Posted on 07/02/2002 10:32:01 AM PDT by lasereye
"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.
Hold it. Hold IT! I thought humans were no better than animals. Held to a higher standard? WHY?? If we're all the same, then we're all the same. Period.
What a nut-case.
If humans then, are the species most able to abstract information from their environment, and deriving meaning from it, even to the point of being able to alter that environment, then this plurality has that deep a meaning.
A certain beauty in this too is that it is not all inconsistent with what we can observe in nature.
Very artful. Start with the position that a "severely disabled" infant might be fair game. Note that if something (like a "severely disabled" infant) is not self-aware then it mightbe OK to kill it. Then finish with the oh-so-casual statement that newborn infants (with no qualifier as to disablity) are not self-aware. Voila! Carte blanche for infanticide.
Of course, later on we discuss spiders and how it's wrong to kill them.
Have you ever read a novel written by a chimpanzee?
Sat on furniture constructed by chipmunks?
Browsed a website designed, coded and maintained by rottweilers?
Driven a car engineered by cats?
Been a patient at a hospital staffed by moose doctors and turkey nurses?
He should heed his own words. While we ARE superior to animals, we shouldn't see that as an excuse to mistreat them. It's fruitcakes like him, however, that cast a negative light on all that feel compassion towards animals.
Singer also defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."
Now we can see what motivates this guy. He wants to be able to dress up his pooch and marry it, then see if he can produce some sort of hybrid, and if it doesn't come out right, he can have it killed within 28 days...
This is true. This is why intelligence, alone, is not the measure of what is or isn't a person.
By this twisted rationale, every single animal that eats another for survival on this planet is a "hate-filled species-ist".
To further delve into the machinations of this lunatic's thought processes, feel free to bang yourself on the head with a hammer repeatedly.
1 Corinthians 1:20
Professor Peter Singer should immediately resign his job at Princeton, remove all trappings of humanity, and march off into the woods to commune with Mother Nature.
I bet he'll be worm food within a week.
Absolutely correct.
This freak makes the handicapping case on human "moral judgement", as if a rabbit were somehow LESS DEAD if it was to be hunted down by a wolf, instead.
As for the "species superority" argument, I'll bet my a$$ that a wolf considers itself FAR SUPERIOR to a rabbit because he was put on this earth to hunt that bunny down....This is common sense even to a child, but at some of our nation's most esteemed academic institutions, this nonsense passes for "intellectual accumen".
Yeah, in one question-answer, he says that Animals are not the same as humans, and can't reflect on what they are doing.
In another question-answer, he says that Animals can consent to sexual contact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.