In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lincoln
On the other hand, Peter Singer makes it clear that children up to 28 days after birth can be killed by a "responsible" adult. He teaches this at Princeton University. Is this a hate crime? And are the kids that he advocates killing entitled to "more equal than other" status?

The first time a "responsible" adult acts upon Mr. Singer's exhortations and makes a good case that he did so because of Mr. Singer's arguements then I think it would be reasonable to either indict Mr. Singer or sue the living day lights out of him.

Remeber the case in the mid-west in which a local Klan group was sued for inciting the murder of a black man? It seems reasonable to me.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The first time a "responsible" adult acts upon Mr. Singer's exhortations and makes a good case that he did so because of Mr. Singer's arguements then I think it would be reasonable to either indict Mr. Singer or sue the living day lights out of him.

Remeber the case in the mid-west in which a local Klan group was sued for inciting the murder of a black man? It seems reasonable to me.

Singer himself didn't. A dying man asked his help to commit suicide and he wimped out.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Would there also be some verses that said, say, Jews (or unbelievers.. since I don't think there are any Bible verses specifically anti-Jewish, per say) should be cast out of the community involved as well? So just a number of Biblical verses, some saying cast out the unbelievers, some saying convert the unbelievers, some saying kill unbelievers, and others saying Christianity is #1 included with an '=' and a crossing out of a Star of David or Israel? The Jews would complain, surely, but so what? I wouldn't necessarily consider it a hate-inducing ad, just as I don't consider Tom Chick's exortations against the Muslims as hate-inducing. It's mean the Bible does not condone those who are unbelievers of Christ.

And again, this it is mindnumbingly ludicrous that you wouldn't see it as a hate-inducing acts. Passages calling for killing/exiling/hating Jews, plus a picture of a Jew or Jewish symbol with a slash through it, but it's not advocating hateful actions towards Jews? Right. This is even better than your denial of logic in the 2+2=5 claim.

Furthermore how many anti-homosexual passages in the Bible are 'benign'. If you were to say the Bible does not condone homosexuality, how would you do it without those clauses?

1 Timothy is one place where homosexuality seems to be alluded to without calling for violence against them. But you're once again ignoring that it's not just the verses--it was the verses plus the image. Why not just run an ad with the verses? Seems to me that would make his point and avoid running afoul of the law.

ALSO, You would have to LOOK UP or KNOW the Biblical provisions to realize that some of them said homosexuals should be killed. How many people have that knowledge?! How many people simply look at it and see Biblical verses = pictures of two men holding hands with a slash over it? I bet a very small minority of people looking at the ad thinks it stood for killing homosexuals. It's just silly to say so.

This is one of your most absurd arguments. So if someone has to go look up the verses to see that they call for violence, then that's a pass? "Oh, just so long as some folks are ignorant of the meaning..." Give me a break. Do you think the guy who placed the ad didn't know what they said? Think he was just listing verses without knowing their contents?

It's Bible does not = homosexuality. That simple.

No, Imran, it's Bible = no homosexuals. See the difference?

I also know that whenever compares some group to the NAZIs they are trying to make the point that they are like the Nazis. There is a reason it is called Godwin's Law.

This is more of your "knowledge" that is anything but. Using an analogy of a situation is not the same as comparing the groups used in the analogy:

Water is to translucent as iron is to opaque.

Now, by your "logic," I'm therefore comparing water to iron. Obviously, they must be the same or similar, right? Right... How did you ever get SAT scores high enough to get into college?

Godwin's Law is not invoked any time the Nazis are mentioned, it is only invoked when it is used as an insult. The analogy I posted was in no way an attempt to insult anyone, just to draw a comparison with a hypothetical situation. I suggest, however, since you can only harp on a strawman instead of answer the question, that you have no real answer for it. That's all I needed to know.

[Lincoln]

All I need to know is should Peter Singer be prosecuted for a hate crime the same as the guy who posted the anti-gay ad?

[Boris Godunov]

Lincoln, all you've posted is a diatribe against Singer by an unknown author from an unknown source. Has Singer published advertisements in local papers encouraging people to kill/attack/hate others? Is his rationale borne of hate at all?

Perhaps providing what Singer actually says rather than an anti-Singer writing would be of more use?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
1 Timothy is one place where homosexuality seems to be alluded to without calling for violence against them. But you're once again ignoring that it's not just the verses--it was the verses plus the image. Why not just run an ad with the verses? Seems to me that would make his point and avoid running afoul of the law.

As I have pointed out many many times many of these passages are ripped out of context and thereby deprived of their meaning. It's not the Bible's fault, it's the fault of the people who essentially re-arrange the Bible to make it conform to their prejudices.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
It would be insane if it weren't.

Truth is not a defence against libel in Great Britain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
On the other hand, Peter Singer makes it clear that children up to 28 days after birth can be killed by a "responsible" adult.

That's Jewish law.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Lincoln, all you've posted is a diatribe against Singer by an unknown author from an unknown source. Has Singer published advertisements in local papers encouraging people to kill/attack/hate others? Is his rationale borne of hate at all?

Perhaps providing what Singer actually says rather than an anti-Singer writing would be of more use?

Here's a quote from his book; Should The Baby Live?:

"We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed." (page 1)

He explains more clearly in Practical Ethics (page 186):

"Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child, then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. . . . When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him."

---------------------------------------

Now, is he worse, the same or better than the man that you agree should be prosecuted for placing an ad in the paper that may or may not have subtly advocated killing an entire class of human beings?

[Boris Godunov]

Lincoln, you miss the entire point of Singer's ethical teachings. He isn't advocating hatred of a group. He is saying that, in his opinion, infants are not capable of wanting to live or not wanting to live, and if it is overall more merciful to a severely handicapped infant and its mother (and potential further progeny) to euthanize it, he thinks that should be a viable option. While I don't necessarily agree with Singer's ideas, there's no evidence it's born of hatred.

The ad preached hate against a group that very much consciously does not want to be killed. It's motivation wasn't out of mercy towards its targets, but out of intolerance and hatred. It's a very different situation.

[Lincoln]

So if one advocates killing someone who is not able to express his desire to not be killed then it is not a hate crime? After about the third stab I don't think that the infant would feel very loved. Or is the child's perception unimportant as long as the killer is motivated by "compassion"? And if one places a similiar ad and is motivated by mercy toward what he perceives as the traditional family should he still be prosecuted?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
So if one advocates killing someone who is not able to express his desire to not be killed then it is not a hate crime?

Red herring. Singer's rationale isn't based on the fact that an infant can't express desire. His rationale is based on the infant being non-sentient and incapable of knowing what's best for it, while sentient beings can determine what is best for it. In this sense, a severely crippled infant would be in the same position as a severely injured cat or dog, and we in the position of offering a merciful, quick death and end to the infant's suffering.

Singer's major point, however, is that by doing this it is of an ultimate good for life, because not only will it end the suffering of the infant, it will allow the parent to produce another infant that will be healthy (presuming the parents aren't predisposed to always having malformed children, in which case they shouldn't be breeding anyway).

After about the third stab I don't think that the infant would feel very loved. Or is the child's perception unimportant as long as the killer is motivated by "compassion"?

Where does Singer call for stabbing infants? Lame red herring, since Singer's entire point is minimalizing physical suffering. Since an infant isn't as cognizant as an older human (according to Singer), it's being killed will in no way be an act of malice or hate against the infant.

And if one places a similiar ad and is motivated by mercy toward what he perceives as the traditional family should he still be prosecuted?

You think an ad advocating death for homosexuals is promoting mercy for the traditional family? Would it have been merciful for your family had your brother been killed when it was learned he was a sodomite?

[Lincoln]

Why do you evade the questions Boris? The stabbing example was an obvious exageration to direct your attention to the victim of the crime, i.e., the child or the disabled adult. Why do you ignore their feelings? And why do you assume that Singer's motives are pure, because he says so? And do you really think that everyone who encourages traditional morality is full of hate because they quote from the Bible?

You said:

"In this sense, a severely crippled infant would be in the same position as a severely injured cat or dog, and we in the position of offering a merciful, quick death and end to the infant's suffering."

You need to read his books. Do you really think that people like Stephen Hawking are in the same catagory as a cat or dog? Anyway, you miss the point. The question is why can one person actively teach genocide and another is not allowed to post some verses from the Bible that may suggest genocide?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Why do you evade the questions Boris?

I haven't evaded any legitimate questions. I have pointed out where your question is disengenous, because you couch it in intellectual dishonesty (namely, the distortion of Singer's views).

You yourself evaded the point that the case of this ad was a false accusation, on your part, of the "easy silencing" of religious beliefs, as Tingkai and NYE pointed out. So about that plank in your eye...

The stabbing example was an obvious exageration to direct your attention to the victim of the crime, i.e., the child or the disabled adult. Why do you ignore their feelings?

Yes, I'm well aware the stabbing example was a lame emotional troll on your part. And who says I'm ignoring anyone's feelings? Show me where a disabled infant would see an ad you describe above and have their feelings hurt. Or if you mean in the context of Singer's views--that's something you'll have to take up with Singer, not me. I'm not advocating Singer's position, as I stated before.

And why do you assume that Singer's motives are pure, because he says so?

Considering Singer is well-published and highly-regarded ethicist and intellectual, what reason do I have to assume his motives aren't good? He gives detailed rationales for his opinion, which is why one can see his motives aren't hateful. Even the quote you cited showed this.

And do you really think that everyone who encourages traditional morality is full of hate because they quote from the Bible?

Another strawman. Who stated such a thing? As has been pointed out time and again, the issue isn't someone advocating traditional morality, it's someone advocating hate and violence against homosexuals. The Bible quotes weren't what caused the problem for this man, it was the image which showed gays crossed out, i.e. eliminated. Now, do you consider hating and harming gays to be traditional morality then?

You need to read his books.

I have hard time believing you've actually read them, considering your distortions. See below.

Do you really think that people like Stephen Hawking are in the same catagory as a cat or dog?

Is Stephen Hawking an infant, Lincoln?

Regardless, it's not what I think, Mr. Strawman, it's what Mr. Singer thinks.

Anyway, you miss the point. The question is why can one person actively teach genocide and another is not allowed to post some verses from the Bible that may suggest genocide?

This is exaclty what I mean in terms of your being disingenuous in your questions. What Singer writes about is categorically NOT a call to "genocide." Learn what genocide means before using it, please.

[Lincoln]

OK, Inanticide Mr. Pedant. And you still evade the question in your attempt to distort the issue. Here it is again:

Why is a so called respectable intellectual allowed to advocate infanticide and the killing of people like Stephen Hawking (before he had a chance to grow up, in case you missed the fact that he was once an infant)? And it is not allowed for one to express his religious opposition to homosexuality?

Simply put, you defend the rights of Singer to express his views but not the right of Christians to express theirs.

"it was the image which showed gays crossed out, i.e. eliminated. Now, do you consider hating and harming gays to be traditional morality then?"

I am not defending the man one way or another. You seem to be sure that he wants gays to be eliminated for some reason but that is not the issue because Peter Singer actually does directly advocate the killing of infants in his twisted morlaity. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt we will say that they both advocate the killing of an entire group of people. Why do you support the right of one to express his views and not the other?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov



Considering Singer is well-published and highly-regarded ethicist and intellectual, what reason do I have to assume his motives aren't good? He gives detailed rationales for his opinion, which is why one can see his motives aren't hateful. Even the quote you cited showed this.

I don't know, maybe because he advocates killing babies?? Oh yeah, I almost forgot he is well published and teaches "ethics" at Princeton, so he cannot be hateful. Of course quite a few well educated people in history gave detailed rationales for their "cleansings" of humanity but this guy is really respected.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Considering Singer is well-published and highly-regarded ethicist and intellectual, what reason do I have to assume his motives aren't good? He gives detailed rationales for his opinion, which is why one can see his motives aren't hateful. Even the quote you cited showed this.

He certainly is well published and enjoys quite a bit of celebrity because of his views, but Singer is not regarded as much of a philosopher by those in the profession. As far as philosophy goes Singer is analogous to a popular science writer, who puts forth the results of others' work for public consumption.

And he's a naive utilitarian, which makes him a bit of an idiot.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln

I don't know, maybe because he advocates killing babies?? Oh yeah, I almost forgot he is well published and teaches "ethics" at Princeton, so he cannot be hateful. Of course quite a few well educated people in history gave detailed rationales for their "cleansings" of humanity but this guy is really respected.

The baby killing argument is not Singer's, it comes from a paper called "Abortion and Infanticide" by Michael Tooley which was published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1972.

In that paper Tooley argues that infanticide is permissible if abortion is. I'm not sure that Tooley was advocating infanticide so much as showing up problems with the pro-choice position.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Agathon


The baby killing argument is not Singer's, it comes from a paper called "Abortion and Infanticide" by Michael Tooley which was published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1972.

In that paper Tooley argues that infanticide is permissible if abortion is. I'm not sure that Tooley was advocating infanticide so much as showing up problems with the pro-choice position.

Yes, I am sure that Singer did not originate the idea. And I think I might enjoy Tooley's paper. I think such ideas as infanticide grow from a liberal view toward abortion. Where do the choices end? If the caretaker has all the options then it would seem to me that infantacide is the next logical step. Of course Singer et al invariably believe that life (in his words) "is meaningless", so "practical" ethics does make sense from that point of view.

[Lincoln]

Hello again Boris. Because you seem to be having a hard time following my argument I have reworded it more in line with Peter Singer’s vernacular. Suppose he said the following and put this in an ad rather than the red slash thing that the guy who placed the offensive ad used:

"Suppose in the future a “gay gene” is discovered. A woman planning to have two children has one normal child, then gives birth to a homosexual child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third normal child; but if the gay child were to die, she would have another who would hopefully be normal . . . When the death of a homosexual infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the gay infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the homosexual infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him."

(Disclaimer: This ad is posted by a respected tenured professor at Princeton University who is well-published and highly-regarded ethicist and intellectual, so there is no reason to assume his motives aren't good. We all know that only right wing Christians are capable of hate anyway. Our motivation is of course based on love for humanity, children, apple pie and the desire for a better world tomorrow.)

[Dr Strangelove]

So who decides what a happy life is? Why do you think they call them "gay"?

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you register a complaint with the SU as several people did for your display?

Asher:

Why? I support their right to use graphic pictures.

I'd doubt it, Calgary may be right-wing but not religiously so. You need to go out to rural Alberta to find the religious right-wingers.

Not to mention that my university simply doesn't permit that kind of display on campus. In fact there was a recent issue about even allowing topless "artwork" in the halls, and they were forced to take them down.

Seems that they are rather conservative, eh? Over here, the topless art would be celebrated and the graphic pictures banned.

Tingkai

How about posting your abortion pic so we can judge.

I'd need permission from Ming. Perhaps a link?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Passages calling for killing/exiling/hating Jews, plus a picture of a Jew or Jewish symbol with a slash through it, but it's not advocating hateful actions towards Jews?

Yep. Biblical Passages against unbelievers = to a slash through a Jewish symbol or Israel do not necessarily advocate hateful actions and genocide towards Jews. Unless you think converting Jews or speaking against Jews in religious debates are hateful actions?

Why not just run an ad with the verses? Seems to me that would make his point and avoid running afoul of the law.

Yes, of course, just run an ad with cites to Biblical verses. Like ANYONE WOULD KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?! Really? How daft do you have to be to believe that listing cites to biblical verses would make his point? What utter bullshit.

So if someone has to go look up the verses to see that they call for violence, then that's a pass? "Oh, just so long as some folks are ignorant of the meaning..."

Yeah, actually that is a pass. Since 90% (and that may be too low) of the people reading the ad will have no idea what it means without the picture, then yeah. They will say that Biblical verses are against homosexuality. That's clear from the pictures. Biblical passages = no homosexuality to a vast majority of the readership. What, because like 5% know that the passages say kill gays and cast out gays that the ad is a secret code to kill them? Please .

it's Bible = no homosexuals. See the difference?

A slight difference which does not matter at all in this context.

Now, by your "logic," I'm therefore comparing water to iron. Obviously, they must be the same or similar, right? Right...

Because comparing the NAZIs to any other political/religious group is the same as comparing objects such as iron or water? Analogizing some group with the Nazis is a very charged issue and is intentionally done to bring the group down. Why do you think Israelis get irate when someone compares something Israel did to the Nazis... because it is meant to say 'you are as bad as the Nazis', not a simple analogy.

Thought you were a bit brighter than that to see complexities in the situation.

Godwin's Law is not invoked any time the Nazis are mentioned, it is only invoked when it is used as an insult.

No, it really applies every time someone is compared to the Nazis... and an analogy surely qualifies.

I suggest, however, since you can only harp on a strawman instead of answer the question, that you have no real answer for it. That's all I needed to know.

Analogizing Nazis v. Jews and Christians v. homosexuals is an obviously failed analogy to anyone with half a mind. Therefore an alterior motive (Christians = Nazis?) becomes apparent. I already answered the question, using anti-Israeli, anti-Judaism groups instead, if you opened your permanent shut eyes, blinded by your own bias. Right after I chastized you for comparing the Christians to Nazis. Of course your bias shows so greatly that you can't be arsed to actually READ anything, can you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, just talked to Chris 62 about the verses (and he looked them up). Only ONE of the four verses advocated killing homosexuals (the 2nd Leviticus verse). Another says homosexuality is a sin (1st Leviticus). The Corinthians verse says homosexuality as well as fornication and other sins will be judged harshly in the afterlife. And Romans 1 merely says homosexuality is wrong.

So THAT is advocated genocide of homosexuals? One verse out of the four?!

Try again.

[Jon Miller]

and that is the OT where it is in the instructions for the country at the time

most those instructions for Israel are generally unacknowledge as instructions for the rest of us (for example the laws detailing how to handle people who steal or kill or whatever)

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, Jon, as Chris told me as well, the OT is MUCH more heavy handed. Christians should look at the OT, but not the punishments stated (Jesus took care of that) .

[Jon Miller]

BTW

I agree that homosexuality often leads to sin (that any homosexual action is a sin)

but so does heterosexuality (just lusting after someone is a sin)

also, jsut because something is a sin does not mean that it should be legislated against, that is that persons decision

God gave us free will to make decisions, and we should enable people to do so as much as possible

(also, many people are inclined to homosexuality (from factors outside their control), I think God would want them to find love with someone of the same sex rather than cheat all the time (because they are so attracted to their sex and are trying to be with someone of the opposite sex))

I could of course be totally wrong with everything

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, just talked to Chris 62 about the verses (and he looked them up).

You just could have asked me to post 'em.


1 Cor 6:9

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."


Romans 1:26-27

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "


Leviticus 18:22

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."


Leviticus 20:13

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Why is a so called respectable intellectual allowed to advocate infanticide and the killing of people like Stephen Hawking (before he had a chance to grow up, in case you missed the fact that he was once an infant)? And it is not allowed for one to express his religious opposition to homosexuality?

Stephen Hawkings was not born disabled. ALS occurred later in life.

There are people who want to kill all homosexuals simply because they believe that all homosexuals are evil and therefore they must die. Anything written with this attitude is hate literature.

AFAIK, Singer is different. His starting point is not hate. That's why it is not hate literature.

He starts with the ethical issues created by medical technology that allows us to keep people alive who might otherwise die. Is it better to keep a person alive, but in constant pain, or to let them die? Are we morally obliged to use all the technology we have to prevent death? Also, if we do nothing to prevent the death, is that any different from doing something that will hasten death?

Even though he may conclude that allowing infants to die is morally acceptable, it is not hate literature because his starting point is not hate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thank you Ben . As stated only 1 of the 4 says anything about killing Jews. Romans talks about 'due penalty', but it doesn't not tell anyone whether the 'penalty' was temporal or in the afterlife. Anyway, I'm sick of Boris' crap on this thread. I now know what is behind all the complaints about him. So, later... debate Peter Singer, that seems like a fun one .