ah, Peter Singer, a continual font of out of context quotes for Wing-nuts to go Wing-nutty on...

Four lunatics: Singer, Holdren, Sunstein, Obama.
But...if you feel left out....add your name.

None respect human life.


"...out of context quotes..."
I notice that you failed to provide the suggested context.
Must mean that I've framed the debate perfectly.

You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life. He merely correctly asserts that there is no rational justification for speciesism. Try to actually know what you are talking about as opposed to just being polemical to get attention.


"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."

"Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."



Based on your posts…stick to cow tipping.
 
Judean/Christian mythology also includes the belief that God says that life is sacred yet killed many in his moral vengance. Did the children of Egypt deserve to die to get a point over from God. Surely a parly would have sufficed.
 
Four lunatics: Singer, Holdren, Sunstein, Obama.
But...if you feel left out....add your name.

None respect human life.


"...out of context quotes..."
I notice that you failed to provide the suggested context.
Must mean that I've framed the debate perfectly.

You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life. He merely correctly asserts that there is no rational justification for speciesism. Try to actually know what you are talking about as opposed to just being polemical to get attention.


"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."

"Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."



Based on your posts…stick to cow tipping.

Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.

I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life. This is just a reactionary viewpoint because it is different from yours, and you like to judge others, yet have not demonstrated perfection, in fact you are far from in having faith in the war god Yahweh, who, if we are to take the bible literally, has committed far worse. Singer merely assesses suffering, and from a Utilitarian standpoint, tries to lessen it. He keeps his reasoning consistent across all situations, without reference to the arbitrary whims of a god who can't keep his story straight from one publication to the next. Some find this uncomfortable, as you seem to, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have value on human life, nor does using this specific part of his beliefs in an attempt at slandering him mean that animals have any less value than human life. I want to make sure that this is not your conclusion as a result if singers views or anyone elses, because it would be a classic ad hominem. It is speciesism views such as yours that allow and would defend factory farming, an institution of torture for billions of animals a year, who's suffering is completely discounted because "Peter Singer doesn't value human life." WHA!!! Get over yourself.

If your interested in sidestepping this ad hominem fallacy you seem to be engaging in, try confronting the animal abuses yourself. You present yourself as one interested in truth, here it is. The uncomfortable, inconvenient truth in all of its glory. Follow this link and watch "Earthlings" and witness the effects if speciesism mentalities, then you might actually know something about this topic you judge others for.

www.earthlings.com

Its free, so no excuses. Or, just search it on YouTube. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life. He merely correctly asserts that there is no rational justification for speciesism. Try to actually know what you are talking about as opposed to just being polemical to get attention.


"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."

"Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."



Based on your posts…stick to cow tipping.

Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.

I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life. This is just a reactionary viewpoint because it is different from yours, and you like to judge others, yet have not demonstrated perfection, in fact you are far from in having faith in the war god Yahweh, who, if we are to take the bible literally, has committed far worse. Singer merely assesses suffering, and from a Utilitarian standpoint, tries to lessen it. He keeps his reasoning consistent across all situations, without reference to the arbitrary whims of a god who can't keep his story straight from one publication to the next. Some find this uncomfortable, as you seem to, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have value on human life, nor does using this specific part of his beliefs in an attempt at slandering him mean that animals have any less value than human life. I want to make sure that this is not your conclusion as a result if singers views or anyone elses, because it would be a classic ad hominem. It is speciesism views such as yours that allow and would defend factory farming, an institution of torture for billions of animals a year, who's suffering is completely discounted because "Peter Singer doesn't value human life." WHA!!! Get over yourself.

If your interested in sidestepping this ad hominem fallacy you seem to be engaging in, try confronting the animal abuses yourself. You present yourself as one interested in truth, here it is. The uncomfortable, inconvenient truth in all of its glory. Follow this link and watch "Earthlings" and witness the effects if speciesism mentalities, then you might actually know something about this topic you judge others for.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

Its free, so no excuses. Or, just search it on YouTube. Good luck.


1. "Your petty insults are getting boring."
Don’t make me go Lucca Brasi on ya.’
....or break out Fat Man and Little Boy!


2. Reality isn't your strong suit, huh?
"It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. "

This, after you said "You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."


And I nailed you with ""Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.


You don't even realize what a fool you've identified yourself to be.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel!



3. "...a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do,"

Your 'check brain' light just came on.


4."I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life."

Whew! Good thing he didn't get a shot at you, huh?
Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.


5. This has to be the best one yet: Singer says he'll decide who lives and who gets put to death.....and....ready? you say:
................." Some find this uncomfortable."

You're such a fruitcake you must have raisins for eyes.



6. "...yet have not demonstrated perfection,..."
WHAT!!!
Now you've gone too far!!


7. "During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”
Singer also teaches that there can be moral justification for killing the elderly."
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries



You are truly the poster child for the Progressive education system.
 
"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."

"Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



"You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."



Based on your posts…stick to cow tipping.

Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.

I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life. This is just a reactionary viewpoint because it is different from yours, and you like to judge others, yet have not demonstrated perfection, in fact you are far from in having faith in the war god Yahweh, who, if we are to take the bible literally, has committed far worse. Singer merely assesses suffering, and from a Utilitarian standpoint, tries to lessen it. He keeps his reasoning consistent across all situations, without reference to the arbitrary whims of a god who can't keep his story straight from one publication to the next. Some find this uncomfortable, as you seem to, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have value on human life, nor does using this specific part of his beliefs in an attempt at slandering him mean that animals have any less value than human life. I want to make sure that this is not your conclusion as a result if singers views or anyone elses, because it would be a classic ad hominem. It is speciesism views such as yours that allow and would defend factory farming, an institution of torture for billions of animals a year, who's suffering is completely discounted because "Peter Singer doesn't value human life." WHA!!! Get over yourself.

If your interested in sidestepping this ad hominem fallacy you seem to be engaging in, try confronting the animal abuses yourself. You present yourself as one interested in truth, here it is. The uncomfortable, inconvenient truth in all of its glory. Follow this link and watch "Earthlings" and witness the effects if speciesism mentalities, then you might actually know something about this topic you judge others for.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

Its free, so no excuses. Or, just search it on YouTube. Good luck.


1. "Your petty insults are getting boring."
Don’t make me go Lucca Brasi on ya.’
....or break out Fat Man and Little Boy!


2. Reality isn't your strong suit, huh?
"It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. "

This, after you said "You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."


And I nailed you with ""Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.


You don't even realize what a fool you've identified yourself to be.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel!



3. "...a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do,"

Your 'check brain' light just came on.


4."I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life."

Whew! Good thing he didn't get a shot at you, huh?
Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.


5. This has to be the best one yet: Singer says he'll decide who lives and who gets put to death.....and....ready? you say:
................." Some find this uncomfortable."

You're such a fruitcake you must have raisins for eyes.



6. "...yet have not demonstrated perfection,..."
WHAT!!!
Now you've gone too far!!


7. "During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”
Singer also teaches that there can be moral justification for killing the elderly."
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries



You are truly the poster child for the Progressive education system.

You are not worth debating, since it is clear that you are merely polemical, like that **** Ann Coulter, and not actually interesting in honest debate, which is fine, but I hope arent under the delusion that your intentions arent completely transparent. You just like the sound of your own voice, so to speak, and seem to think that posting something twice makes it more impactful, and I find it hilarious that you needed to actually say "I really nailed you." Ummm... no you didnt. i am well aware of Singers views, and explained their rationally deduced and consistent derivations, which is more than can be said of your faith in a mystical being, which by definition, is irrational. Regardless, I had addressed that part of this post already, and this is your response? Like I said, you don't want to argue. You simply cover your shit with a nice pretty bow and adorn it with fancy words and cute insults, but it doesn't change how shitty your argument is. So, instead of actually addressing refutations, you are forced to throw back insults, or repeat what you already said. ill say it again, you are not worth debating. However, witnessing such swollen pride and self-righteousness at your level is novel and thus, entertaining. For this reason, and the utter rage your ignorance incites, I will continue to call you on your bullshit. Go read some more Ann Coulter so you know what to say and how to say it.
 
Btw, I'm guessing you didn't watch Earthlings because you are too scared of finding out that the way animals are treated is in fact wrong. Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals, and until you can demonstrate this rationally without bias, it's just another biased, speciesist contention. How hypocritical that you attack Peters more extreme views yet don't support your own speciesist contentions. Looks like you are just trying to debase his character so as to make speciesism viable, this of course being an ad hominem fallacy. Try not to do this? I don't know.
 
Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.

I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life. This is just a reactionary viewpoint because it is different from yours, and you like to judge others, yet have not demonstrated perfection, in fact you are far from in having faith in the war god Yahweh, who, if we are to take the bible literally, has committed far worse. Singer merely assesses suffering, and from a Utilitarian standpoint, tries to lessen it. He keeps his reasoning consistent across all situations, without reference to the arbitrary whims of a god who can't keep his story straight from one publication to the next. Some find this uncomfortable, as you seem to, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have value on human life, nor does using this specific part of his beliefs in an attempt at slandering him mean that animals have any less value than human life. I want to make sure that this is not your conclusion as a result if singers views or anyone elses, because it would be a classic ad hominem. It is speciesism views such as yours that allow and would defend factory farming, an institution of torture for billions of animals a year, who's suffering is completely discounted because "Peter Singer doesn't value human life." WHA!!! Get over yourself.

If your interested in sidestepping this ad hominem fallacy you seem to be engaging in, try confronting the animal abuses yourself. You present yourself as one interested in truth, here it is. The uncomfortable, inconvenient truth in all of its glory. Follow this link and watch "Earthlings" and witness the effects if speciesism mentalities, then you might actually know something about this topic you judge others for.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

Its free, so no excuses. Or, just search it on YouTube. Good luck.


1. "Your petty insults are getting boring."
Don’t make me go Lucca Brasi on ya.’
....or break out Fat Man and Little Boy!


2. Reality isn't your strong suit, huh?
"It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. "

This, after you said "You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life."


And I nailed you with ""Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.


You don't even realize what a fool you've identified yourself to be.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel!



3. "...a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do,"

Your 'check brain' light just came on.


4."I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life."

Whew! Good thing he didn't get a shot at you, huh?
Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.


5. This has to be the best one yet: Singer says he'll decide who lives and who gets put to death.....and....ready? you say:
................." Some find this uncomfortable."

You're such a fruitcake you must have raisins for eyes.



6. "...yet have not demonstrated perfection,..."
WHAT!!!
Now you've gone too far!!


7. "During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”
Singer also teaches that there can be moral justification for killing the elderly."
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries



You are truly the poster child for the Progressive education system.

You are not worth debating, since it is clear that you are merely polemical, like that **** Ann Coulter, and not actually interesting in honest debate, which is fine, but I hope arent under the delusion that your intentions arent completely transparent. You just like the sound of your own voice, so to speak, and seem to think that posting something twice makes it more impactful, and I find it hilarious that you needed to actually say "I really nailed you." Ummm... no you didnt. i am well aware of Singers views, and explained their rationally deduced and consistent derivations, which is more than can be said of your faith in a mystical being, which by definition, is irrational. Regardless, I had addressed that part of this post already, and this is your response? Like I said, you don't want to argue. You simply cover your shit with a nice pretty bow and adorn it with fancy words and cute insults, but it doesn't change how shitty your argument is. So, instead of actually addressing refutations, you are forced to throw back insults, or repeat what you already said. ill say it again, you are not worth debating. However, witnessing such swollen pride and self-righteousness at your level is novel and thus, entertaining. For this reason, and the utter rage your ignorance incites, I will continue to call you on your bullshit. Go read some more Ann Coulter so you know what to say and how to say it.



Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
I can’t read another on of your posts without an epidural…

Is it possible that you don't realize that you're a moron?



Coach Sandusky will get a job on Sesame Street before you ‘get smart’
 
Btw, I'm guessing you didn't watch Earthlings because you are too scared of finding out that the way animals are treated is in fact wrong. Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals, and until you can demonstrate this rationally without bias, it's just another biased, speciesist contention. How hypocritical that you attack Peters more extreme views yet don't support your own speciesist contentions. Looks like you are just trying to debase his character so as to make speciesism viable, this of course being an ad hominem fallacy. Try not to do this? I don't know.




"Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals..."

In your case....true.
 
Cuss words threaten your sensibilities. Direct confrontation of your erroneous and fallacious points cause you to respond with insult because you can't honestly reflect on your own position. There is a word for this. its called being a Charlatan, and in your case, tack on immaturity. Not a flattering combination, but potent for spewing nonsense, as you do. Both you and Coulter fit this characterization nicely, although as ripe as you with confirmation bias, youll probably take that as a complement.

I've already pointed out that the OP is basically one big ad hominem fallacy, either that, or you haven't really reached any actual conclusions, but simply use these posts to air your personal laundry. You might want to go study philosophy in order to learn how to escape the problem of solipsism, which you seem to be trapped in, manifesting itself as pathological narcissism. Stop thinking your smarter than all liberals. You are not. Yours is an easily defensible position, because you stick to the party line. You mistake this ease as a testament to your positions veracity. That's a fallacy. It's the opposite, that which is easily arrived at is probably wrong. The best example of probably god, but that is an aside.

Why do I bother dealing with your putrid ignorance? Because I believe it is people like you whose this world a worse place, spewing poison and logical fallacy under the guise of slick rhetoric to feed your own ego. It is this kind of filth that polluted the airwaves and tv screens, and idiots like you actually see it as admirable. I'm not sure what went wrong in your development, but perhaps some introspection might be in order.

I await your petty insults.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top