Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

[avxo]

You can summarily dismiss Singer if you want and remain ignorant of his actual positions and the arguments he makes to support them. You won't be the first or the last person to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA".  But that doesn't change the fact that he can articulate and support his "immoral" positions much better than you can support your "moral" ones.

As for your assertion that he shouldn't be teaching kids, I only have one thing to say. The notion is ridiculous. His personal opinions on ethics don't disqualify him from teaching philosophy in general and even ethics. He knows a lot more about the subject than you will ever know, and I'm sure he is a highly competent instructor. You have a mentality I've seen before: the mentality of someone who didn't set a foot inside an institute of higher education, and has no idea what the meaning or purpose of university is. In a university, instructors aren't there to spoon-feed you knowledge - they are there to teach you to think.

As for my vocabulary, I guess I apologize for having like more than like 5,000 words at my disposal. It's like, uhm, crazy. My brain like retains the information after I've read it like once.

[Dos Equis]

You can summarily dismiss Singer if you want and remain ignorant of his actual positions and the arguments he makes to support them. You won't be the first or the last person to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA".  But that doesn't change the fact that he can articulate and support his "immoral" positions much better than you can support your "moral" ones.

As for your assertion that he shouldn't be teaching kids, I only have one thing to say. The notion is ridiculous. His personal opinions on ethics don't disqualify him from teaching philosophy in general and even ethics. He knows a lot more about the subject than you will ever know, and I'm sure he is a highly competent instructor. You have a mentality I've seen before: the mentality of someone who didn't set a foot inside an institute of higher education, and has no idea what the meaning or purpose of university is. In a university, instructors aren't there to spoon-feed you knowledge - they are there to teach you to think.

As for my vocabulary, I guess I apologize for having like more than like 5,000 words at my disposal. It's like, uhm, crazy. My brain like retains the information after I've read it like once.

Thank you for allowing me to summarily dismiss Singer as a fool.  I've already done it.  I could care less about comparing him to me.  Don't need to do that.  I was talking about him.  What you're doing is very common:  attack the person instead of the argument.  And I even know the term for that:  ad hominem.  Impressive, no?   

Nobody with that kind of mindset should be teaching kids.  Absolutely not.  But we can agree to disagree. 

No need to apologize for your vocabulary.  But I have the good fortune to have been around lots of people, from the completely uneducated to the highly educated, and what I've learned is the truly smart ones don't need to try and sound smart.  They have the common sense, self assurance, and discretion to use their words carefully.  For example, they don't take academic language and use it in normal conversation.   

If you haven't done so already, you should read Emotional Intelligence by Goleman.  Great book.  Talks a lot about the true definition of intelligence. 

[Primemuscle]

....And in no way, shape, or form should he be teaching kids about ethics.   

The folks studying at Princeton might take exception to you referring to them as kids.

[Primemuscle]

....Nobody with that kind of mindset should be teaching kids.  Absolutely not.  But we can agree to disagree. 

Here you go again.

[Dos Equis]

The folks studying at Princeton might take exception to you referring to them as kids.

Adults aged 18-22 (on average) are kids.  In fact, regarding men, a wise old lady told me once that you don't become a real man till you turn 40.      

[Shockwave]

Adults aged 18-22 (on average) are kids.  In fact, regarding men, a wise old lady told me once that you don't become a real man till you turn 40.      

Thats ironic, considering at the shop we were just discussing the "over 40" mentality that hits men, when they suddenly seem to cease being able to retain knowledge (or simply refuse to accept new ideas) and seem to get this mental complex that they already know everything they need to know, and anything else is just immaturity. Its almost like a reversion to a childhood attitude, except with more wisdom.

Not flaming you, just thought it was funny.

[Dos Equis]

Thats ironic, considering at the shop we were just discussing the "over 40" mentality that hits men, when they suddenly seem to cease being able to retain knowledge (or simply refuse to accept new ideas) and seem to get this mental complex that they already know everything they need to know, and anything else is just immaturity. Its almost like a reversion to a childhood attitude, except with more wisdom.

Not flaming you, just thought it was funny.

That is funny.  I was actually just talking to a kid about the need to defer to people who have been around the block and try to learn from folks who have "been there, done that." 

You're never too old to learn. 

[Primemuscle]

Adults aged 18-22 (on average) are kids.  In fact, regarding men, a wise old lady told me once that you don't become a real man till you turn 40.      

That's an opinion not a fact. The fact is that someone 18 years old is legally considered an adult.

[Primemuscle]

Thats ironic, considering at the shop we were just discussing the "over 40" mentality that hits men, when they suddenly seem to cease being able to retain knowledge (or simply refuse to accept new ideas) and seem to get this mental complex that they already know everything they need to know, and anything else is just immaturity. Its almost like a reversion to a childhood attitude, except with more wisdom.

Not flaming you, just thought it was funny.

This begs the question; what is the age of the folks at the shop who were engaged in this discussion? My guess is that they are under 40 years old.

I've learned new things from folks as young as my grandchildren and from folks older than me....which makes them really old! LOL. I don't believe I am exceptional in that I retain most of what I learn and know and I am always open to new ideas. I'll stop learning things the day I die and not a moment before then, if I am lucky. I believe you are stereotyping folks who are over 40 years old.

[avxo]

Thank you for allowing me to summarily dismiss Singer as a fool.  I've already done it.  I could care less about comparing him to me.  Don't need to do that.  I was talking about him.  What you're doing is very common:  attack the person instead of the argument.  And I even know the term for that:  ad hominem.  Impressive, no?   

Quite impressive. Alas, I didn't attack you. I challenged your close-mindedness and your summary dismissal of Singer's work based on your misunderstanding.

Nobody with that kind of mindset should be teaching kids.  Absolutely not.  But we can agree to disagree.

Right... you're absolutely right. No "kids" attending University (and one of the world's most prestigious one, at that) should ever be exposed to different and new ideas and challenged to consider them, examine them and decide for themselves. They should just be spoon-fed aphorisms, to be memorized and repeated.

And just because a Professor has published something you disagree with and doesn't sit well with your particular theory of ethics - such as it is - means that he's unfit to teach.

No need to apologize for your vocabulary.  But I have the good fortune to have been around lots of people, from the completely uneducated to the highly educated, and what I've learned is the truly smart ones don't need to try and sound smart.  They have the common sense, self assurance, and discretion to use their words carefully.  For example, they don't take academic language and use it in normal conversation. 

You're right - truly smart people don't need to try to sound smart; they talk simply, eloquently, and measure their words carefully. As to whether they have common sense, I'll again point out that common sense isn't really all that common.

If you haven't done so already, you should read Emotional Intelligence by Goleman.  Great book.  Talks a lot about the true definition of intelligence.

Thanks for the pointer. I reserved a copy from the library, but probably won't get to it for a couple of weeks.

That is funny.  I was actually just talking to a kid about the need to defer to people who have been around the block and try to learn from folks who have "been there, done that." 

You're never too old to learn. 

I never saw the wisdom in blindly deferring to those who are older simply because of their age - it's just a number after all. One should certainly take advantage of and learn from the experiences of others, but never blindly. We have brains for a reason.

[loco]

The quotes attributed to professer Singer are clearly disturbing when taken out of context as you've done here. Did you read the links you posted? While I may not agree with what he says, he makes some interesting points no matter how horrific they may seem to some people.

They were not taken out of context.  Explain this:

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

[Shockwave]

That's an opinion not a fact. The fact is that someone 18 years old is legally considered an adult.

1 65 year old, 1 37 year old engineer, 1 32 year old machinist, and myself, 27.

Ironically the 65 year old brought it up.

[Mr. Magoo]

They were not taken out of context.  Explain this:

For the last time, Singer is one of the easiest public philosophers to read. He can explain it himself. Read him and understand him before objecting to him. There has been no reason explaining why Singer is wrong, just begging the question. I've seen you post those links before in that same order in several different threads, so it seems like you have this sort of stuff saved in a file to copy and paste whenever Singer's name comes up.  Lot of intellectual laziness coming from people who ordinarily seem to object to others oversimplifying and misinterpreting the bible to fit preconceived notions without ever trying to put forth any effort to understand the bible.

bizarre  

[loco]

For the last time, Singer is one of the easiest public philosophers to read. He can explain it himself. Read him and understand him before objecting to him. There has been no reason explaining why Singer is wrong, just begging the question. I've seen you post those links before in that same order in several different threads, so it seems like you have this sort of stuff saved in a file to copy and paste whenever Singer's name comes up.  Lot of intellectual laziness coming from people who ordinarily seem to object to others oversimplifying and misinterpreting the bible to fit preconceived notions without ever trying to put forth any effort to understand the bible.

bizarre  

"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter/singlepage

When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her. &guy's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term[/b].  So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother.  He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true.  But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''

  This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life.  He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor.  ("That
is not charity,'' he said.  "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/1999/09/the-dangerous-philosopher/

[avxo]

They were not taken out of context.  Explain this:

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Steve Forbes can do whatever he wants. I'm not going to explain Steve Forbes's actions.

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion and he can explain it himself if he so chooses. I'm not going to explain his opinions for him.

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

Marc Maurer can claim whatever he wants and he can defend his own claims. I'm not going to explain or justify his claims for him.

"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter/singlepage

So?

When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her.  Singer's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term.  So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother.  He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true.  But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''

Even if she no longer qualified as a person under Singer's definition, it is still morally defensible under Singer's theory of ethics and morality, to spend money to keep her alive. The guy writing this piece clearly misunderstands (or, more likely, misrepresents) what is a fairly straightforward philosophy. You can hardly blame Singer for that.

  This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life.  He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor.  ("That
is not charity,'' he said.  "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/1999/09/the-dangerous-philosopher/

This guy is comparing apples and oranges because they both grow on trees...

[loco]

Steve Forbes can do whatever he wants. I'm not going to explain Steve Forbes's actions.


Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion and he can explain it himself if he so chooses. I'm not going to explain his opinions for him.


Marc Maurer can claim whatever he wants and he can defend his own claims. I'm not going to explain or justify his claims for him.


So?


Even if she no longer qualified as a person under Singer's definition, it is still morally defensible under Singer's theory of ethics and morality, to spend money to keep her alive. The guy writing this piece clearly misunderstands (or, more likely, misrepresents) what is a fairly straightforward philosophy. You can hardly blame Singer for that.


This guy is comparing apples and oranges because they both grow on trees...

Are you Primemuscle? 

[loco]

Very sad and scary to see people here lining up behind Peter Singer, much like the German people lined up behind Hitler.   

[Primemuscle]

1 65 year old, 1 37 year old engineer, 1 32 year old machinist, and myself, 27.

Ironically the 65 year old brought it up.

Did you mean to respond to this post rather than the one you quoted:

This begs the question; what is the age of the folks at the shop who were engaged in this discussion? My guess is that they are under 40 years old.

[avxo]

Very sad and scary to see people here lining up behind Peter Singer, much like the German people lined up behind Hitler.   

You are comparing Peter Singer and Adolf Hitler... Seriously? Your name on here is quite apt.

[Primemuscle]

Are you Primemuscle?  

No he is not. But then, you know what they say about great minds. "Great minds think alike." Prov. Very intelligent people tend to come up with the same ideas at the same time. (Used playfully, to commend someone for expressing the same thing you were thinking of; implies that you are congratulating that person for being as smart as you are. Believe it or not, I was just thinking exactly that which Avxo posted in reply to you.

Thanks Avxo, for replying for me.

[loco]

You are comparing Peter Singer and Adolf Hitler... Seriously? Your name on here is quite apt.

Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)

The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[45] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill. [...] Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanise#Nazi_Euthanasia_Program_.28Action_T4.29

[Primemuscle]

Very sad and scary to see people here lining up behind Peter Singer, much like the German people lined up behind Hitler.   

To acknowledge that someone, like Peter Singer has a point is not the same thing as "lining up behind" them....particularly not in the context you've suggested.

[avxo]

Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)

The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[45] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill. [...] Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanise#Nazi_Euthanasia_Program_.28Action_T4.29

Jost may have argued that "control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state" but that's not even close to what Peter Singer argues. You clearly have no idea what his theory of ethics is, so why not read it first, instead of making a fool of yourself by comparing him to Adolf Hitler?

[loco]

Jost may have argued that "control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state" but that's not even close to what Peter Singer argues. You clearly have no idea what his theory of ethics is, so why not read it first, instead of making a fool of yourself by comparing him to Adolf Hitler?

Let's see:

Hitler:  "Kill all people with disabilities"

Peter Singer:  "Kill all people with disabilities"

Yeah, I'm such a fool.    

[avxo]

Let's see:

Hitler:  "Kill all people with disabilities"

Peter Singer:  "Kill all people with disabilities"

Yeah, I'm a fool.     

That is not what Singer says. Since you've been corrected more than once and continue to repeat that I can only conclude that you are blatantly and knowingly lying. *plonk*