Hi, I'm Troy McClure! You might remember me from such motivational videos as 'Wheel Chairs, or REAL Chairs?', 'Call Me Gifted, NOT Gimpy!', and 'Differently Abled- The OTHER White Meat!' I'm here to talk to you today about Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, the most dangerous man in the world today! (2nd paragraph)
Professor Singer is what experts call a 'non-exclusivist'. That means that if a child and an amoeba were drowning, and he only had one life preserver, chances are better than 50/50 that he'd throw it to the amoeba. Yes, Springfield, Mr. Singer believes in that most Satanic religion of all...EVILUTION! And you can't say evilution without the 'evil'! He actually believes that once upon a time, two monkeys got together to make a baby, and a human popped out! Ha ha ha ha ha! Why, I'd bet my big red butt that THAT isn't true!
Remember, kids, if Peter Singer is ever invited to speak at YOUR school, ask him to show you his prehensile tail, and while he's busy unbuckling his belt, point at him and yell "Get your paws off me, you dirty ape!" loud enough for the principal and everyone else to hear. THAT should take care of our 'intellectual' friend, now shouldn't it? And after all, seeing that he thinks people are monkeys, he should feel right at home LIVING IN A CAGE!"
Oh, and as for the publisher of this blog, I'd just like to say- Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!
Now, which way to the aquarium? Troy's got a hankerin' for some forbidden tuna!
I miss Phil Hartman.
UPDATE: When I grow up, I'm going to Bovine University!
DOUBLE UPDATE: CARTOON CROSSOVER!
12 comments:
You've probably got to be a Simpson's fan to appreciate it :) And even then...
Btw, even though I can't possibly keep up with all the comments response-wise, rest assured that I read every one as they arrive in the mail, and try to consider everything that's said. Thanks for all the recent participation. And...ahem...looking forward to all those essays...ahem...cough, cough...
Jim, I thought your book was very well written, moving, and powerful. I'm so grateful for it and for your blog, which is food for my troubled soul. And the ability to interact with all of you uncommonly intelligent people has been so cathartic. Let's keep up the community and help each other through this hell. (Funny Simpsons spoof, by the way. You are quite the comic!)
Anon:
You are most welcome, and most welcome here.
To be fair to the guy who described Singer as 'dangerous', his article does mercilessly expose Singer's logical inconsistency in denying the truth of Benatar's arguments. We'll leave his religious convictions out of the picture, though!
Peter Singer has three children, so that might explain his stance. Otherwise, he would have to admit that he harmed them by bringing them into existence.
I'm reading all your posts and comments, agreeing with almost everyone here, with a wonderful feeling of being between kindred spirits, and I have the impression that we are a kind of "Brotherhood of the Night", professing an updated form of Gnosticism very difficult to share or even communicate at the risk of being "excomunicated" from the ranks of "normal" humanity. I've discussed antinatalism with some sympathetic parents, and the most honest ones, unbelievaly, agree that procreation is a selfish act, that life is hard, that breeding saved their marriage or cured their depression. Courtesy and respect prevents you from pursuing the argument to its very irrational end. Anyway, the inevitable conclusion is, as all of you well know, that you end feeling guilty, cynical, of immature (especially immature, because having children, apparently, is the height of maturity). I think is inevitable, as well, feeling in the end that you belong to a kind of cult.
I don't care: I'm ready to wear the saffron robe, if necessary, chanting "Long life to non-life!"
(Sorry for my ramblings, but this is the only blog where I can give vent to them. By the way, long life to it!)
Karl: I'm not even sure what the real McClure's religious convictions are. I just saw the name, and my funnybone got the better of me :)
Plague Doctor: You could very well be right. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure I've run across any antinatalist who became one after the fact other than myself. After all, who wants to cast themselves as the bad guy? Just another layer of denial to cut through, I guess.
Josep:
"I've discussed antinatalism with some sympathetic parents, and the most honest ones, unbelievaly, agree that procreation is a selfish act, that life is hard, that breeding saved their marriage or cured their depression."
If we can expand antinatalism to include the latent acknowledgement of the reasons informing it, even if that acknowledgement falls a bit short of its final conclusion, then we may suddenly find ourselves living in a world a lot more sympathetic to the message than we thought. Singer's comment survey is a nod in that direction, as is anecdotal evidence like what you've offered here.
I find myself wondering what's rolling around in Singer's head these days. Why did he offer this as a subject for serious, fair discussion, then stop just short of the finish line? I suspect Plague Doctor has put his finger on at least part of the answer, perhaps dovetailing with Singer's wish to maintain a degree of academic credibility which he anticipates might be threatened, should he take that final step along the chain of reasoning. Also, philanthropic antinatalism would force him to rethink, and ultimately discard, some of his environmental stances; or at least to de-emphasize and re-route some of his passions concerning them. Never an easy thing to do, especially in a man who's carved out a niche in the academic community by identifying himself with certain environmentally-centered positions.
JOSEP:
Gotta love the "Brotherhood of the Night" thing there!
Lol, I like it !
To everyone:
I´m one of those that feel good by having an access to this blog, and reading these people, that are so corageous to embrace and talk about this subject so elegantly.
I like being a part of something, and I agree with CM, friendship, and this, being part of something, and talking with these special people, is one those things that makes life tolerable.
Heil to us all!
P.s.: Yes, Jum is quite the comic! Lol
ZOMG, I never knew Troy McClure was real. I agree with Karl about his seeing through the inconsistency; fits in nicely with what jim posted about religious people a while back.
Shadow:
Thanks! It's the title of a wonderful story by Steven Milhauser. I just noticed I got it wrong. It should be "The Sisterhood of the Night", which still sounds better!
(Our meeting place might be that bar Jim mentioned in an older post...)
I suspect Plague Doctor has put his finger on at least part of the answer, perhaps dovetailing with Singer's wish to maintain a degree of academic credibility which he anticipates might be threatened, should he take that final step along the chain of reasoning.
If you mean academic credibility inside academia, I don't think that's an issue. As far as I know, Benatar is far from not being taken seriously by academic philosophers.
If you mean his credibility to the general public as an academic, that is probably one of the reasons. Because the public doesn't easily accept changes of opinion even in an academic (which is utterly ridiculous, but what do you do about it?), so there's going to be a problem with his having children. And, of course, this whole development aid thing he's involved with. (This was pointed out by Rob somewhere, I think.)
I'm not sure that his environmental stuff would necessarily be at odds with antinatalism theoretically. You can be an antinatalist and think that, because people aren't going to stop breeding anyway, you should at least do something for the future generations (also animal generations) that you can't prevent from coming into being.
I've been to lazy to check whether Singer has published any academic article explicitly addressing Benatar's arguments. I remember reading somewhere that he had something to say about the asymmetry (which is discussed in the discourse on procreational ethics quite independently from the argument Benatar constructs from it), but I can't find the reference again.
Post a Comment