Same dude that thinks that babies that are a few weeks out of the womb are fair game.
By that logic... He must think that sexually assaulting animals is just fine and dandy too, like the Taliban....
....and its not a very big step to murdering your unborn children because they cant either and besides, it would just ruin your summer figure.
Of all the things you can say against Andrew Dice Clay...
Peter Singer is too elderly to have much value when parted out, so he might as well just off himself in the name of net happiness.
By this reasoning, you could molest a two year old as long as it wasn’t physically uncomfortable for the child.
I like playing devil’s advocate as much as anyone but Singer does it more literally than he knows.
Maybe send him to Gitmo as a boy toy for Islamic terrorists. Seems like his morals should fit right in with Islam.
"Brimstone and Treacle"
Princeton Professor Peter Singer holds multiple honorariums from the prestigious Satanical College of Demons.
A Phd. in Prevarications, as well as many multiple Masters degrees in Satanic Studies, Damnation Philosophies, and his self proclaimed specialty of expertise, Beelzebubotology... GRRR!
If it makes more people happy than unhappy, then yes.
Doing horrible things to Singer will make him sad and bring sadness to those who know and like him (as well as some others, of course), but as long as there are sufficient numbers of people who would be pleased that this sicko was assaulted, then he’d have to agree that it’s the right thing to do.
The guy needs to be institutionalized.
Then there can’t be anything wrong with a mentally disturbed person assaulting, sexually or otherwise, someone else.
Obviously, since he’s retarded.
Yes, if you give him knockout drops first so he doesn’t know what your doing. Think of all those dentists and doctors, not to mention guys having their way with passed out women, that will be set free.
WE ARE DOOMED!
From Break Point’s John Stonestreet:::::::::
http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/04/breakpoint-peter-singer-defends-abuse/
We say it often: ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. And a certain, consistent Princeton bioethicist continues to show just how true that is.
How do we know whats right? Great minds have wrestled with that question for much of history. Is it doing our duty regardless of the consequences? Is it doing whatever a virtuous person would do? Is it doing what brings the most happiness to the most people?
That last optionthe greatest good for the greatest numberis the basic premise behind an ethical theory called utilitarianism, whose main champion today is Princeton Professor Peter Singer. In his book, Practical Ethics, he presses this logic to chilling, yet consistent, conclusions, arguing, for example, that killing babies who are born disabled is not only acceptable, but may be morally necessary.
Why? Singer believes the happiness of able-bodied persons trumps the rights of those with disabilities. Such beliefs are horrifying enough in the classroom, but they rarely stay there.
Enter Rutgers ethicist Anna Stubblefield, who, in 2015, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Her victim, a thirty-year-old man with cerebral palsy, identified as D.J., has never spoken a word in his life, and is dependent on caregivers for his basic needs.
Using a controversial technique known as facilitated communication, Stubblefield claims she helped D.J. break his lifelong silence by supporting his hands as he typed on a keyboard. Eventually, D.J.s family came to believe he had the mental capacity of an adult, and even enrolled him in college courses.
Then Stubblefield made an announcement to D.J.s family that changed everything: Were in love. Believing she had received D.J.s consent via facilitated communication, the married Stubblefield consummated a romantic relationship with this disabled man. A New Jersey jury decided that the act constituted sexual assault.
In response, in a recent op-ed at the New York Times, Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan argue that Stubblefields 12-year sentence is too harsh and that D.J. was capable of more communication than the judge or jury give him credit for. But their next argument is truly horrifying.
If we assume, they write, that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent
They go on to claim that D.J. probably enjoyed the experience, so it wasnt that monstrous of a crime. In other words, because those with profound disabilities cant fully comprehend whats happening, assaulting them isnt the same as assaulting a person in possession of full mental faculties.
Now, let me be clear: This reasoning is fully consistent with Singers utilitarian ethics, which teaches that net happinessnot objective concepts like human rights, dignity, or dutyis the standard of right and wrong. And this story shows why ideas like this are so much more than academic debates.
Utilitarian reasoning justifies all numbers of atrocities, from experimenting on prisoners in order to advance medicine, to harvesting vulnerable peoples organs to help others. In fact, this logic has been used to justify eugenics and forced sterilization, and is used today to defend abortion and euthanasia.
In contrast, Christianity teaches the intrinsic and equal value of every human person, regardless of physical or mental abilities. This idea, rooted in the image of God, means that a man with disabilities whos never spoken a word is no less valuable than a university professor like Singer. And crimes against him are no less reprehensible.
Again, ideas matter. They have consequences. And bad ideas have victims. Thats why I care about this whole worldview thing, and thats why weve got to speak out against the moral reasoning of thinkers like Singer. Because the ones who will pay the highest price often cant speak for themselves.
Further Reading and Information
Peter Singer Defends Abuse: Setting Up the Victims of Bad Ideas
Utilitarianism devalues the human person and poses a real danger to the very young, the very old, and people with disabilities. But the Christian worldview holds that all are created in Gods image and therefore of infinite value. As John said, ideas matter. Its crucial that believers speak up for those who have no voice.
This caused observers to wonder who was behind the communications. The conclusion was that the facilitator subconsciously made stuff up but did not realize it was coming from the subconscious, similar to automatic writing or a widgie board. also, there were cases of kids who suddenly could write elaborate sentences with correct spelling, even though they had not been taught to read or spell
.. several parents were jailed after the facilitator helped the kid quickly spell out elaborate descriptions of physical or sexual abuse, despite the fact that there was no physical evidence.
there are a lot of ways to help these kids communicate, including boards, computers, and sign language.
This guy is pure evil.
Ol’ Pete is really one piece of work.
When was the last time that guy got any action? /sarc>
...other than his own hands? /not sarc>
Hmmm, given Singer’s criteria then we can sexually assault any liberal we find without consequence.
Some people just need a karmic curb stomping. Peter Singer is one of them.