Dr. Singer comes under fire from extreme Animal Rightsers

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I am very sorry if this has been placed in an incorrect forum. I wasn't sure where to place it because it was in the news, but it also deals with morality and ethics.

The following link leads to the Daily Princetonian and covers a statement recently made by Dr. Peter Singer, Utilitarian Ethicist. It seems as if the extreme end of the Animal Rights movement continually tries to misrepresent what he says, and when he and anyone disagrees with them, they viciously attack and slander.

For some reason, they assume that Dr. Singer is one of the "radical" animal rights activitists, when he's no such thing. He made a simple claim that, to help fight Parkinson's Disease, research on primates can be morally encouraged and acceptable. This sparked the ire of those who are "excommunicating" him from the welfare movement. I can't fathom why; his work isn't animal-unfriendly at all.


The Daily Princetonian


I just think it's sad to attack someone like that as soon as he disagrees and doesn't support the extreme to which they go. They all of the sudden throw away his work and efforts for the promotion of animal welfare.

[2000AD]

Woah, he was an example of animal anthropomorphism in a course at uni for ethics and social impact of science. If he can be targeted by animal rights idiots then anyone can.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The charity shop I do some work at actually didn't bother selling a fur coat I found in the stock after the manager thought the local animal rights nuts would pick it up and have a field day. The UK, at least, has a big problem with these terrorists (for that's all they are) and I'm glad that the public is backing the scientists instead. Except fro Morrissey, but that fucker can barely sing, letalone form an argument.

[Shroom Man 777]

If I could cure AIDS by murdering all forms of gorillians, I say we have a giant buffet of boiled baboons.

How the hell do these people get the notion that an animal life is anywhere near that of a human's?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think they [the activitists that attacked him] assume all animals are actually equal because they don't understand the concept of personhood as it applies to ethics. THey take the idea that, because there's no divine presence, all animals lives are of equal nature because none is designed to be favoured. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are all equal.

They must have ignored everything Singer has written, while simultaneously supporting him, becuase he's always been a proponent of experiments on animals that save human lives, because he's outright said Humans have more value due to their degree of self-awareness, higher level interests, etc.

Animal Liberation Front flipped out, I also think, when he called their actions terroristic. It just doesn't make sense.

[Rye]

If I could cure AIDS by murdering all forms of gorillians, I say we have a giant buffet of boiled baboons.

How the hell do these people get the notion that an animal life is anywhere near that of a human's?

They have pets they like more than the fucker that runs over said pet.

[Chiaroscuro]

If I could cure AIDS by murdering all forms of gorillians, I say we have a giant buffet of boiled baboons.

Uh... I assume you're referring to gorillas and baboons as the same thing, which of course they're not. Although I'm not exactly sure what's mean by "gorillian."
In any case, it would be really bad for the people who live near the rainforests where gorillas live if all the gorillas were killed. The ecosystem would pretty much crash and they would be hard-pressed to find food. Sometimes messing up the environment is actually bad for people, not just animals.
I'm not saying I don't want AIDS to be cured, or that I think animals' lives are equal to/more important than humans'. But I think there's probably a better way to do it than wiping out primates.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, yeah. I mean, it's not like you can cure AIDS somehow by killing a set number of apes.