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?