Peter Singer and his style of "Ethicist" prove that whenever someone wants to use Darwinism as a frame for an intellectual program that, eventually, the talk turns to who to kill. My point about Singer, who sells his advocacy of killing disabled people and infants with his vegetarianism and supposed animal rights advocacy, is just carrying on in the most vicious line of eugenics.
He is making the same arguments that the proto-Nazi Ernst Haeckle made in his Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (English translation, History of Creation) which Darwin endorsed and promoted in The Descent of Man. Eventually, when the framing is Darwinism ranking individuals and entire ethnic or other groups, especially the disabled, on a scale of value will happen and the advocacy for killing them off will come not long after. "Moderate" eugenics which consisted of sterilizing people was no less a proposal for removing people from the future than what the Nazis did, it was genocide by other means.
That he had relatives who were murdered in the Nazi's eugenics program only adds to his depravity. I will point out that his utilitarianism also, eventually, especially when pushed, tends to move in the same direction.
If liberals fail to condemn that even as conservatives do, that it's certainly not anything to be proud of. It does nothing to falsify my point about the confusion that results from calling private-sector fascists liberals instead of the libertarians they are. That someone can advocate murdering people as an academic exercise in 2017 and it will get them the most desirable of academic appointments is a sign of depravity, not freedom.
Update: If Duncan's "Brain Trust" (they really do call themselves that) can't be bothered to read what I said, I don't care what they stupidly prattle to each other about. Eschaton is just an example of what happens when the host of a blog gets lazy and runs a chat room for profit instead of thinking about things.
Obviously, to guys like you it's a novel concept that when you read and look up citations instead of babbling about stuff without having done that, you're likely to come to other conclusions than ignorance is likely to produce. I prefer to increase the odds of getting it right over those of the proverbial broken clock.
Late hate: I take back what I said about Derbes being one of the few there who aren't idiots. Apparently you can teach Physics at the elite Lab School without realizing that in order to know what someone said you have to read what they said. But, then, he was the one who claimed Inherit The Wind, a largely fictitious distortion of the Scopes Trial was historically accurate. Seems a grad degree in physics isn't everything.
Update: If Duncan's "Brain Trust" (they really do call themselves that) can't be bothered to read what I said, I don't care what they stupidly prattle to each other about. Eschaton is just an example of what happens when the host of a blog gets lazy and runs a chat room for profit instead of thinking about things.
Obviously, to guys like you it's a novel concept that when you read and look up citations instead of babbling about stuff without having done that, you're likely to come to other conclusions than ignorance is likely to produce. I prefer to increase the odds of getting it right over those of the proverbial broken clock.
Late hate: I take back what I said about Derbes being one of the few there who aren't idiots. Apparently you can teach Physics at the elite Lab School without realizing that in order to know what someone said you have to read what they said. But, then, he was the one who claimed Inherit The Wind, a largely fictitious distortion of the Scopes Trial was historically accurate. Seems a grad degree in physics isn't everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment