Tim Blair

Insane indeed.

Or perhaps just stupid.

Or most likely eager to capitalise upon the wave of silly, muddled morality and anti-americanism that pervades a very well-off market demograpic these days.

What about the old saying that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"?

Yup. This Singer bloke's crazy!

Peter Singer is the guy who came out recently making the case that sex with your pet is okay.

"Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. "

That's really nasty, Carl. Sorry I read that link.

It says something about academia that Peter Singer's absurdity is taken seriously by anyone.

Be glad you didn't read the responses to that article, goldsmith. X_X

Peter Singer:

Anti: Fighting fascists

Pro: Fucking your dog, killing your disabled children.

This man is lecturing George Bush and the rest of us on morality. Just when you think the idiot left can't decend into deeper recesses of self-parody they top themselves.

The New Yorker calls him one of the 'most influential and controversial philosophers alive' - I call the New Yorker a smug, imbecillic rag unworthy to wipe the shit from my ass. Which of us is right? By golly, in the brave new world of Singerethics, WE ALL ARE!

HUGZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! :)

"turn the other cheek" is just fine when it's actually you that's been attacked. When it's your sworn responsibility to defend people, then it's not okay to turn the other cheek, any more than it would be okay to just turn the other cheek while witnessing a beating. That's so easy. Now one can certainly debate the manner in which the defending was done, as I often do, but "turn the other cheek".....? Did the Age reporter just slip that quote in so that we all could practice our layups?

Peter Singer is also pretty keen on infanticide of the disabled, much like that other great ethicist, Adolf Hitler.

PS: I wonder what place there will be for Singer's kind in the brave new islamic paradise envisioned by Osama's boys? It's almost worth the destruction of western civ to see these campus scum slaughtered by the jihadis. What kind of fucked up world is it where the greatest people our civilisation produces are killed on the streets of Falluja to protect the rights and freedoms of filth like Singer? What kind OF FUCKED UP WORLD IS IT?

Even the people who were against the war in Afghanistan -- and there were many -- usually have the good sense to pretend that they were for it all along.

And, of course, most folks who were for the war in Afghanistan have the good manners not to point this fact out to the anti-Afghan war morons.

the only insane bastard is Bush and the War crimmal Sharon (which he is 6000 people died while he sat on his hands) how many more terroists do you think this will create Manifest Denisty is dead boys

"how many more terroists do you think this will create Manifest Denisty is dead boys"

That is a truly classic line. Abstract, almost poetic, the poet rejects Imperialistic Proscriptive spelling rules to form a chaotic, spontaneous bop prosody worthy of ee cummings or Ferlinghetti. I give it a 10!

John is super "terroists" supporter becoz he needs no spelling and punctuation is a zionist plot!!!!!

At the risk of having an exocet or two aimed in my direction, but if we regard the Christian New Testament as the Roman Empire's Slave management procedure manual, then the admonition " to turn the other cheek" is a rather cunning way to convince someone to sacrifice themselves in preference to fighting a wrong with equal force.

Just imagine a Roman soldier wacking the bejeezus out of you and your belief demands you turn the other cheek - slave management 101 if you ask me.

Okay, while I may personally agree that "turning the other cheek" means submitting yourself to violent oppressors, the idea that Christ's teachings were actually Roman propoganda is a pretty silly conspiracy theory. If the Internet was around back then, it probably would've gotten some traction too.

But let's all savor the delicious irony of a moonbat admonishing Bush for not making his policies religious enough.

Oh, from what I read, some theologicans reckon the New Testament is actually St Pauls teachings rather than Christ's, which I won't enter into of course, so I doubt it could be dismissed as a silly conspiracy theory.

But anyway Singer's point is, well, another typical Singerism.

Near as I can figure, Peter Singer would only support killing Bin Ladin if he was an crippled baby.

I'm with Sortelli, who beat me to the punch in pointing out how the usual screed is about the cabal of Religious Right Zionist Zealots, how they inhabit the White House and control America...and now that some leftist thinks they found some Scripture Bush to be a hypocrite because he wasn't Christian enough. It'd be comical if it wasn't true...and wrong. I applaud Mr Bush for letting personal belief guide his actions and principles without making them an official installation of government and altering his Presidential duties. Gasp! He actually maintains Constitutional law.

Louis -- interesting theory, but I disagree too. Rather than serve as slave management, the call to turn the cheek is to demonstrate the love of Christ that made Him sacrifice his life for the world. Anybody can hate and fight back -- but you gotta have big marbles to accept the boundless love and patience it takes to "turn the other cheek".

Ironically, that's not to say I think Fabrizio Quattrocchi did the wrong thing... I think that given his situation, his defiance shows the same quality of character that it takes to turn the cheek in others. Al-Jazeera isn't showing him off as a propaganda film either. Something about must've scared them. Good on him, may he rest in peace.
It's also nice to see the Italians willing to fight again.

If he was "a crippled baby" rather. Dammit! My attempt at a pithy statement, ruined!

And does it not say something that Peter Singer is the Bioethics chair at Princeton University?

And he supports people having sex with animals...Unless they are chicken. Then he is opposed to it (Yes, he really does believe that.).

By the way "john"...Learn about singular and plural nouns before you decide to grace us with your wisdom. Not to mention the "terrorists" you label call themselves "freedom fighters."

C.T.

It is adolescent to think that one ought to "turn the other cheek" to someone who isn't out to slap you again, but to blow that cheek and its attendent head to smithereens.

And this guy is a "respected" "moralist"? Respected by whom? And which morality is he preaching to ignorant children seeking knowledge? And who the hell is paying him to do so?

He's just a pathetic populist after a bit of attention. Nothing guarantees a bit of exposure better that whacking the American President.
Singer will probably feature in lengthy interviews on the 7:30 Report, Lateline and Dateline sometime very soon. Idiot!

Given Singer's views of bestiality, perhaps his next book might be: "There's lipstick on your collie."

The way I look at it is the human body has 4 cheeks. In the 5-6 years leading up to 9/11 we turned one after the Khobar Towers, then one, each, after the two US embassy bombings in Africa, and then the fourth after the USS Cole.

With the WTC, we simple ran out of cheeks to turn...

Gee, Singer's stuff would be real hard to make up. I could never be a Professor, nor a Journalist. Maybe after I go to first grade, I'll start to figure out how to produce it, but I think I'll have to wait for adolescence to get turned on by a dog humping my leg. Now that's a reason to live, and a way to live well.

I envision turning canine cheeks in about 8 years.

'turn the other cheek' is SO new testament. i prefer the old testament sayings 'eye for eye tooth for tooth'.

Bush has come in for criticism in tens of thousands of books and articles by tens of thousands of critics. Some are laughable and patently absurd, some are sharper and troubling, scoring real points that damage him politically.

Of all the criticism we've seen in the past 4 years, this has got to one of the most pleasing to Bush and his supporters. I'll bet that someone in the Republican party is deliberately trying to get more publicity for this book.

Could Bush's campaign managers find a more perfect foil than a Princeton Philosphy professor who apologizes for euthanasia, eugenics, and bestiality? Would it be unethical for Bush to promote Singer's book in an attempt to show his critics as degenerate and ammoral, not to mention useless academic elitist twits? Perhaps that would be a good question/ethical dilemma for Singer's next book:->

Singers logic will ensure his place in the Darwin Awards.

there are similar people in history, one in particular being Chief Nunuku-Whenua, of the Moriori.

Never heard of the Moriori?.. well theres a reason , they thought like Singer and turned the other cheek.
... and it got eaten , along with the rest.
the last Moriori died in 1933.

Read on to find out why the "Singer Syndrome" will ensure his line along with the fellow pacifists will ensure their likewise removal from the gene pool.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/kopel/kopel041103.asp

Oh, lordy, spare us atheists like Singer lecturing Christians about what Christians "really" believe.

"Turn the other cheek" is addressed to the individual affected, telling him not to seek revenge.

So wrongdoers go unpunished? No, because it is the role of the state to punish evildoers -- as God's delegated agent of justice, Christians believe. See 3rd Chapter to St Paul's Letter to the Romans. He even says "the ruler doesn't carry a sword for nothing". So we have retributive justice rather than vengeful private lynchings.

Next time, Professor Pete, suggest you actually open a Bible ("somewhere around page 900", as Rev Lovejoy might say) before you start pontificating, so to speak, about how a consistent Christian should act. Hint: it ain't enough to rely on random quotations you come across on Hallmark cards.

Turning the other cheek is non violently assertive; Turn the other cheek after you have been hit on the RIGHT cheek. Hitting someone on the right cheek (if right handed) is a back handed slap that would have been used to shame an inferior. Turning the other cheek forces the game to be between equals.

Hey Louis Hissink, if we regard the Christian New Testament as the Roman Empire's Slave management procedure manual, then it didn't work too well did it? The cross they made Jesus carry today overlooks their capitol. Think they saw that one coming?

Where is almighty Zeus these days Louis? Seen him around?

"Just when you think the idiot left can't decend into deeper recesses of self-parody they top themselves."
"What kind of fucked up world is it where the greatest people our civilisation produces are killed on the streets of Falluja to protect the rights and freedoms of filth like Singer?"
Damn straight.
Amos speak truth.

No surprise that at one time Singer was the most senior Green in (the Australian state of) Victoria. He co-authored a book with Greens Senator Bob Brown and ran against Petro Georgio for the seat of Kooyong, forcing Petro to preferences, to hold what's supposed to be the most blue-ribbon seat in Australia. Why the Seppos ever gave Singer a green card is beyond me, but at least we no longer have to deal with his death cult 'philosophy.' Now, if they could just give Philip Nitschke a green card, they'd have both bookends.....

Amos, the story goes like this:

Pontius Pilate missed the memo from Ceasar that said Christ was Rome's undercover operative.

That's why, with the help of the shape-shifting lizardmen from mars, he stole Christ's body out of the tomb three days later and tried to pretend that the execution never happened.

But things went terribly wrong when Jimmy Hoffa saw them from his secret anti-gravity submarine and passed the word on to Saint Paul, who concocted the story of the resurrection.

You see, Paul was a triple agent, working within the Elite Roman Slave Suppression team that JC headed up, and with Jesus out of the way Paul was finally able to establish a major religion that was able to covert the Roman Empire itself, softening it up for invasion from the Gauls and their magical strength potion*.

But the records of this were mostly destroyed during the forgotten invasion of the moon bees in AD 605.

* The famous Gaulish general Obelix was never allowed to have the potion himself, because he fell into it as a baby.

Sortelli, where does Bush and Haliburton fit into this conspiracy?

Could the cross have been plastic?

Inquiring minds want to know.

He says what? America should not have intervened in Afgjanistan because innocent lives could be lost? Oh yeah? Well, exactly how many "innocent lives" were already being lost in that country day-in and day-out WELL BEFORE we took remedial action.

Think of it this way: the Taliban was a cancer and it needed to be cut out. In the long run this action SAVED LIVES. Ya follow?

Near as I can figure, Peter Singer would only support killing Bin Ladin if he was an crippled baby.

I wonder how he felt about the targetted killing of Yassin?

Andjam - good questions - my guess wd be he'd be against it, because after all while he is in favor of killing deformed or crippled babies and having sex with his neighbor's poodle, he seems to have no problem with elderly, infirmed murderers being allowed to walk the streets freely and spew their hatred and murderous intent.

Apology seems to be in the political air. Bush refuses to apologize. But here's sociologist Erving Goffman on apology

``A further illustration of the difference between ritual concerns
and substantive ones comes from occasions of accident in which
the carelessness of one individual is seen as causing injury or
death to another. Here there may be no way at all to compensate the
offended, and no punishment may be prescribed. All that the offend[er]
can do is say he is sorry. And this expression itself may be
relatively little open to gradation. The fact - at least in our
society - is that a very limited set of ritual enactments are
available for contrite offenders. Whether one runs over another's
sentence, time, dog, or body, one is more or less reduced to saying
some variant of ``I'm sorry.'' The variation in degree of anguish
expressed by the apologizer seems a poor reflection of the variation
in loss possible to the offended. In any case, while the original
infraction may be quite substantive in its consequence, the remedial
work, however vociferous, is in these cases still largely expressive.
And there is a logic to this. After an offense has occurred, the job
of the offender is to show that it was not a fair expression of his
attitude, or, when it evidently was, to show that he has changed his
attitude to the rule that was violated. In the latter case, his job
is to show that whatever happened before, he now has a right
relationship - a pious attitude - to the rule in question, _and this
is a matter of indicating a relationship, not compensating a loss_''

Goffman's emphasis.

_Relations in Public_ ``Remedial Interchanges'' p.117-118

So why does Bush not apologize? He thinks his attitude is correct and the media's is wrong, in particular in the echo-chambering of the reasons for invading Iraq; which for Bush were to plant a seed in the heart of the Arab world that would kill off the growth rate of dysfunctional Islam nutballism; a reason that still holds. Iraq is the place where there is the best-case shot at that.

His belief ``that it will work'' is not naive but in the imperative: it had better work.

Because otherwise we have to kill them all.

Just as his ``Islam is a religion of peace'' is not naive but in the imperative: ``Move this way.''

That is where his ``certainty'' is not naive: it is not certainty but determination.

The opposition to his position seems to me to be beyond apology, and almost beyond commentary.

Disagree with what he in fact is doing, but don't misunderstand it.

I wonder how much public discourse could be improved if the few good sociologists were reread. It's a question of whether it would make good soap opera, I guess. The audience it produces for advertisers and opposition parties is the chief dynamic. Maybe some good sociology could ridicule the audience into improvement.

He says what? America should not have intervened in Afgjanistan because innocent lives could be lost? Oh yeah? Well, exactly how many "innocent lives" were already being lost in that country day-in and day-out WELL BEFORE we took remedial action.

Think of it this way: the Taliban was a cancer and it needed to be cut out. In the long run this action SAVED LIVES. Ya follow?

Hmmm .. how about you explore this …

The Taliban cancer was put in power by America in the first place. (here)

Back in the 1970's, Afganistan's existing government was playing off the US against the USSR for aid. They supported an old feudal system of land ownership whereby a few wealthy land owners leased out the land to ther rest of the population who worked the land for them and received almost nothing … illiteracy among the people was running at about 96%. Anyway, worried about losing the next election, they locked up most of the opposition in prision. Oddly enough … in 1978, the people revolted …

The new "government" had all these silly ideas about cancelling the mortagages and debts of the labourers, establishing literacy programmes, especially for women, printing textbooks in many languages, training more teachers, building additional schools and kindergartens, and instituting nurseries for orphans. However (gasp!) they were funded by the soviets.

Sheesh !!! We can't have any of that !

The Former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration, Zbigniew Brzezenski, has admitted that an American operation to infiltrate Afghanistan was launched long before Russia sent in its troops on 27 December 1979. “We did not push the Russians into invading, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” He also bragged: “That secret operation was an excellent idea. The effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap.” The overall result was a brutal civil war manipulated by the two superpowers that drove 6 million Afghan people from their homes.

Development specialist Dr. J. W. Smith, founder and Director of Research for the California-based Institute for Economic Democracy, summarises the humanitarian catastrophe of Afghanistan, commenting on Brzezinski’s admission of the US operation in the country: “Afghanistan was also a US destabilization. In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor... admitted that covert US intervention began long before the USSR sent in troops… Take note of what was ‘an excellent idea’: A country rapidly developing and moving towards modernization was politically and economically shattered, almost 2 million Afghans were killed, the most violent and anti-American of the groups supported by the CIA are now the leaders of Afghanistan, these religious fundamentalists set human rights back centuries to the extent they are even an embarrassment to neighboring Muslim fundamentalists, and both Muslim and non-Muslim governments within the region fear destabilization through Taleban fundamentalism.”

Im sure you all remember Rambo III, where he bravely rides off with the "freedom fighters" and takes out a Soviet helicopter on horse-back. – that was your Taliban …

Now, once they won, the big mistake the Taliban made was to stuff up a deal to allow a gas pipeline to be built in Afganistan. (here) See, the plan was to pipe gas from nearby Uzbekistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan. Mr Bush, back in 1997, personally met with the Uzbekistan Ambassador (on behalf of Enron) to talk about the deal. Unfortunately for Mr Bush, Osama Bin Laden chose that time to blow up US embassies in Africa, so President Clinton decided to bomb Afghanistan and closed down the deal.

Now, move forward to 2001 when Mr Bush is suddenly President Bush, and there's meetings between the Taliban and the US once more. Osama steps in again, blows up the Twin Towers, Bush invades and guess what … the pipline deal is signed on December 27, 2001.

It seems to me... if the US politicians (and the Australians, and the British) are soooo worried about the people of Afghanistan and the people of Iraq, why the heck did they put the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in power in the first place ?

Notwithstanding the utter tinfoil hat-ness of Myyth's rant, what exactly is up with Bush-haters'/Western World-haters' "morality" that basically states "if you made a mistake, it's wrong for you to fix it"? Let's just lord over the CIA's alleged dealings from 20 or 30 years ago in order to justify why it's wrong to change things for the better now, why dontcha.

Not that Peter Singer's (as mentioned above, completely uninformed) appeal to supposed Christian values is any better or more logical, of course.

Oh, dear God, the amazing pipeline theory raises its head once more.

Myyth

We do these things for you. How else would you have a life if not for us.

If this Singer putz is a sign of a trend, then religion actually MAY become the opiate of the masses.

YOU CAN"t SEE THE PIPELINE BECAUSE IT'S AN INVISIBLE PIPELINE!

There, I told the truth, now I must get to a safe house before Halliburton kills me.

Thanks for clearing that up for me PW,

Of course, that's why we invaded Afghanistan, to fix up a mistake made back in the 1970's. How thoughtful of us.

I guess, now that the job's done, we plan to clean up the depleted uranium and un-exploded cluster bombs we left begind when we fixed up the mistake (here).

And the Warlords, sorry I mean, "Regional Govenors", who now run the place are such an improvement on the Taliban, all of those opressed women are now free to do whatever they please.

Silly old me, I thought it would be better to provide aid, clean drinking water, sanitation rather than spending $8 billion on bombs (here).

Im so glad I have people like you, Mr Downer and Mr Howard, to explain to me that, to save a whole bunch of people, you need to first blow them all to pieces.

Sorry Ushie, I didn’t realise they had already published the details of the Afghanistan pipeline in the Daily Telegraph. You must have read it there between Warne's latest scandal and the ad for Big Brother.

And to Ted, Thanks indeed for the life … I owe it all to you.

Now, now, Myyth is a very good friend of mine. Please don't treat him so rudely. He is really quite nice. We met while one night while banging sheep on the sly. On those days that we were too tired to run after those lusicious lambs, we would go to his house and strap his mom's poodle to the sofa. He'd even spring for the beer!

The Taliban, was not our creation, it was generated from a separate Saudi funding
pipeline.(re Rashid's Taliban) Mullah Mohammed Omar, was part of Younis Khalis; one of the more moderate factions (re Coll's Ghost Wars)Saudi
General Intelligence men like Ahmed & SAyyed Badeeb; were key to Osama's formation. The whole
issue of the pipeline, happened in 1998; and strongly affected any action plan against Osama;
in the 1998-2000 period. That and the fact that
a major flack for Pakistan; was also one of Clinton's more obsequious flacks (Lanny Davis)
The forces behind the current Afghan government
are essentially the same that Massoud supported;
including the loose coalition of warlords

Christ you're a tedious fucking idiot 'Myyth'. Where do all you identical leftist dumbasses come from, all spouting the same identical six or seven ignorant bullshit conspiracy therories, Halliburton, the CIA, BUSH KNEW!!

The ISI made the Taliban like a tailor makes a cheap suit. Afghanistan had some significance to the US while the USSR was involved and they supported the Afghan resistance, then the war was over and the Pakistanis moved in.

The entire world's supply of tribalist criminals, communist murderers, loonies, bombers and islamic nut cases are not created by the U.S, you fucking idiot. The US is only 300 years old, how do pseudo-marxist shit-for-brains like you explain the whole sorry, savage saga of human history up until then? Was Attila the Hun a CIA operative too, you fucking moron?

But there's no point in arguing with you is there? Your idiocy and ignorance are invincible.

Depleted uranium is like lead and other heavy metals, unless it becomes a powder which a person inhales, it is perfectly safe to handle. Get your facts straight.

"Mistake"? Yeah, we are correcting the mistake the Soviets made when they staged that attack on Taj-Bak Palace. Get your facts straight.

$8 billion? How *many* billions have the various governments of the West ALREADY spent on social welfare issues for the last four decades? TRILLIONS would probably be too small a number to cover it, and we still have not solve our problems? What makes you think throwing another wad of cash is likely to make the situation any better for anyone other than bureaucrats and issue advocates?

On the other hand, there are people who really WANT to kill us (As oppose to people we have delusions of wanting to kill us, like what many loons believe George Bush and John Howard wants to do.). $8 billion worth of explosive and bombs does more to perserve life than $8 billion spent on the next social entitlement of the moment.

One wonders what would have done better service against Hitler - $8 billion worth of Western social programs or $8 billion worth of Western arms.

And why exactly, would Enron have Governor Bush meet with any ambassador, when the company was lobbying the US government (And having the government lobbying for Enron.) in 1997? Recall who was president then. I think a cabinet secretary has more sway with an ambassador than a governor, you "myth" sprouting half-wit.

C.T.

Myyth:

Please go and fix your aluminum foil hat. Methinks the mindrays from the Hubble Space Telescope are overriding your medications.

Myyyyth gets his info from places like Zmag.org, and still expects some sort of respect for his/her viewpoints.

"how many more terroists do you think this will create Manifest Denisty is dead boys"

That is a truly classic line. Abstract, almost poetic, the poet rejects Imperialistic Proscriptive spelling rules to form a chaotic, spontaneous bop prosody worthy of ee cummings or Ferlinghetti. I give it a 10!

goldsmith, I think you're being entirely too harsh in this case. The boy simply made a typo and left out the 't'. He obviously meant "Manifest Dentistry" which I take to mean some sort of new TV reality show looking inside during drilling, or some such.

Dean is right.

Dentistry requires drilling.

Drilling discovers OIL

OIL requires a pipeline

Pipeline connects to Enron

Enron is headed by Ken LAY

Lay makes potato chips

Potato chips are cooked in OIL.

It is all there to see. Just connect the dots.

Myyyyth strikes again.

Of course, that's why we invaded Afghanistan, to fix up a mistake made back in the 1970's. How thoughtful of us.

Reading comprehension ain't your strong point, eh? Let me spell it out for you in terms that children can understand:

A) You claim the big bad US did many nasty things in the past. B) You assert that this means they can't possibly be doing good things now.

Of course, both A and B are totally idiotic, which is why I wrote "notwithstanding [your] utter tinfoil hat-ness" (which means you're a bozo, and that I don't actually agree that all those things were "mistakes" or "bad"). But I can still comment on the bizarre morality that makes you believe A, and the equally bizarre logic that leads you from A to B.

Better now, kiddo?

THE INCREDIBLE INVISIBLE PALASTIC PIPELINE RE-APPEARS accompanied by Dog-fucking, child killing moral philosipher.

Some Afgan officials had heard this pipeline story and about a year ago they went shopping the plan around (they're a little desperate for money right now). The only people to show the least interest was...wait for it....wait for it... THE JAPANESE (and they weren't that interested).

Good thing that Bush has the moral development of a 13 year old who perceives right and wrong in fairly stark terms. Pretty wonderful that he is not afflicted with the nuanced cynicism, paralysis of action, and self centeredness of a however old he is Kerry.

Singer has the cognitive development of a three year old, which is probably a year or two behind many university faculty.

The sad thing is it is worse than that, they say if the USA ever did anything wrong (even if it is debatable) the USA is NOT ALLOWED to do anything good (yeap it is a moral vacume they inhabit).

Sortelli, where does Bush and Haliburton fit into this conspiracy?

Obviously the only reason the Romans were in the Middle East in the first place was so Halibvrton could build an aqueduct.

Insane? you bet.

We need the wackos to remind us that we're doing the correct thing.

Myyth,

"Better to be right once than wrong twice".

Or, as Hitchens puts it:

"To put it shortly, I much prefer an America that removes Saddam Hussein to the America that helped install and nurture him..."
Interview with Jamie Glazov in FrontPage (10 December 2003).

"I[']m sure you all remember Rambo III, where he bravely rides off with the "freedom fighters" and takes out a Soviet helicopter on horse-back. – that was your Taliban …"

I remember Mad Magazine's satire of that movie. At the end, the bearded fighters tell Rambo "Thanks for single-handedly kicking out the Russians! Now we can set up a government based on the teachings of our respected leader!" Rambo: "Who? Ronald Reagan?" Them: "No! Ayatollah Khomeini!"

Funny, but inaccurate: the Taliban were radical Wahhabites, so them citing a Shi'ite as their leader would be like, say, the Afrikaner White Right saying "the Pope is our leader!" But you get the idea.

However, since this result is now what's favoured by the Left who want the US out of Iraq immediately (waiting until 30 June would be intolerable imperialism), that 19-year-old dig doesn't really have much force against the neocons these days.

Obviously the only reason the Romans were in the Middle East in the first place was so Halibvrton could build an aqueduct.

So when the Emperor rode triumphantly through the gates of Ctesiphon, he woke his troops at night so he could feed them plastic grain?

Yeeehaw!

Wow, what a mishmash of misrepresentation, obvious failure to even read the article linked (let alone anything substantial about Peter Singer) and confused statements followed that blog entry.

The man asks difficult questions about human nature, and I disagree with him on certain things, but he is being vilified for the wrong reasons here. Eg, on bestiality (which people here incorrectly claim Singer is in favour of), he writes: "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural... but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings." And as for killing diabled children or demented parents, Singer raises some utilitarian issues only - he DOES NOT ADVOCATE INFANTICIDE OR EUTHANASIA!

But it's not up to me to defend Singer from ignorant idiots. What I have objected to most is the idea that the US has somehow changed from its previous military adventures. Posters here can only admit that the US behaved evilly, but say "But that was 20 or 30 years ago! Now the USA is cleaning up the mess!"

What you fail to understand is that the actions are broadly the same, the excuses are mostly the same, so how are the consequences going to be different? In 20 or 30 years, when the US gears up to invade whoever to fix the problems created with the Iraq invasion, no doubt that will also be "a new chapter of humanitarian interventions for altruistic reasons".

You morons! Napoleon and Hitler used the same excuses! Nothing has changed in hundreds of years, just the players and the weaponry.

Wow, what a mishmash of misrepresentation

Sort of like the time Tim assumed that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11, huh? What a dramatic misrepresentation! Thank goodness you were there to ask for proof of their guilt.

Saying that Singer does not "advocate" such things is a flimsy defense. Singer's "ethics" require the dehumanization of humanity. Sex with animals and infanticide, while unusual, just aren't all that wrong to him when following his logic to its natural conclusion.

He claims that we should not judge his viewpoint based on its clash with accepted morality, but on how he logically arrives at his conclusions. The fact that he logically arrives at the conclusions that we should not eat other animals, that we should cull the sickly humans from our herd and that we should not frown on a little inter-species intercourse is perfect grounds to dismiss his premise that "humans are equal to animals" as wholly flawed.

That you can't condemn that offhand says much about you, as it does that you are so freaking obtuse that you think there's still some doubt that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. How you can look yourself in the mirror without being appaled by your own foolishness astounds me.

Oh man, Sortelli, do you have a blog? 'Cos you've got one potential reader right here!

Napoleon and Hitler used the same excuses!

Were those two names supposed to be "clever" short-cuts for the "USA = an evil empire" and "Bush = Hitler" memes, or did you actually attempt to make some kind of argument there? I'm honestly not sure what the hell you're talking about...neither of them lived long enough to do over 20- or 30-year old actions, and I'm pretty sure both never claimed to be on "humanitarian interventions" during their respective wars, so exactly which "excuses" you're talking about is truly a mystery to me.

Congrats on the purchase of your crystal ball though...care to enlighten us with any more details of how the world will be in 20 years?

I don't agree with Singer on Iraq, and I really can't imagine why anyone would believe that sex with animals is immoral. Sure it's disgusting, but it doesn't hurt anybody. It makes no sense at all to frame it as a moral issue. I also happen to agree with the policy of killing disabled infants, but I'll admit I can at least understand how someone might come down on the other side of that issue.

Xavier:

Well, if you feel that way about sex with animals, head on down to the nearest petting zoo, and give the public a free demonstration of moral beastiality. This is called "putting your values into action".

I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback on your techniques.

Thanks, TimT, maybe someday... but it would probably be about silly things like comics.

Xavier, it doesn't hurt anyone? Tell it to the animals. They can't give their consent. A person who takes pleasure from animal abuse, be it cruel or sexual or both, is a potential danger to the rest of us. Not to mention so disgusting that they should be sanctioned on principle. Likewise pedophiles, who can also try to claim to high heaven that their young victims "enjoy" the sexual contact mutually but thankfully they are still punished for a crime that speaks deeper to the human race's instinctive outrage than it does to the distant "logic" people like Singer spout. Sex acts between consenting adults is a far cry from sex acts with children and animals.

But since you're already so screwed up that you'd nod your head at the notion of killing infants that aren't "good enough", I don't have much faith in your principles. At all.

Sortelli: Thanks for dropping the crap and actually arguing your points. En guarde!

Since you brought it up, have you come up with any proof of al-Qaeda's guilt yet? Thought not.

You are right that Singer is merely beginning with reasonable starting points and following them to their logical conclusions. They may bother you (as they do me - you are wrong to say I don't "condemn it offhand". Read my post, particularly where I express my disagreement with Singer). But I say again, he has NO "humans are equal to animals" theory. He DOESN'T say we should "cull" sick babies. He did say that in choosing between killing an severley mentally disabled child and killing a healthy primate, he would kill the child. I disagree with this, and you obviously do too, but at least find out what he does stand for before attacking him.

I avoid mirrors, I am ugly. But your hysteria does not speak well for your analytical abilities. I don't want to get into them here, but there ARE reasons why al-Qaeda might not have planned the 9/11 attacks. At the very least, they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, just like any other alleged murderers.

PW: I'm glad you asked. Napoleon and Hitler did indeed use the "humanitarian intervention" rhetoric (in the lingo of the day, of course) to invade Egypt and Czechoslovakia respectively. The reason why I mentioned Hitler is because no-one can deny his evil, so when the US uses the same techniques as Hitler, that should worry us all. That these things are a mystery to you is no surprise, as your ignorance has been exposed before. I am pleased to enlighten you.

Since you brought it up, have you come up with any proof of al-Qaeda's guilt yet? Thought not.

Al Qaeda has admitted responsibility. No one has contested it, and there are no other suspects. There is absolutely NO reasonable doubt of their guilt, just as there is NO reasonable doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon, although there are fools who will demand proof of that event as well. You place yourself squarely in their camp by defending your assertion that there is no proof Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11.

When it comes down to it, you're just not a reasonable person. For example, let's look at your defense of Singer:

But I say again, he has NO "humans are equal to animals" theory.

Peter Singer claims that humans are animals and all animals are equal. He also says we should be allowed to cull sick babies. If you're disputing this, it can only be that you're consciously lying or unable to understand.

So which is it, are you stupid, or are you a liar?

You've heard of date rape - now there's APE RAPE! Follow the link to that Peter Singer article, and you can find the following quote:

At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror.

Sexual intercourse without consent is never acceptable - unless the raper is an orangutang, it seems.

Sortelli: Actually, a tape showing a man claiming to be Osama Bin Laden (and looking nothing like the man on the dozen other tapes) has an audio track on which there is a supposed confession. No other proof is offered. If that's all you need, I have a nice bridge here you might like to buy.

I do not doubt a plane hit the Pentagon, I'm no nut, but there ARE other suspects. For a completely biased but comprehensive compilation, go to www.whatreallyhappened.com. You will have to read between the anti-Jew lines for the real info, but it is there.

As for animals, techinically we ARE animals, Singer is right. What I was trying to get across to you is that Singer sees it in terms of value-of-life, and that all life is equal in utilitarian terms. Thus the whole primate gets more value from its life than a catatonic human. Get it? In general I disagree with him, as I perceive humans to be more special than 'animals', and in that you and I agree. So why are you insisting that makes me stupid or a liar?

And Singer does NOT say we should be "allowed" to cull sick humans. He posits a thought experiment only. The problem is not in my understanding, but in your ignorance. Have you read any of Singer's books, for example?

I do not doubt a plane hit the Pentagon, I'm no nut, but there ARE other suspects. For a completely biased but comprehensive compilation, go to www.whatreallyhappened.com. You will have to read between the anti-Jew lines for the real info, but it is there.

Gee, if I have to go to an unreliable source of information to get this, I'll pass. Nice try.

As for animals, techinically we ARE animals, Singer is right. What I was trying to get across to you is that Singer sees it in terms of value-of-life, and that all life is equal in utilitarian terms. Thus the whole primate gets more value from its life than a catatonic human. Get it?

And yet you claimed he does not believe human life is equal to animal life.

Yeah, we may both disagree with him, but don't try to misrepresent him by saying "Oh no, he doesn't actually believe those things".

I know of Singer. I have read his writings online. I have read discussions of his writings. I have not read his books in their entirety and I'm not wasting my money or my time on such a thing.

When we follow Singer's logic to its end, to the same conclusion he comes to himself, and criticize that conclusion, you cannot claim that we are misunderstanding him.

If you want to say that Singer does not advocate or allow infanticide, then you must show where, in that little "thought experiment" of his, he concluded that he was wrong and why.

"if I have to go to an unreliable source of information to get this, I'll pass."

You think the BBC, Fox News, smh.com, CNN, al-Jazeera, AAP, Haaretz, the Guardian, the Washington Post, etc, are unreliable sources? Because those are often the sources of the stories linked on whatreallyhappened.com. That doesn't leave many sources left to be reliable.

You say Singer EQUATES human and animal life, I say he doesn't, he simply came up with a formula to calculate the value of any life, and chose a contentious subject to highlight the disturbing implications of such a valuation. Are these subtleties beyond you?

Obviously they are, judging by your last paragraph. Singer doesn't visit hospitals to put Down syndrome babies to death or tell others to (advocate infanticide), nor does he own abortion clinics (allow infanticide), so how can you claim he does?

The thought experiment strikes at the very heart of what it is to be human, so it's natural that it bothers us. In earlier years, he would have been burnt at the stake.

fatfingrz: "You think the BBC, Fox News, smh.com, CNN, al-Jazeera, AAP, Haaretz, the Guardian, the Washington Post, etc, are unreliable sources?"

Yes.

But.... not the "etc". Just the ones you named.

Chickens are HOT.

I do not doubt a plane hit the Pentagon, I'm no nut, but there ARE other suspects. For a completely biased but comprehensive compilation, go to www.whatreallyhappened.com. You will have to read between the anti-Jew lines for the real info, but it is there.

I suppose it also has other "suspects" for the Holocaust, and, perhaps theories that the Holocaust did not occur?

Get real.

Any evidence that must be sifted out of the bigotry on a "completely biased" and "anti-Jew" site like www.whatreallyhappened.com is unreliable in the context provided. Stop being stupid.

You're a deceptive apologist for Singer indeed if you have to hide in "subtleties" like that. Singer's ethical guidelines allow for children to be put to death. He may not go around acting on this, but he has never provided any grounds for why this practice would be wrong under his grand vision of ethics. He challenges the basic belief that killing babies is wrong and presents circumstances in which it might not be wrong based on the child's health or deformities. That is logically the same as believing that it is fine to kill some babies based on their physical condition. Stop being a liar.

Singer came up with a formula for calculating the value of a life that concludes human life and animal life has an equal value. That is logically the same as equating the value of human life and animal life to be the same. Stop being a liar.

As a famous philosopher once said ". . .an ethical judgment that is no good in practice must suffer from a theoretical defect as well, for the whole point of ethical judgment is to guide practice."* So, if you agree that it is a wrong practice for unwanted children to be "aborted" after birth, and you do not accept that conclusion that human life and animal life are the same, then there must be something wrong with Singer's judgement, right? So why are you apologizing for him? Stop being a contrary idiot.

*Peter Singer in "Practical Ethics"

I suppose that the good news here is that the lunatics are so easily identified.

But the scary thing is that they believe this crap. Singer is apparently sincere (although that just might be acting the part for a few dollars [which is even worse]), but he certainly has a loyal following. People like what he says. It's as bad as Chomsky, and worse in some regards.

I once read "There are some things no hooker will do for money". The sad thing is that there are people perfectly happy to take up where the prostitutes leave off......physically and morally.

dorkafork wrote: "Near as I can figure, Peter Singer would only support killing Bin Ladin if he was an crippled baby."

True, although he would apparently save him if Bin Laden humped Singer's leg.

So: Singer's Existentialist Dilemma (and no doubt the subject of his next book): What to do when a crippled baby humps your leg? Kill it, fuck it, or both?

Sure to be a best-seller...

On a more serious note, Singer suggests that as a "christian", Pres Bush should never act inconsistent with Singer's version of "christian principles".

But Singer forgets that America is not a christian fundamentalist theocratic state - The president is charged with making decisions for ALL americans, not merely those of his religion. Clearly sometims this might create dillemmas for him, but that's why he gets the big bucks.

As a non-religious person, I find it deeply disturbing that Singer is championing such an unwise course.

Oh, and I'm not really into this crippled-baby-killing-humping-your-pets stuff of his either(!). Although, I remember this cute dachshund once...

I thought that it was the Unocal bid (originally supported by Clinton), not the Enron plan (supported by Bush), that involved a pipeline through Afghanistan. The Enron plan, I do believe, involved running the pipeline under the sea and not through Afghanistan. Uzbekistan was to be a part in either the Unocal plan (Afghani pipeline) or the Enron plan (sea pipeline), depending on which bid was successful. It therefore does not infer that Bush was supporting the pipeline through Afghanistan simply due to his meeting with the Uzbekistani ambassador.

In other words, Myyth, you or your source have confused the event of the Taliban going to Texas to negotiate the Unocal plan with the Uzbekistani ambassador meeting Bush to discuss the Enron plan, and drawn the wrong conclusion.

When you get right down to it, Singer deserves about as much critical analysis as those guys who believe in a hollow earth. Face it, humans are qualitatively different from all other animals--show me a conscious animal other than a human being and I'll be the first in line to give it rights.

I know Singer has an answer for that dzd, which I won't dignify by trying to explain because I agree with you. I think the real big problem with his point of view is that, while he candidly dismisses the intrinsic value of human life, he thinks we are obligated to lessen suffering. And therefore we should not eat other animals, because that causes them to suffer, we should not exploit other animals for labor or by-products because that involves suffering, and if allowing something to live creates more suffering we should put it to death. He believes that our personal attachments to friends and family should not factor into our actions towards other equal beings. That we should not let our compassion and emotion get in the way of doing the "rationally moral" thing. He argues this from a disinterested, "purely logical" point of view.

From a disinterested and purely logical point of view, I can't see why I should give a flying fuck about the suffering of others. Reducing suffering is an act of compassion, remove the compassion and it is meaningless.

Singer gets quite mad when pressed about the condition of his elderly and infirm mother with Alzheimers; an individual who he would hypothetically think should be allowed to die rather than waste any of our precious, precious resources on sustaining her. But, of course (due to his own family pressures, apparently) he spends large sums of money on her care. Immorally, from his own position.

On Bestiality

Funny thing, other animals will try to seduce us. Dolphins at the marine park, orangutans who've come to see us as fellow orangutans, female cats in heat. Happens all the time.

But, the prudent don't take them up on the offer. Why? For the same reason you don't shag the 9 year old child flirting with you. It would end up hurting them. That moose may think you're the hottest thing on two legs, but you're just not the right partner for a romantic swim in the local bog.

Email debate between Singer and Judge Posner:

http://slate.msn.com/id/110101/entry/110109/

I watched Singer and Posner (and as I remember there were 1 or two others as well) debate this on BookTV (C-SPAN) a few years ago.

Singer does not come off as a monster or weirdo at all and presented himself and arguments very well.

I just don't accept his premise. I'm all for humanely treating animals, but giving them equal rights to man is going too far. I mean, I love pork AND I really like pigs. Just be nice to the pigs, and don't frighten or hurt them as you kill them, and I'll happily eat bacon.

Myyth's first post (here) cites an interesting article. Where Myyth says "Oddly enough … in 1978, the people revolted …," and then goes on to detail all the good things that government planned to do, the article itself states that "the military coup of 1978 was thus effectively engineered by the USSR ... Once more, these policies should be understood in context with the fact that the government was established as the result of a violent military coup without any connection to the wishes of the majority of the Afghan people, and consequently did not engender their participation." So Myyth contradicts his own source.

The article initially puts the blame for Afghanistan's condition squarely on the shoulders of the USSR. Then it shifts by noting:

"Former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration, Zbigniew Brzezenski, has admitted that an American operation to infiltrate Afghanistan was launched long before Russia sent in its troops on 27 December 1979.

"A long time" being at least six months, which doesn't seem all that long to me.

Anyway, this becomes proof that the US wanted to gain control of Afghanistan and destroy Afghan sovereignty. After this, the US (according to the article) bears equal responsibility for the state of Afghanistan.

There is a ton of stuff taken from Amnesty International about US responsibility for the situation. The claim basically comes down to the statement that:

The only countries that openly accept the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - all of which happen to be Western clients and, in particular, obedient US servants.[35] If the West exerted political or economic pressure on these countries to cease their well documented sponsoring of Taliban terrorism (via arms, for instance), it is highly likely that they would willingly acquiesce, simply because they are virtually absolutely dependent on Western - particularly American - aid.

So, since the US doesn't order these three allegedly subservient states to pressure the Taleban to improve human rights in Afghanistan, the situation there is the fault of the US.

After that comes the whole pipeline thing.

The article takes HUGE leaps from its sometimes questionable sources to its conclusions, and just expects the reader to play along. Despite this, and being contradictory at points, it was an interesting, well-written article with lots of footnotes.

On the second article he linked to about the pipeline, it ends:

The BBC regional correspondent says the Afghan economy has been devastated by 20 years of civil war. A deal to go ahead with the pipeline project could give it a desperately-needed boost.

But peace must be established first -- and that for the moment still seems a distant prospect.

Sortelli, that's an interesting comment. I suspect the dichotomy you assume between compassion and logic is one Singer wouldn't recognise, but I'm not sure I know his stuff well enough to be sure.

Anyway, can you give a link to the remarks about his mother?

I think this is the funniest thread ever...anywhere.

Fuck 'em or eat 'em. Now that's utilitarianism!

FatFinger lickin' good.

Mr. Singer wants a humane society, but not the trouble of defending it. Willing the ends, but not the means, is not even adolescent--it's childish.

"Sorry Ushie, I didn’t realise they had already published the details of the Afghanistan pipeline in the Daily Telegraph. You must have read it there between Warne's latest scandal and the ad for Big Brother.
Posted by: Myyth at April 18, 2004 at 01:26 AM"

I have no idea what any of that means. I do know you're as crazy as a bedbug in heat, which means you probably should call Peter Singer for a date.

And yes, I've read Singer's horrible crap. The man has all the morality and ethical decency of a bag of rocks, which is to say, none. And he'd like to reduce the rest of us to the same "rationalist" amorality, measuring out human life teaspoon by teaspoon.

"I'm glad you asked. Napoleon and Hitler did indeed use the "humanitarian intervention" rhetoric (in the lingo of the day, of course) to invade Egypt and Czechoslovakia respectively. The reason why I mentioned Hitler is because no-one can deny his evil, so when the US uses the same techniques as Hitler, that should worry us all."

Wow.

You know that Hitler was a vegetarian. I'd better start eating meat because I don't want people confusing me with Hitler.

Hitler had pet dogs. I'd better get rid of my dog because I don't want people confusing me with Hitler.

Hitler wiped his ass from front to back. I'd better start wiping in a circular counter-clockwise motion lest people might confuse me with Hitler.

...

WARBO:

Sorry for the late reply. Here's an account of a debate between Fr. Neuhaus and Singer (as told by Neuhaus) where he mentions the issue regarding Singer's mother.

Singer’s Benthamite principle that each counts as one and none as more than one has led him to insist again and again that, from an ethical viewpoint, our duties to friends and family are not different from our duties to strangers. That is part of what it means when he says his ethical theory is universal. One has no more ethical duty, for instance, to one’s own daughter than to a girl of the same age ten thousand miles away in Bangladesh whom one has never seen and whose name one does not know. My family, my friends, my country—each must give way to the universal. Each person counts as one and no more than one. But then, in a long and generally sympathetic interview in the New Yorker, the question came up about Singer’s devoting many thousands of dollars and elaborate nursing care for his own mother who had Alzheimer’s. In the interview, Singer is reported to have explained, “Perhaps it’s more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it is your mother.”

Fr. Neuhaus thought it was good that Singer cared for his mother but pointed out how this contradicts Singer's beliefs. He goes on to describe how Singer responded pretty harsly, claiming to be "misrepresented" by the New Yorker interview and seeming more interested in defending his theory than he was in defending the care of his mother. I should have noted that Singer's mother has apparently already passed on, which Neuhaus also mentions.

Well, I'm probably beating a dead thread at this point, but I suppose Singer does not argue against the idea that we should show compassion at all, he really asks that we show compassion and empathy to all things equally. But the problem remains, I don't know what the heck he bases his argument that we should show compassion on, especially when his logic basically results in attacking the compassion we feel for fellow human beings who aren't self-aware enough to be different from animals.

If I'm coming from a disinterested and logical viewpoint that rates all things equal, I'd note that the natural order of life requires suffering. Animals must eat other animals, sometimes gruesomely, in order to survive. I would not see why humans, being part of that natural order, should be required to behave differently just because they have the ability to behave differently.