tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post1967170125075762766..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: Peter Singer's Infanticide at Princeton UniversityRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-60025306950404727232013-03-16T00:29:41.857-07:002013-03-16T00:29:41.857-07:00Very good informatіon. Lucky me I reсently
found ...Very good informatіon. Lucky me I reсently <br />found your sіte by chance (stumbleupοn).<br />I've saved as a favorite for later!<br /><br />Feel free to surf to my website <a href="http://vipshoppingalert.com" rel="nofollow">vipshoppingalert.com</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-22003291965066432502013-03-05T17:04:19.597-08:002013-03-05T17:04:19.597-08:00Once again with the double-standard of morality fr...Once again with the double-standard of morality from xians: Infanticide is only bad so long as "god" doesn't order it done. When it's god who orders it then it's <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites" rel="nofollow">perfectly moral</a>.<br /><br />Hypocrites.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-58425822682805096692013-02-03T04:26:25.607-08:002013-02-03T04:26:25.607-08:00R:It's OK. He's still a liar. Singer doesn...R:It's OK. He's still a liar. Singer doesn't "promote" infanticide, any more than Warden "promotes" cannibalism of dead human corpses; he simply views it as differently valued than other things.<br /><br />I know that he does not promote the way Rick suggest it. He does not encourage it, he just views it as an acceptable moral action. But for Rick it is too difficult to understand the difference anyway 8)<br /><br />R:What? Where is that link please.<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.ru/2013/01/peter-singers-infanticide-at-princeton.html?showComment=1359728135801<br /><br />R:Anonymous, you have spent days calling me a liar because I made the claim that he does promote it as an ethically valid option.<br /><br />Yes, you were and are still a liar. For the who-knows-which-time, it does not follow from your quotes that Singer promotes infanticide. <br /><br />R:This was after I had offered definitions of infanticide and shown a webclip from Singer's book where he point-blank promotes ethically permissible infanticide.<br /><br />Rick, you have a reading disability. I repeat myself: WITHOUT SHOWING WHAT PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS SINGER MEANS YOU CANNOT CLAIM HE PROMOTES INFANTICIDE<br /><br />R:And, if you did make such a statement, why then have you continued to call me a liar for pointing out Singer's quotes reveal that he is in fact a proponent of infanticide?<br /><br />Because it just does not follow from the quotes you offered.<br /><br />R:Also, if you are in fact admitting that you were wrong, wouldn't an apology be in order for your wrongful slander against me on this issue?<br /><br />No, it would not. Again, it does not follow from the quotes you offered that Singer views infanticide as a viable option. You never provided an explanation what Singer meant by "permissable conditions". I found out about his stance from Singer s book in the chapter about taking a human life, not from your quotes taking out of context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-60320247838330064522013-02-03T04:11:00.194-08:002013-02-03T04:11:00.194-08:00Anonymous,
>I already agreed with you that Sin...Anonymous,<br /><br />>I already agreed with you that Singer does promote infanticide.<br /><br />- What? Where is that link please.<br /><br />Anonymous, you have spent days calling me a liar because I made the claim that he does promote it as an ethically valid option. And as late as February 1 you claimed I need to "prove that Singer is pro-infanticide":<br /><br />"Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests."<br /><br />This was after I had offered definitions of infanticide and shown a webclip from Singer's book where he point-blank promotes ethically permissible infanticide. Yet, as late as January 31 you made the following claim:<br /><br />"You are still a liar for claiming that those quotes DO show that Singer is a proponent of infanticide."<br /><br />So, do show the link where where you specifically agreed with me "that Singer does promote infanticide." <br /><br />And, if you did make such a statement, why then have you continued to call me a liar for pointing out Singer's quotes reveal that he is in fact a proponent of infanticide?<br /><br />Also, if you are in fact admitting that you were wrong, wouldn't an apology be in order for your wrongful slander against me on this issue?Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-23995146530230888962013-02-02T19:09:52.577-08:002013-02-02T19:09:52.577-08:00It's OK. He's still a liar. Singer doesn&#...It's OK. He's still a liar. Singer doesn't "promote" infanticide, any more than Warden "promotes" cannibalism of dead human corpses; he simply views it as differently valued than other things.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-48871046398685785022013-02-02T10:31:38.540-08:002013-02-02T10:31:38.540-08:00I know what Rick is trying to do, but I do not int...I know what Rick is trying to do, but I do not intend to let him get his way. He has not provided any quote whatsoever that showed how Singer does promote infanticide, hence I was justified in calling him a liar. I had to do my own research to learn what were Singer s stance on the subject. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-18358965721075560672013-02-02T09:53:59.838-08:002013-02-02T09:53:59.838-08:00This is Rick: proving you "wrong" on one...This is Rick: proving you "wrong" on one point means that he is completely justified in dismissing how wrong he is on other points, because you are now "slandering" him.<br /><br />Welcome to the club; it's Warden-think.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-61782450158522372212013-02-02T08:07:15.433-08:002013-02-02T08:07:15.433-08:00This is getting tiresome, Rick. I already agreed w...This is getting tiresome, Rick. I already agreed with you that Singer does promote infanticide. What else do you need from me? Your reading disability is also an established fact, that is being proved again and again. <br /><br />And even if you prove that I was mistaken on single point of yours, you will still be a liar, since there are numerous other arguments and information you have misrepresented. <br /><br />R:Singer could have chosen to use the word euthanasia if he wanted to. He is a professor at Princeton. Do you believe he is not aware of this choice?<br /><br />Do you need me to repeat myself? The quote you provided did not give sufficient evidence that Singer promoted infanticide. You also have a history of quote minning like with Myers and his "nothing should be held sacred". In each quote of Singer you completely ignored the "specific conditions" that he was mentioning, which could have meant euthanasia and not infanticide.<br /><br />R:However, since infants are not considered persons in these circumstances, it does not matter what Singer calls the killing in accordance with his understanding of ethics, because he sees the happiness of 'real' persons, such as the parents, as the 'greater good.' <br /><br />1) Saying that a child is not a person yet does not automatically mean that it is ok to kill it.<br /><br />2) I and most people disagree with Singer that the killing of a disabled baby will help promote the "greater good" even of "real" people as Singer understand the term. <br /><br />3) Nowhere in the quotes you presented is shown what Singer understands as the "greater good".<br /><br />R:Singer is very straightforward and claims that "infanticide" is OK and ethically "permissible" under some conditions. Those are his exact words<br /><br />Yes and you never did show what those "permissable" conditions are. Again, it could just have been limited to euthanasia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-9976770315041383402013-02-02T04:50:50.756-08:002013-02-02T04:50:50.756-08:00>Furthermore, even your most recent quote does ...>Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests. <br /><br />- You are in a complete state of denial.<br /><br />Beginning January 24, you began calling me a liar because I claimed that Singer was promoting infanticide:<br /><br />"Liar, nowhere does Singer state that infanticide is ok. On the contrary, let me post a quote from his FAQ page again:<br /><br />"So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do."<br /><br />You dishonestly corrolate infanticide with euthanasia, which is not the same thing. The same way dishonest christian use abortion and murder as synonymes."<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/huge-public-response-for-waiter-who.html?showComment=1359029562126#c399057783537423757<br /><br />Anonymous, I have repeated over and again several times that I do not believe euthanasia and infanticide are synonyms. Singer could have chosen to use the word euthanasia if he wanted to. He is a professor at Princeton. Do you believe he is not aware of this choice?<br /><br />You seem to be missing Singer's logic. Singer chooses to emphasize his main point, that he does not consider infants to be persons under described conditions. If infants are always persons, it does not matter if he calls euthanasia, because then the killing would likely be unethical in his view anyway.<br /><br />However, since infants are not considered persons in these circumstances, it does not matter what Singer calls the killing in accordance with his understanding of ethics, because he sees the happiness of 'real' persons, such as the parents, as the 'greater good.' Thus, the killing is seen mainly as a moral benefit to others involved.<br /><br />Singer is very straightforward and claims that "infanticide" is OK and ethically "permissible" under some conditions. Those are his exact words.<br /><br />In calling me a liar by simply pointing this out reveals that you have some serious denial issues as well as moral ones.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-85309010869585448612013-02-01T06:15:35.801-08:002013-02-01T06:15:35.801-08:00Rick, your reading disability is showing up again?...Rick, your reading disability is showing up again? Let me quote my previous post with capital letters at the important part as usual:<br /><br />"Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests. He could have just be speaking about euthonasia. Only after reading the chapter "On taking a human life" from "Practical ethics" CAN I SAY THAT SINGER DOES ADVOCATE INFANTICIDE though in extremely rare cases."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-17527951763087059622013-02-01T05:31:31.227-08:002013-02-01T05:31:31.227-08:00Anonymous,
>You are still a liar for claiming ...Anonymous,<br /><br />>You are still a liar for claiming that those quotes DO show that Singer is a proponent of infanticide.<br /><br />- First you called me a liar for claiming that Singer should be associated with the word infanticide. Now that I have offered his quotes embracing the word infanticide as "permissible", you claim that this does not make him a "proponent" of infanticide.<br /><br />Do you also consider the label "pro-abortion" to be a lie?<br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-1248770103382669362013-01-31T17:43:59.664-08:002013-01-31T17:43:59.664-08:00Your style is really unique in comparison to other...Your style is really unique in comparison to other folks I've read stuff from. Many thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this page.<br /><i>Also visit my web blog</i> ; <b><a href="http://usonlinecasinos21.com" rel="nofollow">online slots for money</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-48314557315104482922013-01-31T13:24:13.192-08:002013-01-31T13:24:13.192-08:00Funny Rick. Here you are, complaining that Singer&...Funny Rick. Here you are, complaining that Singer's moral system endorses infanticide, and is therefore terrible and Singer a terrible person, all the while your own moral system does endorse infanticide among other evils.<br /><br />Are you complaining about Singer because his "strict conditions" aren't "God told him to"?Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-74551187483955425872013-01-31T06:12:28.860-08:002013-01-31T06:12:28.860-08:00P.S. God knows how many flaws were pointed out to ...P.S. God knows how many flaws were pointed out to you in your article about morality. Several other non-theistic objective moral systems were presented to you, but you just decided to ignore them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-16703452720050871172013-01-31T06:09:28.138-08:002013-01-31T06:09:28.138-08:00R:That's funny, you repeatedly call me a "...R:That's funny, you repeatedly call me a "liar" for labeling Singer as pro-infanticide and I am the one who is "discredited"? <br /><br />You have dozen of other lies beside the one about Singer. Even if you are right about Singer, you are still a liar.<br /><br />Out of your latest one s, you claimed that the bullying of an infant was in keeping with Singer s morality. That is a blatant lie, since he is against needless suffering. And you are still a liar for claiming that all of Princeton shares the views of Singer.<br /><br />R:Before calling people liars, the onus is on you to do some research and to know about a subject.<br /><br />The quotes you used simply did not apply to your claims on Singer s stance. You are still a liar for claiming that those quotes DO show that Singer is a proponent of infanticide.<br /><br />Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests. He could have just be speaking about euthonasia. Only after reading the chapter "On taking a human life" from "Practical ethics" can I say that Singer does advocate infanticide though in extremely rare cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-43975622934029087832013-01-31T05:31:15.581-08:002013-01-31T05:31:15.581-08:00Not only is Havok off topic, he has proven himself...Not only is Havok off topic, he has proven himself to be unwilling to carry on a civilized discourse.<br /><br><br />Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html?showComment=1323355318051#c1860720556545525580" rel="nofollow">unsubstantiated slander against me.</a> He is still unable to validate his slander with any comments made prior to December 7, 2011.<br><br /><br><br />With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that <a href="http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2010/02/question-of-internet-etiquette.html" rel="nofollow">ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution</a><br><br /><br />If any atheists would be willing to have a civilized debate without slander and name calling, that would be most welcome. The following article would be the appropriate location to begin such a thread:<br /><br /><br />If God Exists, Then Objective Morality Exists<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html<br /><br /><br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-18905114632494544462013-01-31T04:28:05.707-08:002013-01-31T04:28:05.707-08:00Rick: I believe your "system of morality"...<b>Rick: I believe your "system of morality" is a little skewed.</b><br />People in glass houses Rick.<br />Given the moral atrocities to be found in the Bible, with your God commanding infanticide amongst other horrible acts, you're in no position to lecture others about morality.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-36321804773270182142013-01-31T04:00:48.795-08:002013-01-31T04:00:48.795-08:00>you have completely discredited yourself.
Th...>you have completely discredited yourself. <br /><br />That's funny, you repeatedly call me a "liar" for labeling Singer as pro-infanticide and I am the one who is "discredited"? - not so. I believe your "system of morality" is a little skewed.<br /><br />>...I will not take any of your quotes at face value. <br /><br />Before calling people liars, the onus is on you to do some research and to know about a subject.<br /><br />The quote in question is easily searchable in Google Books. I've made a webclip of the quote in context. If you believe the webcip at the following link is a forgery, then go to the library and check out the book yourself. Then, and only then, would you have any justification of possibly calling me a liar or deceitful. As it stands, it is you who is in the wrong.<br /><br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8431593197/Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-430187102897699462013-01-31T03:10:27.278-08:002013-01-31T03:10:27.278-08:00I have told you repeatedely, you have completely d...I have told you repeatedely, you have completely discredited yourself. Hence, I will not take any of your quotes at face value. Provide the full context of the original words from Singer.<br /><br />Furthermore, do provide an example where the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life. <br /><br />R:Summary: promoting "strict conditions on permissible infanticide" is promoting infanticide under strict conditions. Full stop<br /><br />That is called child euthanasia, Rick. You just claim he is favorable of infanticide, completely disregarding "strict conditions". Therefore, you are a liar, taking quotes out of context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-70739674112715183192013-01-31T02:56:16.043-08:002013-01-31T02:56:16.043-08:00>No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a propon...>No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide. Full stop.<br /><br />Well, it seems I've found a quote where Singer uses the specific word infanticide and why he would consider it ethically acceptable under certain conditions.<br /><br />Scott Klusendorf, Director of Bio-Ethics at Stand to Reason, describes Singer's arguments for infanticide as a "bold defense" of infanticide. Klusendorf quotes Practical Ethics (2d ed.) where Singer specifically uses the word infanticide and describes under what specific considerations he would consider it ethically viable: “We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.” (p.173) Singer describes how subjective happiness should be used as a basis for such decisions: “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." <br /><br />http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/<br /><br />Summary: promoting "strict conditions on permissible infanticide" is promoting infanticide under strict conditions. Full stop.<br /><br />Are you ready to admit that you have been wrong, Anonyrus? Singer does promote infanticide according to his own words and definitions.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-78806993693398689632013-01-30T16:02:23.622-08:002013-01-30T16:02:23.622-08:00Interesting article. Interesting article. Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18042223018180658241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-79562707159852602742013-01-30T00:48:15.949-08:002013-01-30T00:48:15.949-08:00Piece of writing writing is also a excitement, if ...Piece of writing writing is also a excitement, if you know afterward you can write <br />otherwise it is complex to write.<br /><i>Here is my web blog</i> - <b><a href="http://ww.bulainc.org/photos/?level=picture&id=123&PHPSESSID=92a0252a27235b6b607dd50da4d812f9" rel="nofollow">actuary</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-62766523799313028032013-01-29T04:18:50.289-08:002013-01-29T04:18:50.289-08:00I'm sorry, I had given you the legal definitio...I'm sorry, I had given you the legal definition of murder in Canada and I would like to offer the legal definitions of murder in the US and Australia, Singer's home country, just to be clear.<br /><br />1. The following is a key aspect regarding the legal definition of murder in the US:<br /> <br />"A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person, or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person."<br /><br />2. In Singer's home country Australia, his views and teachings also advocate murder, according to the legal definition of murder in Australia:<br /><br />"The basic principle of murder involves two overarching components: the act or omission causing death (actus reus), as well as intention and recklessness (mens rea)." <br /><br />The links for both sources are presently in the article.<br /><br /><br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-22287468266572566592013-01-29T04:15:51.528-08:002013-01-29T04:15:51.528-08:00R:As I've shown several times already, Singer ...R:As I've shown several times already, Singer has stated, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." offering his rationale for infanticide<br /><br />Nope, it is not a rationalization of infanticide. Just stating that one life is more important than another is NOT a reason to take away the other life.<br /><br />R:Perhaps "murder" would be more acceptable to you?<br /><br />No, it would not be acceptable to me. Again, you know full well that there is a huge difference between murder and euthanasia. You are deliberately trying to disinform your readers. That makes you a liar.<br /><br />Euthanasia is not murder, no one is thinking of euthanasia when you mention murder or infanticide. I guess I should be calling you a killer and a proponent of human sacrifices since you are so akin to dictionnary definitions. After all, you kill all those bacteria daily, not to mention the insects... Yep, you are a killer, Rick. <br /><br />R:Thanks for your dialogue. This will be a nice addition to the article<br /><br />You are welcome. Once again you have shown your total dishonesty and lack of moralsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-68805185940313038542013-01-29T03:58:10.061-08:002013-01-29T03:58:10.061-08:00>No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a propon...>No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide. Full stop.<br /><br />- As I've shown several times already, Singer has stated, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." offering his rationale for infanticide.<br /><br />Perhaps "murder" would be more acceptable to you? When you consider the legal definition of murder, it applies to Singer's views:<br /><br />1. According to the legal definition of murder and homicide, a key question is whether or not a specific act of killing is legal.<br /><br />2. It is presently illegal in the US to either passively allow an infant to die or to actively take measures to kill a living infant.<br /><br />3. Now matter how you define it, Peter Singer is advocating either actively or passively taking the life of an infant.<br /><br />4. Therefore, according to the legal definition of murder and homicide, Peter Singer is advocating murder.<br /><br />The following is a legal definition of homicide and murder:<br /><br />"A person commits culpable homicide when that person causes the death of another human being:<br /><br /> by means of an unlawful act;<br /> by criminal negligence;<br /> by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do anything that causes the death of that human being;<br /><br /> if that human being is a child or sick person, by willfully frightening that human being."<br /><br />http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/canadian-legal-faqs/criminal-law/federal/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-euth.html<br /><br />Thanks for your dialogue. This will be a nice addition to the article.<br /><br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.com