There are a lot of stupid arguments going back and forth here, the sad fact is this guy supports bestiality and infanticide, if you can still give a shit about anything else he has to say after that then well... that's your caveat.
Hey everyone if u have a twitter please on the weekend of February 11th to 12th, tweet "#AnimalsJustWantFreedomSoGoVegetarian". I know veganism is the true way forward but people will accept vegetarianism more and so it's most likely to be more effective. One step at a time if necessary.
My twitter is @deanmullen12 if your tweeting it on that weekend plz contact me so I can RT ur tweets on it and u cud RT mine, exc. so together we can trend this and many can see our message :) plz share this
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@Mcnasty6w Except there are plenty of good people who haven't hurt a single person in their life. Some of them nonbelievers.
And science for the most part is used for things other than killing. You know, curing diseases, making home living easier, cleaning the environment...did you ever think of that?
@swandike ohh ok, do you have any proof for that?^^ plants dont feel pain, and if you dont want that animals suffer and at the same time you eat meat from animal farms you MAKE animals suffer more or suffer at all. BTW: Did you read his books? no ? ok STFU hes philosophie is based on suffering only because it is a other point of view of the world that your crusty old one is. admit that you dont know nothing at all about !
I think people are going insane with atheism and science. this guy is insane but I dont agree sending him death threats. That makes him look very important and waste of time. If you think eating animals is inhumane, you should not eat plants either. Because it has also been proven that plants do feel like mimosa pudica. Eat inorganic matter. And killing infants, how do you sleep at night?
@swandike Forcing a family to raise a heavily disabled child that will never be more than 4 years old mentally, how do you sleep at night? Forcing a child born with cystic fibrosis to live in pain on a respirator for all his life in a sick non-maturing body until he dies between the age of 20 to 30, how do YOU sleep at night? You're an assh*le for imposing you religious morality on those suffering, while you preach how great you think you are.
@lalaurentide a disabled child is not the only problem of the family, he is the problem of the whole society. But they deserve to live. some heavily disabled people have been found to exhibit tremendous intelligence. Like that man who can remember every single event on the calendar since he was born. who are we to judge who lives or dies? please dont tell me you support this sicko. you can say families need more support, but to say we should kill infants, that is beyond sick.
@lalaurentide I'm very pissed with your comment. I dont think you are very normal to say that. People like you are too sick.
Look at the scientific community. The is a man called stephen Hawking, i hope you know him. He cant walk, or do anything. do you think we should kill him according to what you said. How do you sleep at night? He is smarter than me and you put together. Please apologise for your comments because you sound like a murderer. Have you ever killed anyone by chance?
@swandike No. Because unlike a newly born baby, Stephen Hawking is able to hold preferences. Thus it would be wrong to kill him. FYI, Singer only supports infanticide in special cases. Such as when the infant has a sever disability or ,when the parents live in poverty and can't support the infant. Now according to your view, you would have the infant grow up in horrible conditions. Allowing it to suffer greatly. Now THAT is morally repugnant.
@Drgamedood so basically, you want us to kill infants that parents cannot support? Seriously does anyone else read your comments apart from me? Why dont you ban poor people from having children all together. So the rich is only allowed to procreate. You serious need help my friend. This is the consequence of being an atheist, you think you have the right to terminate other people's lives and let yours proceed. I hope you repent and stop thinking so abhorrent ideologies.
@swandike Hmm, no logical argument there. Just irrational statements based on emotion. Try thinking. It's something you christians ought to do more often. ;)
@Drgamedood That is the thing with atheist. they think they are the only ones that have brains. Once you are a christians you cease to use your brains. well for your information there are people who go beyond thinking. We think of future implications of today's stupid judgement. You want the freedom to sodomise yourself, you want the freedom to practise incest, and also kill infants because you think they are too disabled to look after. I think you logic is lame and sick.
@swandike I never said we should kill him, I say he should be able to decide considering is disability, not society. And if he would have been born this way, his parents should have the opportunity to euthanize the child if that is their wish. It's not an easy decision, like abortion is not a fun experience for a woman, believe me, no one would abuse the option, it would be a very delicate and thoughtful decision, a decision you shouldn't be part of.
@lalaurentide what if tomorrow we get a permanent cure for all disabilities, will you resurrect all those infants you intend to kill to be cured? I just cant believe I am arguing about this sick stuff.
@swandike Then we'll change our position. You never heard of evolution, progression, we are a long way from the middle ages, even longer from cave mans, but we aren't there yet, but pretending our morals cannot be improved is a lie, we aren't that great, future generations will prove us wrong, get over yourself.
@lalaurentide I dont believe in the cave man's theory. I think we are approaching being cave men. we are degenerating into animals.
I have never seen any animal change into something else or given birth to a different kind. I think we pass on our defensive mechanisms but we still stay as we are. like white, black and asians. we can still interbreed. But melanin and the rising sun from the east separates us. I think Christianity is very important and nothing compares it, none.
@swandike We are destructive, but we are less and less with each generation, that is an historical fact, it's not an opinion and therefore not open to debate. It doesn't mean there is no mistake being done, it means there is a trend toward a better society, just read about the middle ages, though times. You have never seen evolution because it takes a long time in mammals, but in your lifetime many bacterias have become resistant to most antibiotics, that's evolution, they mutated.
@swandike And yes, when you talk about christianity, nothing compares it, it did more evil than any good in its history. If society wouldn't have challenged it with a better understanding of the world and better morals, it would have never changed and you'd still be fighting crusades with muslims for the control of Jerusalem. Seriously, you are part of the past, we are done with your kind, you are slowly dying out, it's evolution baby! Btw race differences are cosmetic, we all share the same DNA
@swandike In conclusion, when the day comes that you are diagnosed with a degenerative disease and pain increase with each passing day, plugged on machines and constantly on morphine until your death, I hope for you that society won't force you to live until you die "naturally" in the name of religious dogmas. That is all I'm saying, and if your God says the opposite, I am more moral and rightful than he is.
@lalaurentide The God that I serve has made me to understand that because of our sins this whole world is cursed. There is nothing here for us christians.Our mission is to tell the word to all those lost, that when you die, there is accountability. That is more important than what it is in this world. This world is filled with hopelessness and the sooner you realise the better. recession, wars, diseases, WW3 threats, NWO..its never going to get better. you can live in a mirage.
@lalaurentide Well the Bible says that we pray without ceasing. Its a check to repel the devil. To think science is going to solve our problems and make this world a better place is a mirage. All science is doing is solving problems and creating harder ones. Like nuclear power stations and nuclear waste. Like H1N1 vaccines and the worse side effects. mutated ebola virus. GM foods and cancer. aspartame, cloning and mixing human animal genes,flouridated water. HARRP, DEW, Nu weapons
the biggest problem with Singer, and ethics itself i suppose, is the fact that there seems to be no proof for why we should act morally if we don't believe in god.
I wish someone could give me a proper reason why we should should act morally. Singer accepts himself in his Practical Ethics that he can't give an answer to this.. Makes you wonder why he tries so hard
@MomSaysImCool Yep, a soft spoken professor who asks people to consider the consequences their actions have on other thinking beings is the most dangerous man in the world. He should be thrown in jail for being a vegetarian and contributing to charity. Doesn't he know that God wants people to be poor and wants animals to die suffering?
Wait, so if we aren't allowed to eat meat because it is immoral, why can a grizzly bear eat whatever salmon it wishes? And don't tell me it's because we're smarter and therefore understand whereas animals do not; because since that is so, we have more utility to the world than other animals, which then means that, under Peter Singer's own philosophical ideas, we have more of a right to life than any animal. Also, our pleasures are being taken away because of our intelligence...why?
"why can a grizzly bear eat whatever salmon it wishes"←They don't know that the fish suffers from this action, unlike the bear, we know our actions are causing suffering to others.}
"we have more utility to the world than other animals"←Not really, if humans where to disappear tomorrow, the world would still continue like nothing happened, proves that humans don't really have more utility than other animals.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo - "They don't know that the fish suffers from this action, unlike the bear, we know our actions are causing suffering to others.}" - Okay well first I must state the Singer says that any being's right to life is intrinsically tied to that being's ability to hold preferences. Since, according to you, we know our actions and have intelligence, we have a greater right to life than the bear, or any other being that has less intelligence and therefore less preference than us.
"Singer says that any being's right to life is intrinsically tied to that being's ability to hold preferences"←Hold preferences of? I don't understand all that sentence.
"we should be stopping all predators from killing their prey, because that prey has the same right to life."←If you can find a way to do that without starving the bear to death, I would agree. For now we should be happy to not be US the ones causing pain.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo That is simply Singer's belief, someone who knows more about Singer than I can correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, he believes that any being's right to life is intrinsically dependent on that being's ability to hold preferences, which, and again I could be misinterpreting, means his ability to have desires.
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo -Further, just because the bear doesn't understand that pain it causes, doesn't give the fish any less right to life, therefore, we should be stopping all predators from killing their prey, because that prey has the same right to life.
But besides this relatively weak point of mine (not sarcasm, it actually is pretty weak), I want to pose the question, why is a being's right to life intrinsically tied to its ability to hold preferences? This is what is wrong with this idea
@jonp14 Why haven't you said that in response to my comments yet. If this is the heart of our disagreement we are arguing about the wrong things. Let me ask. Why is killing wrong?
@ExSaint1379 I was just trying to get that point across. But wait, you said we are responsible for the bears killing of the fish, why? As far as why is killing wrong, I would say killing of animals isn't wrong. Killing of humans is. Killing of humans is wrong because it is not our life to take. You could say the same could be said for animals, but there is a very core difference between animals and humans. Humans are intelligible beings, which, by Singer's arguments, means we have more
@jonp14 I responded to this, but I don't see it, so I'll write another response (sorry if there is two). I think you would agree that if you watch a murder that you could prevent and do nothing, it's morally wrong. That's the only part of responsibility we have of a bear killing a fish. In terms of degrees of right and wrong it's not particularly wrong, just somewhat. What is the difference between animals and humans that killing a human is wrong and killing an animal isn't?
@ExSaint1379 Like I said, the difference is that we have more utility because we have more preference and are intelligent, so we can morally kill an animal if it is for a reason. Though, I am arguing using Singer's ethics, which I don't believe in. I am just arguing from his point of view because its more convenient. To be honest, I am Catholic, and my moral beliefs come from that. I have seen too much truth in Catholicism to not believe it. This may sadden you, as it seems you are atheist.
@jonp14 Actually Singer's ethics pose an enormous problem for catholics (or most forms of Christians). I don't know why you don't see this as you seem at least reasonably intelligent. A good God created animals that humans torture and kill and left them with the proper facilities to be tortured. I can't see any definition of good that that would fit. I don't like the word atheist (I'd prefer just to be called Secular utilitarian), but sure I'm an atheist.
@ExSaint1379 Listen, you are right in the torture sense, it is wrong to torture animals. But, it is also a very small wrong, because thereis more human disrespect in the world already, and that is more important than the animal suffering. As far as us killing animals. It is okay, because we believe that animals are put on the earth in part for our use. Just out of curiosity, why don't you like the term atheist?
@jonp14 Atheist only tells you I don't believe in God. It says nothing about what I do believe in. It's almost worthless as a term. No a good God would not have made animals for us, and allowed them to suffer. A good God would have made animals machines that don't feel anything. Then meat eating would be fine, but it isn't if they suffer. Do you see why?
@ExSaint1379 Yeah I understand what you're saying. It's a good point. He made them to give glory to him. And for them to be able to give glory to him, they cannot be machines. They need to be animals. Its like this, the greater the good that is possible, the greater the bad that is possible. So, we would say that's why mankind can be so bad and good. With animals, the senses allow them to feel pleasure, but that pleasure can be twisted into pain.
@jonp14 So why not make other machines that we can use and not torture? You are still dodging my point. No good God, even for the glory of himself, would make beings that can suffer and than ask humans to force them to suffer. That is definitively evil.
@ExSaint1379 Here's what I'm trying to say. God gave animals existence, which was pure goodness. He also gave them the senses, which is also pure goodness. But things of good can be turned bad to the same degree of goodness. Here's where you may laugh, but it is just something that needs faith: Before original sin, animals didn't feel pain, nor did humans. Our souls also had complete control over our bodies and our desires. This is because thru original sin, badness entered the world
@jonp14 I could point out that morality does not allow me to take on faith that I should just eat animals even though they suffer, but I don't need to. Let me say this one more time. If God created animals to suffer and for men to use them, there is no justification that I would find satisfying that could include ratify God and good. And I would argue that you shouldn't either.
@ExSaint1379 Yeah I'm just saying God did not create them to suffer, he created them to only feel pleasure. But with original sin came suffering. You're right, its not really arguable at this point because I am using faith.
@jonp14 In many cases yes. If you way the benefits to be gains of animal research to the pain and suffering you are inflicting on the animals, then it would be perfectly morally permissible to do animal research.
@jonp14 So you believe animals desires and needs have no value whatsoever? What's the difference between humans and animals that human's desires and needs do hold value but animals don't? I have a bad feeling you are going to give an answer (as I've already addressed) like because it's natural to feel this way or you are going to say something about a soul. I can't see any other sort of argument for the total exclusion of animals from any sort of moral calculation.
@ExSaint1379 Yeah you nailed it. I mean, I think it is wrong to kill an animal for absolutely no reason, or to make it suffer on purpose. I was just thinking, Singer probably has a good point about the suffering of animals, that it is wrong in the food industry. But I do believe that there are much bigger bigger problems to address, so I think almost no energy should be put into that moral problem. So, animals should be treated respectfully, but they can be used by humans for food or researc
@jonp14 Slight human enjoyment outweighs suffering for animals? Why? If animals are capable of feeling that same light enjoyment why should our feeling be weighed so heavily against their's? Why is it ok to kill an animal for such a mundane reason, but not a human? I don't see why you make the distinction.
@ExSaint1379 Right, I see your point. And it goes back to my Catholic belief. First, it has to be understood that Catholic Ethics are based off of the three source theory: the object, the intention, and the circumstance. It is similar to Kant's Ethics. Second, it is also understood that animals are put on the earth in part for the use of humans. Where they should be treated respectfully because God made them, they are still for our use.
I know Catholic Ethics are similar to Kant's. I agree with Kant on many things, but not always. I just don't understand why a good God who created animals for mankind would create them to suffer in the same way that man does. To me, that says God is not good.
@jonp14 Uh, nothing. It was clever for a twelve year old which was when I coined it in 2003 for Warcraft 3 I think. It's not the name I use now, but you start subscribing to youtube channels and it would be too much work to make another channel and make a bunch of subscriptions. But If I ever were to make videos I would have to do that as I've said too many dumb things with this account and the name really is ridiculous.
@jonp14 This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Because it's natural it's ok to do it. Rape is also very natural, but no one would defend that with the naturalistic fallacy. Peter Singer actually believes we do have a more right to life than other animals, but we aren't the only ones who have the right to life.
If a severely retarded person kills another person, we call it insanity. We don't hold them responsible for their actions because they are incapable of understanding why they are wrong
@ExSaint1379 Wait, he does believe we have more of a right to life than animals? I honestly didn't know that, can you elaborate? But anyway, which of my arguments are you referring to with the naturalistic fallacy? I am not following, sorry.
@ExSaint1379 Also, there are a few holes in your naturalistic fallacy examples. I'm not so sure that the naturalistic fallacy is a valid fallacy, I'm pretty sure Aristotle doesn't agree with it either. But before this, I actually don't see where I committed the naturalistic fallacy, I didn't ever say it was natural therefore it was right. But I could definitely be missing something, just let me know.
@jonp14 Aristotle isn't the end all in logic (he just started it). The Naturalistic Fallacy is that because something is natural it's ok. I'm saying that that's not necessarily the case. G.E. Moore's Principa Ethica is where the Naturalistic fallacy is coined (but people refer to it much earlier). Rape is natural, so is pedophilia, but neither are viewed as ok in today's society. If you want to know about what Peter Singer believes read him. That's what I did.
@ExSaint1379 Aristotle definitely has more credibility than Singer IMO. BUt that is beside the fact, I understand what the Naturalistic Fallacy is, I was just wondering which part of my argument commits the naturalistic fallacy? Of the argument that I presented, I don't see a part where I said that because something was natural that it was okay. But point it out to me, I definitely could have been implicating it without really realizing it.
@jonp14 Aristotle has more credibility than Singer? I have rarely heard such an ignorant statement. Singer has studied all of Aristotle and the countless philosophies after him. Aristotle was probably one of the two most influential thinkers in the history of humanity, but he believed a lot of things that aren't true. You were implying with the whole bear reference that because the bear "naturally" kills the fish then it's ok. And the naturalistic fallacy is Moore not Singer.
@ExSaint1379 Just disregard the debate between Singer and Aristotle. We could go on with it but it's irrelevant to what I'm saying, I shouldn't have even have brought it up honestly, it was dumb. Anyway, I wasn't saying that it's okay that bears eat fish (though I do believe it is okay), I was just pointing out that if Singer really believes that we should be vegetarians and shouldn't kill animals (does he?), then he should be equally frustrated with all predators.
For example, just as we should all be vegetarians, we should be stopping bears from eating anything living, and we should stop any other predator from killing any other animal. At the very least we should acknowledge also that it is wrong what the bears are doing; it is an evil that the fish are being killed. Why did you say that the naturalistic fallacy is Moore not Singer? I didn't dispute that, tho you are wrong. Moore's idea of a naturalistic fallacy is different than the one you gave
@jonp14 Actually no it's not. Singer gets the naturalistic fallacy from Moore's work Principa Ethica. Yes he is saying that you must show something is good besides it being natural. When he uses good (as he actually mentions in his work) he is speaking about whether something is morally right or wrong. Natural has no bearing on whether something is morally permissible. That is Moore's point.
@ExSaint1379 No, Moore's main point in his naturalistic fallacy is that you cannot define the term "good" in natural ways. It is a word that means morally okay, but you can't associate the word good with something natural such as pleasurable. Good cannot be defined, therefore you cannot associate good with another term such as pleasurable or desired, good is good, and nothing else. That is Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.
@jonp14 That is exactly the same thing. Good or morally ok is associated with natural. They are two different things. I don't see what you don't understand about this. Good is a judgement and not some objective fact. Natural, or anything else that isn't subjective, is objective. Therefore naturally doesn't not necessarily imply good.
@ExSaint1379 Yes you are right actually, I am sorry. Thanks for walking me through that. I suppose a fifth grader could have understood that quicker than I.
@ExSaint1379 Moore's naturalistic fallacy is about the definition of the term "good" used in arguments, not that something natural doesn't mean its morally permissible.
@jonp14 Actually if we could sustain bears another way, then yes it would be right to stop bears from killing other things unnecessarily. Bears are incapable of understanding that the fish suffers and desires to live, while humans are capable of understanding that. Meat eating is a small issue for Singer (and I). It's the fact that we torture animals before we kill them. Killing them would still be wrong as they desire to live, but what we do is worse.
@ExSaint1379 So, just so I can get this straight, it is morally impermissible for bears to eat fish, or for any predator in the world to eat another, but it is allowable because they don't understand? Is that correct?
@jonp14 It's not morally impermissible for them to do it, but rather it is for us to let them. Even so I don't think that this is very high on a moral list of things which to stop. In our justice system we rarely punish people who are not responsible for their own actions. I agree with this. Do you?
Simple argument. I don't like suffering. Therefore I shouldn't inflict suffering on others. Is there any part of that you disagree with?
@ExSaint1379 You're saying usually we punish people who are responsible, right? I would agree yes with that. As far as your second question, if you take that argument, that anything you do not like yourself, you should not inflict on others, then you can get a very relativistic society. I mean, the fact that Moore believes good is good suggests that good is an objective thing, therefore relativism cannot be true, so, I believe suffering shouldn't be inflicted, but not by that argument.
@jonp14 Actually I don't believe in punishment (but it's a better system than it could be). Moore's is a moral emotivist. Just like I am and probably just like you are. You say relativism like it's a bad thing, but what other than our own morals do we have to go on? What do you believe constitutes being morally right? Why is good good?
@ExSaint1379 Okay well first, do you believe in the Naturalistic Fallacy? Because if you do, you are admitting that there is an objective moral standard, which begs the question, where does that standard come from? Is it a platonic form? Is it from a Higher Being? If there is no such thing as objective standards in morality, then there is no morality. It doesn't truly exist. It's just a collection of ideas that are not right or wrong, so anyone can do anything. Whats the point of morality
@jonp14 No I'm not. You are missing the point of the naturalistic fallacy. I'm saying that we use the word good and natural differently. So natural doesn't necessarily imply good. There are people who believe it does, but as rape and pedophilia are very natural for humans, I don't see why natural should imply moral. Morals are not objective. Even if you are correct and God does exist, they are still judgments and henceforth not facts about the world. I reject platonism because of existentialism.
@jonp14 When I say morals are relative, I mean that people do believe different things. Now you are making the is/ought fallacy. People have different ideas of what is right and wrong and what we should believe or shouldn't. I'm not saying it's good to believe that. I'm just saying that's how things are. I believe that everyone should adopt a utilitarian perspective if you want society to flourish and by flourish I mean the eradication of poverty and disease and hunger (among others).
@ExSaint1379 Oh see I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were supporting relativism. But, just to be sure, you do believe that the utilitarian perspective is the best, implying that there is an objective best moral theory, am I correct? or no?
@jonp14 No. I don't believe there is a best objective moral theory. If you consider a goal in the future, than yes there is an objectively best moral theory, but goals are relative as well. Let's say promoting what is generally good for all of thinking beings is your goal. Then by definition utilitarianism is the best possible course of action (as utilitarianism supports actions that promote the well-being of everyone). Morals are relative by definition.
@ExSaint1379 Okay, but aren't you implying a definition for good? Like, when you say promoting what is generally good for all thinking beings is your goal, then, at least for that goal to be an objective thing, good has to be defined, otherwise the morals are still relative to each person's idea of goodness.
@jonp14 Good doesn't have to be objective for me to have a definition. Good's definition changes from person to person. By my definition God couldn't be good for creating animals for humans and causing them to suffer in the same way that humans do (or really causing them to suffer at all). Someone could call it good that animals do suffer. It's just most people agree that suffering is wrong, and if you do, I can't see rectifying that with a good God.
@ExSaint1379 Yeah but you said if the goal in morals was to promote what is generally good for all thinking beings, then utilitarianism is the best. But what is the definition of good? If it varies from person to person, then utilitarian ideas vary from person to person. How would we then decide on the best definition of goodness? How do you decide on the best definition of it? What do you think it is?
@jonp14 Morals come from reason, and we don't all agree. That is the most major problem in all of human societies. Even Christians rarely agree in terms of morals despite all claiming that their own morals come from God. When you ask "if it varies from person to person" you seem to be forgetting that it does vary from person to person and this is a major problem.
@ExSaint1379 No no that is my point. If morals are subjective, as you say they are, then each person has as much credibility as the next, and nobody is right, and if nobody is right, and there is no truth, then morals don't really exist, they are just a word made up that don't have a legitimate, true definition. For something to exist, it must have objectivity. Otherwise it only exists in our own minds, it doesn't truly exist.
@jonp14 Well first, God doesn't solve the problem you are getting at, but I'm unsure whether there actually is a problem you are getting at. Morals are statements about the truth of the universe. They are judgements. You can say nobody is right, but that's just it, nobody is right. If you give a specific goal, then you can claim moral truth or moral objectivity, but without a goal calling something good or bad is merely arbitrary. Even with God this remains the case.
@ExSaint1379 But if you can't even claim moral truth or objectivity if there is a goal, because the words in the goal (And I'm talking about words that have moral ideas behind them, such as "good" or "bad") are also subjective. We just went through this. So all of morals are then subjective, and anyone can be right. Even with goals involved, nobody can claim validity. Unless the goal is something explicit with no moral ideas in it, like give as much sex to as many people or something.
@jonp14 This is weird that you are missing my point. I thought you understood it. I can claim moral superiority by my own morals, but by someone elses they would claim moral superiority. Society runs because most people have similar goals like maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. If people didn't share those goals there would be total chaos. Morals and goals are relative as people don't always agree on them. How would God change any of this?
@ExSaint1379 I understand your point now. I disagree with it, but I understand what you're saying. That's all it comes down to. I believe there are objectively true morals. That's it. I say God would change it because there would be objective morals. I know you're saying has their own standards, I'm just saying that because God exists (obviously under faith) they are wrong, because he has his standards.
@jonp14 You kind of gave in. By our other argument you should realize that your God's standards differ from my own. I couldn't never accept your God's standards as I believe mine are better. What makes God right? And on top of that, God created animals for humans and then humans caused them to suffer (because of the fall?) That means, to me, we should do all we can to prevent animals from suffering if we are the ultimate cause of why they suffer.
@ExSaint1379 What makes God right is that he (under our belief) is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, so he knows everything, which would mean he knows what the best is, for he created all of ethics and thinking anyway. As far as us causing animals to suffer, it wasn't us directly, it was Adam and Eve, or whoever Genesis was referring to by Adam and Eve, so we are not responsible. A whole species is not responsible for the acts of a few of its members, especially ancestral members
@jonp14 It's still subjective. Best is very subjective. The Jews of the Bible's idea of what the best world would look like is very different from your own idea of best is. This is actually my largest problem with religion in general. God is always a personification of what one person feels is perfection. That idea hasn't even remotely held fast over the last two thousand years.
@ExSaint1379 I understand your problem with it. It's my biggest struggle with my own faith. I am not in complete understanding of all of my faith. But I have seen too much truth and seen too many crazy events for me not to believe in it. But, as far as the Jews in the Old Testament, a good example of something you could give me was the Jews wanting to stone Magdalen, and Jesus telling them not to. It's a contradiction, right? The Jewish law from God says one thing and Jesus says another...
@ExSaint1379 But it's situational. Everything in the Bible is this way, it seems at least, I am no theologian. I can't understand it, but there are too many holes in any other philosophies, and there is too much evidence in my mind and my life for me not to believe. So it goes back to this, I firmly believe there is a God, which would mean there is objectivity. But dude, I gotta be honest, I am done, you've gotten me to one part of my faith I have not studied or can understand on my own
@jonp14 But the Bible is no different and you seem to understand that. I hate using the typical atheist response (and I almost never do but I'll make an exception), but you have to see from my eyes, a god sacrificing himself to himself to change a rule that he made is in no way consistent. I find my own moral philosophy to be consistent, and I think everyone should find their own philosophy to be consistent, but you are right, people's morals are almost never consistent.
oh man my philosophy professor one time threatened to show us a documentary on factory farms, either we begged him not to or I skipped that class but jeezes i dun wanna know it's so tastyyy!
Lets leap the evidential logic, and presume there were a society full of raging necrophiliacs. Is the pleasure gained from emaciated intercourse greater than the suffering endured by the family or humiliation endured by the society as a whole. And if you going to say the entirety of the given society have necrophiliac tendencies you exit the hub of meta-ethics enter the realm of fiction and fantasy. It's like saying what if bad was good? = What if humans become something other than human?
@Howieeeeex Is the pleasure you gain from living greater than the suffering I endure from knowing your alive? And, if not, am I justified in killing you?
SO religious people never kill under any circumstances? This from a liberal who probably can't spin two sentences without mentioning the crusades... Think about what you say...
And dogs do need pleasure, but isn't a pat good enough?
@TaqiyyaExposer: By which philosopher were you mounted like a bison? Your unhealthy fixation with where men put their penis makes one wonder if you might not have been violated as a child. In nowhere does Peter Singer whose work irredeemable vulgarians like yourself have never troubled to read advocate bestiality. To contend that something is not immoral in a book review is not to encourage it, a distinction lost on men with a cognitive deficit. Leave moral philosophy to the big boys kid.
@TaqiyyaExposer: I dissent from sections of Peter Singer's magnum opus Practical Ethics, but I would rather conduct an honest discussion of his utilitarian philosophy than wage a defamation campaign against a giant of moral philosophy by running around screaming and pulling out one's hair like a skirt-clutching little hooker desperate for attention. Nothing which his Christian detractors say remotely indicate they've read his work beyond fabrications on fundamentalist websites. No one buys it.
@TaqiyyaExposer: Hitler may have been a vegetarian, but he was also a teetotaler. Foolish is the man who draws a moral equivalence between Singer and the Nazis for Singer's Jewish family were exterminated by Hitler with the active support of the Christian church. Singer's work aims to reduce suffering in the world and the Christers want to obscenely prolong it. Your right-wing mendacity fetches nobody. Further evidence that you are one drop of semen that your mother should have swallowed
So Simon Wiesenthal, prominent HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR, is a fool? Because this famous Jewish hero compares Singer to Hitler, not just me. You really are an ignorant human being. Oh Singer helps PEOPLE now? No of course not, by suffering, you were referring to animals.
@TaqiyyaExposer: By whom were you forcefully struck on the head my sweet? Peter Singer's grandparents were exterminated by the Nazis. He doesn't need to be lectured on the holocaust by merchants of imbecility. If you can point to a single instance where Singer ever condones pedophilia or necrophilia, I will tumble you on the bed and discharge myself manfully between your cheeks. Or would you like me to deposit my Holy Seed in your mouth? Quit the mendacity troll. Nobody's fetched by it.
In your local library you may find a section you're unfamiliar with called NON-fiction. I suggest you start reading up on an event in history known as World War 2. It involved a guy who killed Jews, Gypsies, Pagans, Christians, gays, blacks among many other factual accounts, including an attempted assassination of the Pope. Get back to me once you've done some research, I refuse to argue spurious commentary.
@TaqiyyaExposer: I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian who values Peter Singer's clarity of thought over the discredited fabrications of the Christian right for whom you spread your bottom cheeks with the enthusiasm of Crusaders sacking Jerusalem. The reason Singer holds a prestigious chair at an Ivy League college and is awarded the accolade of the most influential living philosopher by the New Yorker is because he dismembers the quackery of Christian philosophy and eats it for lunch. Game's up.
You're a moron. Nice Crusade reference. That was definitely the most recent historical event worth mentioning.
The reason Peter Singer holds a chair in any University is simply because JEWS are desperate to promote the worst values possible. The man is a lunatic, as are you, and no doubt your family.
@TaqiyyaExposer: Is the reason why you disdain Peter Singer because he walked out on your mother when he mounted her like a bison? Speak not evil of your daddy. Your invidious comments about the "Jews" amply demonstrate that your animus for Singer is fueled by nothing more than racial supremacism. You are a Ku Kluxer with an IQ south of ten. Kindly take your fascist sympathies to some place a bit more receptive to neo-Nazis. I suggest StormFront be your first port of call.
The thing is that going to Stormfront won't allow me to influence those who need it, as they already understand this issue. And we know that you're a member of the Khmer Rouge, but u do not need to bring your red rhetoric to this page.
Why must one who opposes Jewish influence in our Universities be a racial supremacist? Was Gandhi a racial supremacist? I know ur kind, anyone who doesn't conform completely to Pol Pot's 'egalitarianism' is Klan member and frequents stromfront.
@TaqiyyaExposer: It's patently clear from the antisemitic content of your channel that you are a mentally defective skinhead from whom Jew-baiting radiates like heat from a stove. Adopting the conspiracy theories of Hitler you maintain that all Jews are communists with nefarious designs on Western Civ. You don't object to Singer's utilitarianism. You object to the very existence of the Jewish people whom you want to send into the arms of God uninvited. No racial supremacism here please. Shoo!
Not all Jews are communists, but nearly all contemporary communist agitators are Jewish, and those that are not were influenced by prominent Jews.
I do not wish to kill all Jews, not Savage, or the guy who runs the ultimateJew channel, i even support Israel.
See what you are is a presumptuous homosexual who can't help but label all who might disagree with your right to marriage with erroneous and derisive epithets like 'racist' or 'Nazi' as to encourage others to ignore us.
@TaqiyyaExposer: You are a merchant of taqiyya whose torrents and torrents of vulgar lies about Singer spring from your racial hate for the Jewish people as your channel description abundantly attests. Nobody's convinced by the antisemitism of a neo-Nazi bigot whose past comments reveal a history of trolling videos about Jews. I'm sorry darling but I don't contend with cum guzzling Jew-haters from whose lips drip a mouthful of my holy seed.
@TaqiyyaExposer: Peter Singer is the finest, grandest, damndest living thinker and nobody whose read his work lends credence to fundamentalist merchants of humbug. I'm happily married to a flame-haired Hungarian Jew so I'm not gay, but I'm willing to make an exception for you. If you recline into my hairy arms my sweet, if you let me tumble you on the bed and discharge myself orgasmically in your mouth, I promise you'll walk funny in the morning beaming a radiant smile.
I followed this debate and need to ask why you've resorted to filth? Do you feel that you lost? At first you were sounding intelligent, bringing up evidence to support our claims... Now you're relying on inane insults. Obviously you are a homosexual, stop kidding yourself & your alleged wife. If you're the type of person that Singer produces then its frightening
@vitalitutorials: Peter Singer is a matchless giant of moral philosophy and no defamatory comments about him will go unmolested. If you and your Christer friend can prove where Singer lends support to "necrophilia" or "pedophilia", I will stop poking my finger in your eyes with glee. I'm supremely happy to keep the debate on a lofty plane, but descend to vilification and I will part your bottom cheeks and fill it to bursting point with my holy seed. Got that? Quit lying or I will mount you.
Why do all you Singer minions on this page resort to homosexual vulgarities in your efforts to debate? I always get frustrated when people, who have masted their use of polysyllabic words and have the ability to construct a decent sentence, rely on tasteless inanities to make their point. Yes Singer has placed pedophilia in context with bestiality; the dead aren't self-aware, are they? If society was more accepting of necrophilia, would you support it then?
@TaqiyyaExposer: The fundamentalist haters of Singer tickle me. When you spend all your energy weaving easily confuted lies about the man, you wonder why no one takes you seriously? Fascinating. Either furnish documentary evidence of where in Singer's work he lends support to your charge or admit that you are analphabetic. People who enter Singer's name in the search engine know his work. Your lies will not fetch them. You're squandering your own time. Cite the evidence or kindly shoo.
@FromAtomsMade Oh my gosh! Seriously dude, you are the worst arguer I've ever come across. You argue off of pure emotion, something Singer himself would dismiss. On top of that, you criticize the person non stop, you straight up vulgarly and hypothetically insult others. You aren't even making points anymore. You realize you argue for Singer but he wouldn't even defend you...
@PhilosopherSY Hey man, Christian's have made mistakes, you cannot discredit a group or a group's ideas because of who they are or what they've done....that's called the ad hominem fallacy, so your attack against the crusades was made out of pure emotion, another thing a good philosopher wouldn't do. Also, you actually hold this same fallacy inversely when you credit Singer because of his position and awards; the difference is that you are giving him credit automatically because of who he is.
@FromAtomsMade Your vulgarity shows your unoriginality and emotion based argument, something a true philosopher would never do. I'm not claiming to be a true philosopher, but your clearly think you are and hold yourself in high esteem for it. So it would be greatly appreciated if you actually held Singer's views by not (so vulgarly) criticizing other's existence and implying they have no right to life...but that would require logic on your part.
this man is a monster and hates persons with disablities, and is it fair to put a child to death because of disability i hope to god that he becomes a disabled person and sees how his disgracefull views of predjidice will turn against him.this man is a sick twisted bastard who belives that all people with a disability to die what a sick bastard. what gives him the right to deside someones fate in life. my message to people like this is i hope that when he dies he will go to hell and fuck him
@MultiZedman: How many times were you dropped on your head by your mother? Poor widdle thing. Hospitals already kill severely handicapped new borns with no long term life prospects by withholding treatment when they catch a flu. A more gravely harmful practice for the inoperable babies die a painfully slow and lingering death. Singer desires to end this colossal human suffering by actively and painlessly terminating their lives with parental and medical consent. Singer aims to end suffering.
You don't seem to have understood anything Singer says. He says parents should have the choice whether a severly disabled child should live. He has never said they SHOULD die. Please make sure you understand an argument before commenting on it!
But on the 'self-awareness' basis, Singer has stated, when asked, that he would support the farming of children to harvest their organs for the sick, on a mass scale. This is why normal people dislike what Singer says, because of the heinous flow-on effects that would occur. (Not to mention what he says is pretty bad anyway) --------------------- But what is bad...What is good... There is no right/wrong.. - moral philosophic gobbledygook
Where on earth has he said "I support farming of children to harvest their organs for the sick". Something tells me you're para-phrasing. Probably misleadingly.
this man is a monster and hates persons with disablities, and is it fair to put a child to death because of disability i hope to god that he becomes a disabled person and sees how his disgracefull views of predjidice will turn against him
In his book, Heavy Petting, this guy claims sex with animals is okay, as long as it is "mutually satisfying". Hmmm... I think enough said. Right? Psycho.
@GodTheHypothesis wow... that is an odd thing to say. Morals are not something that is universally right or wrong. Each individual has their own set of morals... and for my set, yes it is DEF wrong. I'd say that is speaking for most.
Well why is it wrong? The whole point of moral philosophy is to base on your morals on some kind of logical argument. I agree it's weird but if it's not harming the animal, why is it morally wrong?
@GodTheHypothesis You are exactly right regarding the formation of a moral. Always have logical reasoning behind them. As far as the moral which states "don't have sex with animals"... logic is simple. There is a grand design behind all living things. Part of this design is the function of their parts. The hand has a natural function... (continued below)...
@GodTheHypothesis. The eye has a natural function and the sexual reproduction parts have a natural function. The natural function of the eyes is to see. The natural function of the reproductive system is to reproduce, more of its kind that is. Right?
That bares no importance on moral philsophy at all, you've basically just defined the naturallistic fallacy. By that logic, homosexuals are morally wrong.
This has been flagged as spam show
My wish (foolish as it may be) is to meet this man. I have such respect and admiration for Peter Singer. He is an international treasure!
livingdeadgrl18 1 week ago
Comment removed
livingdeadgrl18 1 week ago
There are a lot of stupid arguments going back and forth here, the sad fact is this guy supports bestiality and infanticide, if you can still give a shit about anything else he has to say after that then well... that's your caveat.
Robsfund 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everyone if u have a twitter please on the weekend of February 11th to 12th, tweet "#AnimalsJustWantFreedomSoGoVegetarian". I know veganism is the true way forward but people will accept vegetarianism more and so it's most likely to be more effective. One step at a time if necessary.
My twitter is @deanmullen12 if your tweeting it on that weekend plz contact me so I can RT ur tweets on it and u cud RT mine, exc. so together we can trend this and many can see our message :) plz share this
AntiSpeciesistWorld 3 weeks ago
Most ethical man ever
robertedge 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
@Mcnasty6w Except there are plenty of good people who haven't hurt a single person in their life. Some of them nonbelievers.
And science for the most part is used for things other than killing. You know, curing diseases, making home living easier, cleaning the environment...did you ever think of that?
ChoujiMan 4 months ago
@swandike ohh ok, do you have any proof for that?^^ plants dont feel pain, and if you dont want that animals suffer and at the same time you eat meat from animal farms you MAKE animals suffer more or suffer at all. BTW: Did you read his books? no ? ok STFU hes philosophie is based on suffering only because it is a other point of view of the world that your crusty old one is. admit that you dont know nothing at all about !
DerMacDuff 7 months ago
I think people are going insane with atheism and science. this guy is insane but I dont agree sending him death threats. That makes him look very important and waste of time. If you think eating animals is inhumane, you should not eat plants either. Because it has also been proven that plants do feel like mimosa pudica. Eat inorganic matter. And killing infants, how do you sleep at night?
swandike 7 months ago
@swandike Forcing a family to raise a heavily disabled child that will never be more than 4 years old mentally, how do you sleep at night? Forcing a child born with cystic fibrosis to live in pain on a respirator for all his life in a sick non-maturing body until he dies between the age of 20 to 30, how do YOU sleep at night? You're an assh*le for imposing you religious morality on those suffering, while you preach how great you think you are.
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@lalaurentide a disabled child is not the only problem of the family, he is the problem of the whole society. But they deserve to live. some heavily disabled people have been found to exhibit tremendous intelligence. Like that man who can remember every single event on the calendar since he was born. who are we to judge who lives or dies? please dont tell me you support this sicko. you can say families need more support, but to say we should kill infants, that is beyond sick.
swandike 6 months ago
@lalaurentide I'm very pissed with your comment. I dont think you are very normal to say that. People like you are too sick.
Look at the scientific community. The is a man called stephen Hawking, i hope you know him. He cant walk, or do anything. do you think we should kill him according to what you said. How do you sleep at night? He is smarter than me and you put together. Please apologise for your comments because you sound like a murderer. Have you ever killed anyone by chance?
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike No. Because unlike a newly born baby, Stephen Hawking is able to hold preferences. Thus it would be wrong to kill him. FYI, Singer only supports infanticide in special cases. Such as when the infant has a sever disability or ,when the parents live in poverty and can't support the infant. Now according to your view, you would have the infant grow up in horrible conditions. Allowing it to suffer greatly. Now THAT is morally repugnant.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood so basically, you want us to kill infants that parents cannot support? Seriously does anyone else read your comments apart from me? Why dont you ban poor people from having children all together. So the rich is only allowed to procreate. You serious need help my friend. This is the consequence of being an atheist, you think you have the right to terminate other people's lives and let yours proceed. I hope you repent and stop thinking so abhorrent ideologies.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike Hmm, no logical argument there. Just irrational statements based on emotion. Try thinking. It's something you christians ought to do more often. ;)
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood That is the thing with atheist. they think they are the only ones that have brains. Once you are a christians you cease to use your brains. well for your information there are people who go beyond thinking. We think of future implications of today's stupid judgement. You want the freedom to sodomise yourself, you want the freedom to practise incest, and also kill infants because you think they are too disabled to look after. I think you logic is lame and sick.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike I never said we should kill him, I say he should be able to decide considering is disability, not society. And if he would have been born this way, his parents should have the opportunity to euthanize the child if that is their wish. It's not an easy decision, like abortion is not a fun experience for a woman, believe me, no one would abuse the option, it would be a very delicate and thoughtful decision, a decision you shouldn't be part of.
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@lalaurentide what if tomorrow we get a permanent cure for all disabilities, will you resurrect all those infants you intend to kill to be cured? I just cant believe I am arguing about this sick stuff.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike Then we'll change our position. You never heard of evolution, progression, we are a long way from the middle ages, even longer from cave mans, but we aren't there yet, but pretending our morals cannot be improved is a lie, we aren't that great, future generations will prove us wrong, get over yourself.
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@lalaurentide I dont believe in the cave man's theory. I think we are approaching being cave men. we are degenerating into animals.
I have never seen any animal change into something else or given birth to a different kind. I think we pass on our defensive mechanisms but we still stay as we are. like white, black and asians. we can still interbreed. But melanin and the rising sun from the east separates us. I think Christianity is very important and nothing compares it, none.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike We are destructive, but we are less and less with each generation, that is an historical fact, it's not an opinion and therefore not open to debate. It doesn't mean there is no mistake being done, it means there is a trend toward a better society, just read about the middle ages, though times. You have never seen evolution because it takes a long time in mammals, but in your lifetime many bacterias have become resistant to most antibiotics, that's evolution, they mutated.
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@swandike And yes, when you talk about christianity, nothing compares it, it did more evil than any good in its history. If society wouldn't have challenged it with a better understanding of the world and better morals, it would have never changed and you'd still be fighting crusades with muslims for the control of Jerusalem. Seriously, you are part of the past, we are done with your kind, you are slowly dying out, it's evolution baby! Btw race differences are cosmetic, we all share the same DNA
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@swandike In conclusion, when the day comes that you are diagnosed with a degenerative disease and pain increase with each passing day, plugged on machines and constantly on morphine until your death, I hope for you that society won't force you to live until you die "naturally" in the name of religious dogmas. That is all I'm saying, and if your God says the opposite, I am more moral and rightful than he is.
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@lalaurentide The God that I serve has made me to understand that because of our sins this whole world is cursed. There is nothing here for us christians.Our mission is to tell the word to all those lost, that when you die, there is accountability. That is more important than what it is in this world. This world is filled with hopelessness and the sooner you realise the better. recession, wars, diseases, WW3 threats, NWO..its never going to get better. you can live in a mirage.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike HAAAAHHAHAHHHA, and I'm the one living in a mirage. If it's cursed and hopeless why do you keep praying, you people are dumb.
lalaurentide 6 months ago
@lalaurentide Well the Bible says that we pray without ceasing. Its a check to repel the devil. To think science is going to solve our problems and make this world a better place is a mirage. All science is doing is solving problems and creating harder ones. Like nuclear power stations and nuclear waste. Like H1N1 vaccines and the worse side effects. mutated ebola virus. GM foods and cancer. aspartame, cloning and mixing human animal genes,flouridated water. HARRP, DEW, Nu weapons
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike ...and yet God doesn't step in to help any of that or reform his own damn system (I'm assuming he created science). Gee, thanks God.
Take your primitive bronze-age myth and blow it out your ass.
ChoujiMan 4 months ago
@lalaurentide
Cause we don't plan on staying here.
See ya later sucker.
KitsuneStudioInc 6 months ago
the biggest problem with Singer, and ethics itself i suppose, is the fact that there seems to be no proof for why we should act morally if we don't believe in god.
I wish someone could give me a proper reason why we should should act morally. Singer accepts himself in his Practical Ethics that he can't give an answer to this.. Makes you wonder why he tries so hard
SamuelLM1990 7 months ago
Bin Laden's dead, so I guess Peter Singer's no.1 again!
MomSaysImCool 8 months ago
@MomSaysImCool Yep, a soft spoken professor who asks people to consider the consequences their actions have on other thinking beings is the most dangerous man in the world. He should be thrown in jail for being a vegetarian and contributing to charity. Doesn't he know that God wants people to be poor and wants animals to die suffering?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 rAmen!
MomSaysImCool 7 months ago
Wait, so if we aren't allowed to eat meat because it is immoral, why can a grizzly bear eat whatever salmon it wishes? And don't tell me it's because we're smarter and therefore understand whereas animals do not; because since that is so, we have more utility to the world than other animals, which then means that, under Peter Singer's own philosophical ideas, we have more of a right to life than any animal. Also, our pleasures are being taken away because of our intelligence...why?
jonp14 8 months ago
@jonp14
"why can a grizzly bear eat whatever salmon it wishes"←They don't know that the fish suffers from this action, unlike the bear, we know our actions are causing suffering to others.}
"we have more utility to the world than other animals"←Not really, if humans where to disappear tomorrow, the world would still continue like nothing happened, proves that humans don't really have more utility than other animals.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 8 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo - "They don't know that the fish suffers from this action, unlike the bear, we know our actions are causing suffering to others.}" - Okay well first I must state the Singer says that any being's right to life is intrinsically tied to that being's ability to hold preferences. Since, according to you, we know our actions and have intelligence, we have a greater right to life than the bear, or any other being that has less intelligence and therefore less preference than us.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14
Sorry but I don't understand your syllogism.
"Singer says that any being's right to life is intrinsically tied to that being's ability to hold preferences"←Hold preferences of? I don't understand all that sentence.
"we should be stopping all predators from killing their prey, because that prey has the same right to life."←If you can find a way to do that without starving the bear to death, I would agree. For now we should be happy to not be US the ones causing pain.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 7 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo That is simply Singer's belief, someone who knows more about Singer than I can correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, he believes that any being's right to life is intrinsically dependent on that being's ability to hold preferences, which, and again I could be misinterpreting, means his ability to have desires.
jonp14 7 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo -Further, just because the bear doesn't understand that pain it causes, doesn't give the fish any less right to life, therefore, we should be stopping all predators from killing their prey, because that prey has the same right to life.
But besides this relatively weak point of mine (not sarcasm, it actually is pretty weak), I want to pose the question, why is a being's right to life intrinsically tied to its ability to hold preferences? This is what is wrong with this idea
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Why haven't you said that in response to my comments yet. If this is the heart of our disagreement we are arguing about the wrong things. Let me ask. Why is killing wrong?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 I was just trying to get that point across. But wait, you said we are responsible for the bears killing of the fish, why? As far as why is killing wrong, I would say killing of animals isn't wrong. Killing of humans is. Killing of humans is wrong because it is not our life to take. You could say the same could be said for animals, but there is a very core difference between animals and humans. Humans are intelligible beings, which, by Singer's arguments, means we have more
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 I responded to this, but I don't see it, so I'll write another response (sorry if there is two). I think you would agree that if you watch a murder that you could prevent and do nothing, it's morally wrong. That's the only part of responsibility we have of a bear killing a fish. In terms of degrees of right and wrong it's not particularly wrong, just somewhat. What is the difference between animals and humans that killing a human is wrong and killing an animal isn't?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Like I said, the difference is that we have more utility because we have more preference and are intelligent, so we can morally kill an animal if it is for a reason. Though, I am arguing using Singer's ethics, which I don't believe in. I am just arguing from his point of view because its more convenient. To be honest, I am Catholic, and my moral beliefs come from that. I have seen too much truth in Catholicism to not believe it. This may sadden you, as it seems you are atheist.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Actually Singer's ethics pose an enormous problem for catholics (or most forms of Christians). I don't know why you don't see this as you seem at least reasonably intelligent. A good God created animals that humans torture and kill and left them with the proper facilities to be tortured. I can't see any definition of good that that would fit. I don't like the word atheist (I'd prefer just to be called Secular utilitarian), but sure I'm an atheist.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Listen, you are right in the torture sense, it is wrong to torture animals. But, it is also a very small wrong, because thereis more human disrespect in the world already, and that is more important than the animal suffering. As far as us killing animals. It is okay, because we believe that animals are put on the earth in part for our use. Just out of curiosity, why don't you like the term atheist?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Atheist only tells you I don't believe in God. It says nothing about what I do believe in. It's almost worthless as a term. No a good God would not have made animals for us, and allowed them to suffer. A good God would have made animals machines that don't feel anything. Then meat eating would be fine, but it isn't if they suffer. Do you see why?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Yeah I understand what you're saying. It's a good point. He made them to give glory to him. And for them to be able to give glory to him, they cannot be machines. They need to be animals. Its like this, the greater the good that is possible, the greater the bad that is possible. So, we would say that's why mankind can be so bad and good. With animals, the senses allow them to feel pleasure, but that pleasure can be twisted into pain.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 So why not make other machines that we can use and not torture? You are still dodging my point. No good God, even for the glory of himself, would make beings that can suffer and than ask humans to force them to suffer. That is definitively evil.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Here's what I'm trying to say. God gave animals existence, which was pure goodness. He also gave them the senses, which is also pure goodness. But things of good can be turned bad to the same degree of goodness. Here's where you may laugh, but it is just something that needs faith: Before original sin, animals didn't feel pain, nor did humans. Our souls also had complete control over our bodies and our desires. This is because thru original sin, badness entered the world
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 I could point out that morality does not allow me to take on faith that I should just eat animals even though they suffer, but I don't need to. Let me say this one more time. If God created animals to suffer and for men to use them, there is no justification that I would find satisfying that could include ratify God and good. And I would argue that you shouldn't either.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Yeah I'm just saying God did not create them to suffer, he created them to only feel pleasure. But with original sin came suffering. You're right, its not really arguable at this point because I am using faith.
jonp14 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 utility, so it would be morally permissible to kill the animals for ourselves since we have more utility than those animals.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 In many cases yes. If you way the benefits to be gains of animal research to the pain and suffering you are inflicting on the animals, then it would be perfectly morally permissible to do animal research.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 No no i mean more than animal research, I believe its okay even to the degree of killing them and eating them.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 So you believe animals desires and needs have no value whatsoever? What's the difference between humans and animals that human's desires and needs do hold value but animals don't? I have a bad feeling you are going to give an answer (as I've already addressed) like because it's natural to feel this way or you are going to say something about a soul. I can't see any other sort of argument for the total exclusion of animals from any sort of moral calculation.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Yeah you nailed it. I mean, I think it is wrong to kill an animal for absolutely no reason, or to make it suffer on purpose. I was just thinking, Singer probably has a good point about the suffering of animals, that it is wrong in the food industry. But I do believe that there are much bigger bigger problems to address, so I think almost no energy should be put into that moral problem. So, animals should be treated respectfully, but they can be used by humans for food or researc
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Slight human enjoyment outweighs suffering for animals? Why? If animals are capable of feeling that same light enjoyment why should our feeling be weighed so heavily against their's? Why is it ok to kill an animal for such a mundane reason, but not a human? I don't see why you make the distinction.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Right, I see your point. And it goes back to my Catholic belief. First, it has to be understood that Catholic Ethics are based off of the three source theory: the object, the intention, and the circumstance. It is similar to Kant's Ethics. Second, it is also understood that animals are put on the earth in part for the use of humans. Where they should be treated respectfully because God made them, they are still for our use.
jonp14 7 months ago
I know Catholic Ethics are similar to Kant's. I agree with Kant on many things, but not always. I just don't understand why a good God who created animals for mankind would create them to suffer in the same way that man does. To me, that says God is not good.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExSaint1379 Oh and if you don't mind me asking, what does your name mean? Why is it ExSaint?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Uh, nothing. It was clever for a twelve year old which was when I coined it in 2003 for Warcraft 3 I think. It's not the name I use now, but you start subscribing to youtube channels and it would be too much work to make another channel and make a bunch of subscriptions. But If I ever were to make videos I would have to do that as I've said too many dumb things with this account and the name really is ridiculous.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Haha okay gotcha
jonp14 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Also, if my math is right, you are now 20, are you in college somewhere?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 21, yeah I go to UCLA.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@jonp14 This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Because it's natural it's ok to do it. Rape is also very natural, but no one would defend that with the naturalistic fallacy. Peter Singer actually believes we do have a more right to life than other animals, but we aren't the only ones who have the right to life.
If a severely retarded person kills another person, we call it insanity. We don't hold them responsible for their actions because they are incapable of understanding why they are wrong
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Wait, he does believe we have more of a right to life than animals? I honestly didn't know that, can you elaborate? But anyway, which of my arguments are you referring to with the naturalistic fallacy? I am not following, sorry.
jonp14 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Also, there are a few holes in your naturalistic fallacy examples. I'm not so sure that the naturalistic fallacy is a valid fallacy, I'm pretty sure Aristotle doesn't agree with it either. But before this, I actually don't see where I committed the naturalistic fallacy, I didn't ever say it was natural therefore it was right. But I could definitely be missing something, just let me know.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Aristotle isn't the end all in logic (he just started it). The Naturalistic Fallacy is that because something is natural it's ok. I'm saying that that's not necessarily the case. G.E. Moore's Principa Ethica is where the Naturalistic fallacy is coined (but people refer to it much earlier). Rape is natural, so is pedophilia, but neither are viewed as ok in today's society. If you want to know about what Peter Singer believes read him. That's what I did.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Aristotle definitely has more credibility than Singer IMO. BUt that is beside the fact, I understand what the Naturalistic Fallacy is, I was just wondering which part of my argument commits the naturalistic fallacy? Of the argument that I presented, I don't see a part where I said that because something was natural that it was okay. But point it out to me, I definitely could have been implicating it without really realizing it.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Aristotle has more credibility than Singer? I have rarely heard such an ignorant statement. Singer has studied all of Aristotle and the countless philosophies after him. Aristotle was probably one of the two most influential thinkers in the history of humanity, but he believed a lot of things that aren't true. You were implying with the whole bear reference that because the bear "naturally" kills the fish then it's ok. And the naturalistic fallacy is Moore not Singer.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Just disregard the debate between Singer and Aristotle. We could go on with it but it's irrelevant to what I'm saying, I shouldn't have even have brought it up honestly, it was dumb. Anyway, I wasn't saying that it's okay that bears eat fish (though I do believe it is okay), I was just pointing out that if Singer really believes that we should be vegetarians and shouldn't kill animals (does he?), then he should be equally frustrated with all predators.
jonp14 7 months ago
For example, just as we should all be vegetarians, we should be stopping bears from eating anything living, and we should stop any other predator from killing any other animal. At the very least we should acknowledge also that it is wrong what the bears are doing; it is an evil that the fish are being killed. Why did you say that the naturalistic fallacy is Moore not Singer? I didn't dispute that, tho you are wrong. Moore's idea of a naturalistic fallacy is different than the one you gave
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Actually no it's not. Singer gets the naturalistic fallacy from Moore's work Principa Ethica. Yes he is saying that you must show something is good besides it being natural. When he uses good (as he actually mentions in his work) he is speaking about whether something is morally right or wrong. Natural has no bearing on whether something is morally permissible. That is Moore's point.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 No, Moore's main point in his naturalistic fallacy is that you cannot define the term "good" in natural ways. It is a word that means morally okay, but you can't associate the word good with something natural such as pleasurable. Good cannot be defined, therefore you cannot associate good with another term such as pleasurable or desired, good is good, and nothing else. That is Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 That is exactly the same thing. Good or morally ok is associated with natural. They are two different things. I don't see what you don't understand about this. Good is a judgement and not some objective fact. Natural, or anything else that isn't subjective, is objective. Therefore naturally doesn't not necessarily imply good.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Yes you are right actually, I am sorry. Thanks for walking me through that. I suppose a fifth grader could have understood that quicker than I.
jonp14 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Moore's naturalistic fallacy is about the definition of the term "good" used in arguments, not that something natural doesn't mean its morally permissible.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Actually if we could sustain bears another way, then yes it would be right to stop bears from killing other things unnecessarily. Bears are incapable of understanding that the fish suffers and desires to live, while humans are capable of understanding that. Meat eating is a small issue for Singer (and I). It's the fact that we torture animals before we kill them. Killing them would still be wrong as they desire to live, but what we do is worse.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 So, just so I can get this straight, it is morally impermissible for bears to eat fish, or for any predator in the world to eat another, but it is allowable because they don't understand? Is that correct?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 It's not morally impermissible for them to do it, but rather it is for us to let them. Even so I don't think that this is very high on a moral list of things which to stop. In our justice system we rarely punish people who are not responsible for their own actions. I agree with this. Do you?
Simple argument. I don't like suffering. Therefore I shouldn't inflict suffering on others. Is there any part of that you disagree with?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 You're saying usually we punish people who are responsible, right? I would agree yes with that. As far as your second question, if you take that argument, that anything you do not like yourself, you should not inflict on others, then you can get a very relativistic society. I mean, the fact that Moore believes good is good suggests that good is an objective thing, therefore relativism cannot be true, so, I believe suffering shouldn't be inflicted, but not by that argument.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Actually I don't believe in punishment (but it's a better system than it could be). Moore's is a moral emotivist. Just like I am and probably just like you are. You say relativism like it's a bad thing, but what other than our own morals do we have to go on? What do you believe constitutes being morally right? Why is good good?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Okay well first, do you believe in the Naturalistic Fallacy? Because if you do, you are admitting that there is an objective moral standard, which begs the question, where does that standard come from? Is it a platonic form? Is it from a Higher Being? If there is no such thing as objective standards in morality, then there is no morality. It doesn't truly exist. It's just a collection of ideas that are not right or wrong, so anyone can do anything. Whats the point of morality
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 No I'm not. You are missing the point of the naturalistic fallacy. I'm saying that we use the word good and natural differently. So natural doesn't necessarily imply good. There are people who believe it does, but as rape and pedophilia are very natural for humans, I don't see why natural should imply moral. Morals are not objective. Even if you are correct and God does exist, they are still judgments and henceforth not facts about the world. I reject platonism because of existentialism.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Okay, so what is the basis for morals then? We can all believe what we want, and be equally right if there is no objectivity, can't we?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 When I say morals are relative, I mean that people do believe different things. Now you are making the is/ought fallacy. People have different ideas of what is right and wrong and what we should believe or shouldn't. I'm not saying it's good to believe that. I'm just saying that's how things are. I believe that everyone should adopt a utilitarian perspective if you want society to flourish and by flourish I mean the eradication of poverty and disease and hunger (among others).
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Oh see I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were supporting relativism. But, just to be sure, you do believe that the utilitarian perspective is the best, implying that there is an objective best moral theory, am I correct? or no?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 No. I don't believe there is a best objective moral theory. If you consider a goal in the future, than yes there is an objectively best moral theory, but goals are relative as well. Let's say promoting what is generally good for all of thinking beings is your goal. Then by definition utilitarianism is the best possible course of action (as utilitarianism supports actions that promote the well-being of everyone). Morals are relative by definition.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Okay, but aren't you implying a definition for good? Like, when you say promoting what is generally good for all thinking beings is your goal, then, at least for that goal to be an objective thing, good has to be defined, otherwise the morals are still relative to each person's idea of goodness.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Good doesn't have to be objective for me to have a definition. Good's definition changes from person to person. By my definition God couldn't be good for creating animals for humans and causing them to suffer in the same way that humans do (or really causing them to suffer at all). Someone could call it good that animals do suffer. It's just most people agree that suffering is wrong, and if you do, I can't see rectifying that with a good God.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Yeah but you said if the goal in morals was to promote what is generally good for all thinking beings, then utilitarianism is the best. But what is the definition of good? If it varies from person to person, then utilitarian ideas vary from person to person. How would we then decide on the best definition of goodness? How do you decide on the best definition of it? What do you think it is?
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Morals come from reason, and we don't all agree. That is the most major problem in all of human societies. Even Christians rarely agree in terms of morals despite all claiming that their own morals come from God. When you ask "if it varies from person to person" you seem to be forgetting that it does vary from person to person and this is a major problem.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 No no that is my point. If morals are subjective, as you say they are, then each person has as much credibility as the next, and nobody is right, and if nobody is right, and there is no truth, then morals don't really exist, they are just a word made up that don't have a legitimate, true definition. For something to exist, it must have objectivity. Otherwise it only exists in our own minds, it doesn't truly exist.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 Well first, God doesn't solve the problem you are getting at, but I'm unsure whether there actually is a problem you are getting at. Morals are statements about the truth of the universe. They are judgements. You can say nobody is right, but that's just it, nobody is right. If you give a specific goal, then you can claim moral truth or moral objectivity, but without a goal calling something good or bad is merely arbitrary. Even with God this remains the case.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 But if you can't even claim moral truth or objectivity if there is a goal, because the words in the goal (And I'm talking about words that have moral ideas behind them, such as "good" or "bad") are also subjective. We just went through this. So all of morals are then subjective, and anyone can be right. Even with goals involved, nobody can claim validity. Unless the goal is something explicit with no moral ideas in it, like give as much sex to as many people or something.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 This is weird that you are missing my point. I thought you understood it. I can claim moral superiority by my own morals, but by someone elses they would claim moral superiority. Society runs because most people have similar goals like maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. If people didn't share those goals there would be total chaos. Morals and goals are relative as people don't always agree on them. How would God change any of this?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 I understand your point now. I disagree with it, but I understand what you're saying. That's all it comes down to. I believe there are objectively true morals. That's it. I say God would change it because there would be objective morals. I know you're saying has their own standards, I'm just saying that because God exists (obviously under faith) they are wrong, because he has his standards.
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 You kind of gave in. By our other argument you should realize that your God's standards differ from my own. I couldn't never accept your God's standards as I believe mine are better. What makes God right? And on top of that, God created animals for humans and then humans caused them to suffer (because of the fall?) That means, to me, we should do all we can to prevent animals from suffering if we are the ultimate cause of why they suffer.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 What makes God right is that he (under our belief) is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, so he knows everything, which would mean he knows what the best is, for he created all of ethics and thinking anyway. As far as us causing animals to suffer, it wasn't us directly, it was Adam and Eve, or whoever Genesis was referring to by Adam and Eve, so we are not responsible. A whole species is not responsible for the acts of a few of its members, especially ancestral members
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 It's still subjective. Best is very subjective. The Jews of the Bible's idea of what the best world would look like is very different from your own idea of best is. This is actually my largest problem with religion in general. God is always a personification of what one person feels is perfection. That idea hasn't even remotely held fast over the last two thousand years.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 I understand your problem with it. It's my biggest struggle with my own faith. I am not in complete understanding of all of my faith. But I have seen too much truth and seen too many crazy events for me not to believe in it. But, as far as the Jews in the Old Testament, a good example of something you could give me was the Jews wanting to stone Magdalen, and Jesus telling them not to. It's a contradiction, right? The Jewish law from God says one thing and Jesus says another...
jonp14 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379 But it's situational. Everything in the Bible is this way, it seems at least, I am no theologian. I can't understand it, but there are too many holes in any other philosophies, and there is too much evidence in my mind and my life for me not to believe. So it goes back to this, I firmly believe there is a God, which would mean there is objectivity. But dude, I gotta be honest, I am done, you've gotten me to one part of my faith I have not studied or can understand on my own
jonp14 7 months ago
@jonp14 But the Bible is no different and you seem to understand that. I hate using the typical atheist response (and I almost never do but I'll make an exception), but you have to see from my eyes, a god sacrificing himself to himself to change a rule that he made is in no way consistent. I find my own moral philosophy to be consistent, and I think everyone should find their own philosophy to be consistent, but you are right, people's morals are almost never consistent.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
oh man my philosophy professor one time threatened to show us a documentary on factory farms, either we begged him not to or I skipped that class but jeezes i dun wanna know it's so tastyyy!
martinrking 9 months ago
This guy's awesome! Off to eat my steak...
jumpnjza2 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
iBLAME THE BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS!
pseudonominous 1 year ago
Lets leap the evidential logic, and presume there were a society full of raging necrophiliacs. Is the pleasure gained from emaciated intercourse greater than the suffering endured by the family or humiliation endured by the society as a whole. And if you going to say the entirety of the given society have necrophiliac tendencies you exit the hub of meta-ethics enter the realm of fiction and fantasy. It's like saying what if bad was good? = What if humans become something other than human?
Howieeeeex 1 year ago
@Howieeeeex Is the pleasure you gain from living greater than the suffering I endure from knowing your alive? And, if not, am I justified in killing you?
YossarianLives04 9 months ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
Oh look, the dog-raping guy is copying the comments of others... Go rape a dog, you filthy, sick-in-the-head dog rapist.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
Funny how Singer doesn't actually associate with pedophiles, necrophiliacs and people who have sex with sheep
vitalitutorials 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
SO religious people never kill under any circumstances? This from a liberal who probably can't spin two sentences without mentioning the crusades... Think about what you say...
And dogs do need pleasure, but isn't a pat good enough?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
Moral philosophy states that there is no right or wrong.... So everything Singer says, is it right or wrong?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
Hang on, you're just a Singer-Hater who's being sarcastic...
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
SO do you discriminate? Do you also pleasure snakes, parrots and guinea pigs?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
Yes i can see by your name that you're right into Singer and his perverse relations with animals.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: By which philosopher were you mounted like a bison? Your unhealthy fixation with where men put their penis makes one wonder if you might not have been violated as a child. In nowhere does Peter Singer whose work irredeemable vulgarians like yourself have never troubled to read advocate bestiality. To contend that something is not immoral in a book review is not to encourage it, a distinction lost on men with a cognitive deficit. Leave moral philosophy to the big boys kid.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
LOL, a Peter Singer fan telling me to leave moral philosophy to his ilk, go and rape a dog and murder a child.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: I dissent from sections of Peter Singer's magnum opus Practical Ethics, but I would rather conduct an honest discussion of his utilitarian philosophy than wage a defamation campaign against a giant of moral philosophy by running around screaming and pulling out one's hair like a skirt-clutching little hooker desperate for attention. Nothing which his Christian detractors say remotely indicate they've read his work beyond fabrications on fundamentalist websites. No one buys it.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
Moral philosophy states that there is no right or wrong.... So everything you say, is it right or wrong?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
And you must also agree with Hitler's views regarding animal welfare. You admire Hitler for some of his actions just not all of them, yes?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: Hitler may have been a vegetarian, but he was also a teetotaler. Foolish is the man who draws a moral equivalence between Singer and the Nazis for Singer's Jewish family were exterminated by Hitler with the active support of the Christian church. Singer's work aims to reduce suffering in the world and the Christers want to obscenely prolong it. Your right-wing mendacity fetches nobody. Further evidence that you are one drop of semen that your mother should have swallowed
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
So Simon Wiesenthal, prominent HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR, is a fool? Because this famous Jewish hero compares Singer to Hitler, not just me. You really are an ignorant human being. Oh Singer helps PEOPLE now? No of course not, by suffering, you were referring to animals.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: By whom were you forcefully struck on the head my sweet? Peter Singer's grandparents were exterminated by the Nazis. He doesn't need to be lectured on the holocaust by merchants of imbecility. If you can point to a single instance where Singer ever condones pedophilia or necrophilia, I will tumble you on the bed and discharge myself manfully between your cheeks. Or would you like me to deposit my Holy Seed in your mouth? Quit the mendacity troll. Nobody's fetched by it.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago 2
@FromAtomsMade
In your local library you may find a section you're unfamiliar with called NON-fiction. I suggest you start reading up on an event in history known as World War 2. It involved a guy who killed Jews, Gypsies, Pagans, Christians, gays, blacks among many other factual accounts, including an attempted assassination of the Pope. Get back to me once you've done some research, I refuse to argue spurious commentary.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian who values Peter Singer's clarity of thought over the discredited fabrications of the Christian right for whom you spread your bottom cheeks with the enthusiasm of Crusaders sacking Jerusalem. The reason Singer holds a prestigious chair at an Ivy League college and is awarded the accolade of the most influential living philosopher by the New Yorker is because he dismembers the quackery of Christian philosophy and eats it for lunch. Game's up.
PhilosopherSY 1 year ago
@PhilosopherSY
You're a moron. Nice Crusade reference. That was definitely the most recent historical event worth mentioning.
The reason Peter Singer holds a chair in any University is simply because JEWS are desperate to promote the worst values possible. The man is a lunatic, as are you, and no doubt your family.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: Is the reason why you disdain Peter Singer because he walked out on your mother when he mounted her like a bison? Speak not evil of your daddy. Your invidious comments about the "Jews" amply demonstrate that your animus for Singer is fueled by nothing more than racial supremacism. You are a Ku Kluxer with an IQ south of ten. Kindly take your fascist sympathies to some place a bit more receptive to neo-Nazis. I suggest StormFront be your first port of call.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
The thing is that going to Stormfront won't allow me to influence those who need it, as they already understand this issue. And we know that you're a member of the Khmer Rouge, but u do not need to bring your red rhetoric to this page.
Why must one who opposes Jewish influence in our Universities be a racial supremacist? Was Gandhi a racial supremacist? I know ur kind, anyone who doesn't conform completely to Pol Pot's 'egalitarianism' is Klan member and frequents stromfront.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: It's patently clear from the antisemitic content of your channel that you are a mentally defective skinhead from whom Jew-baiting radiates like heat from a stove. Adopting the conspiracy theories of Hitler you maintain that all Jews are communists with nefarious designs on Western Civ. You don't object to Singer's utilitarianism. You object to the very existence of the Jewish people whom you want to send into the arms of God uninvited. No racial supremacism here please. Shoo!
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
Not all Jews are communists, but nearly all contemporary communist agitators are Jewish, and those that are not were influenced by prominent Jews.
I do not wish to kill all Jews, not Savage, or the guy who runs the ultimateJew channel, i even support Israel.
See what you are is a presumptuous homosexual who can't help but label all who might disagree with your right to marriage with erroneous and derisive epithets like 'racist' or 'Nazi' as to encourage others to ignore us.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: You are a merchant of taqiyya whose torrents and torrents of vulgar lies about Singer spring from your racial hate for the Jewish people as your channel description abundantly attests. Nobody's convinced by the antisemitism of a neo-Nazi bigot whose past comments reveal a history of trolling videos about Jews. I'm sorry darling but I don't contend with cum guzzling Jew-haters from whose lips drip a mouthful of my holy seed.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
I am a merchant of taqiyya? You will need to explain that prevarication.
My channel abundantly attests my antisemitism? What the picture?
Neo Nazi bigot? You think combining epithets will work better?
Cum-guzzling Jew hater? This from an obvious homosexual?
You don't contend with my ilk? No, you can't content with my ilk, but clearly you're trying.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: Peter Singer is the finest, grandest, damndest living thinker and nobody whose read his work lends credence to fundamentalist merchants of humbug. I'm happily married to a flame-haired Hungarian Jew so I'm not gay, but I'm willing to make an exception for you. If you recline into my hairy arms my sweet, if you let me tumble you on the bed and discharge myself orgasmically in your mouth, I promise you'll walk funny in the morning beaming a radiant smile.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago 3
@FromAtomsMade
Have you been on to your friends account: "Dogsneedpleasuretoo" Tell me, do you agree with his channel? Do you like it? Seriously?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
I followed this debate and need to ask why you've resorted to filth? Do you feel that you lost? At first you were sounding intelligent, bringing up evidence to support our claims... Now you're relying on inane insults. Obviously you are a homosexual, stop kidding yourself & your alleged wife. If you're the type of person that Singer produces then its frightening
vitalitutorials 1 year ago
@vitalitutorials: Peter Singer is a matchless giant of moral philosophy and no defamatory comments about him will go unmolested. If you and your Christer friend can prove where Singer lends support to "necrophilia" or "pedophilia", I will stop poking my finger in your eyes with glee. I'm supremely happy to keep the debate on a lofty plane, but descend to vilification and I will part your bottom cheeks and fill it to bursting point with my holy seed. Got that? Quit lying or I will mount you.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade
Why do all you Singer minions on this page resort to homosexual vulgarities in your efforts to debate? I always get frustrated when people, who have masted their use of polysyllabic words and have the ability to construct a decent sentence, rely on tasteless inanities to make their point. Yes Singer has placed pedophilia in context with bestiality; the dead aren't self-aware, are they? If society was more accepting of necrophilia, would you support it then?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer: The fundamentalist haters of Singer tickle me. When you spend all your energy weaving easily confuted lies about the man, you wonder why no one takes you seriously? Fascinating. Either furnish documentary evidence of where in Singer's work he lends support to your charge or admit that you are analphabetic. People who enter Singer's name in the search engine know his work. Your lies will not fetch them. You're squandering your own time. Cite the evidence or kindly shoo.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer Find a society willing to hump cadavers and you have your answer. You can't? Then the interrogative is immaterial.
Howieeeeex 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade Oh my gosh! Seriously dude, you are the worst arguer I've ever come across. You argue off of pure emotion, something Singer himself would dismiss. On top of that, you criticize the person non stop, you straight up vulgarly and hypothetically insult others. You aren't even making points anymore. You realize you argue for Singer but he wouldn't even defend you...
jonp14 7 months ago
@PhilosopherSY Hey man, Christian's have made mistakes, you cannot discredit a group or a group's ideas because of who they are or what they've done....that's called the ad hominem fallacy, so your attack against the crusades was made out of pure emotion, another thing a good philosopher wouldn't do. Also, you actually hold this same fallacy inversely when you credit Singer because of his position and awards; the difference is that you are giving him credit automatically because of who he is.
jonp14 7 months ago
@FromAtomsMade
And you never answered my question from before... Using you own logic, you admire Hitler for some of his actions, just not all of them? Right?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@FromAtomsMade Your vulgarity shows your unoriginality and emotion based argument, something a true philosopher would never do. I'm not claiming to be a true philosopher, but your clearly think you are and hold yourself in high esteem for it. So it would be greatly appreciated if you actually held Singer's views by not (so vulgarly) criticizing other's existence and implying they have no right to life...but that would require logic on your part.
jonp14 7 months ago
@TaqiyyaExposer
Dude, you haven't made a serious comment on this thread. Have you seriously searched youtube for something you hate just so you can complain about it?
If you don't agree with the subject, DON'T WATCH IT.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
this man is a monster and hates persons with disablities, and is it fair to put a child to death because of disability i hope to god that he becomes a disabled person and sees how his disgracefull views of predjidice will turn against him.this man is a sick twisted bastard who belives that all people with a disability to die what a sick bastard. what gives him the right to deside someones fate in life. my message to people like this is i hope that when he dies he will go to hell and fuck him
MultiZedman 1 year ago
@MultiZedman: How many times were you dropped on your head by your mother? Poor widdle thing. Hospitals already kill severely handicapped new borns with no long term life prospects by withholding treatment when they catch a flu. A more gravely harmful practice for the inoperable babies die a painfully slow and lingering death. Singer desires to end this colossal human suffering by actively and painlessly terminating their lives with parental and medical consent. Singer aims to end suffering.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago
@MultiZedman
You don't seem to have understood anything Singer says. He says parents should have the choice whether a severly disabled child should live. He has never said they SHOULD die. Please make sure you understand an argument before commenting on it!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis
But on the 'self-awareness' basis, Singer has stated, when asked, that he would support the farming of children to harvest their organs for the sick, on a mass scale. This is why normal people dislike what Singer says, because of the heinous flow-on effects that would occur. (Not to mention what he says is pretty bad anyway) --------------------- But what is bad...What is good... There is no right/wrong.. - moral philosophic gobbledygook
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer
Where on earth has he said "I support farming of children to harvest their organs for the sick". Something tells me you're para-phrasing. Probably misleadingly.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@MultiZedman You have created a straw-man of Singer. Please re-examine what is his actual position before trying to vilify him.
Hyardacil 10 months ago
this man is a monster and hates persons with disablities, and is it fair to put a child to death because of disability i hope to god that he becomes a disabled person and sees how his disgracefull views of predjidice will turn against him
MultiZedman 1 year ago
this man is a monster and hates persons with disablities
MultiZedman 1 year ago
Comment removed
ayesha080 1 year ago
In his book, Heavy Petting, this guy claims sex with animals is okay, as long as it is "mutually satisfying". Hmmm... I think enough said. Right? Psycho.
uswestons 1 year ago
@uswestons
It might be weird but it's not necessarily morally wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis wow... that is an odd thing to say. Morals are not something that is universally right or wrong. Each individual has their own set of morals... and for my set, yes it is DEF wrong. I'd say that is speaking for most.
uswestons 1 year ago
@uswestons
Well why is it wrong? The whole point of moral philosophy is to base on your morals on some kind of logical argument. I agree it's weird but if it's not harming the animal, why is it morally wrong?
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis You are exactly right regarding the formation of a moral. Always have logical reasoning behind them. As far as the moral which states "don't have sex with animals"... logic is simple. There is a grand design behind all living things. Part of this design is the function of their parts. The hand has a natural function... (continued below)...
uswestons 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis. The eye has a natural function and the sexual reproduction parts have a natural function. The natural function of the eyes is to see. The natural function of the reproductive system is to reproduce, more of its kind that is. Right?
uswestons 1 year ago
@uswestons
That bares no importance on moral philsophy at all, you've basically just defined the naturallistic fallacy. By that logic, homosexuals are morally wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago