Lets celebrate a true Hero

[Born to Watch]

CANBERRA, Australia, June 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Notorious infanticide and inappropriate behavior with animals-promoting ‘ethicist’ Peter Singer was made a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) this week, sparking strong criticism by pro-life advocates, ethicists, and columnists.

Singer was presented with the award, which is the greatest civic honour in Australia and given for “merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or humanity at large,” on Monday at the 2012 Queen’s Birthday honours. It was granted for his “eminent service to philosophy and bioethics as a leader of public debate and communicator of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition.”

It makes you wonder if these people believe what they say or just want their few minutes of fame so they say terrible things to get noted.

How does a country a people give a person like this an award. What is wrong with this country.
Do people listen to this guy, really.


Singer suggests newborns have no value either
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[23]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[24]
Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He wants personhood for animals ???
Our government gave him an order of Australia, how embarrassing.

Does this bloke seem chivalrous and deserving of a public award, does he want to advance our country with his ideas.
In light of the other great steps forward this government has taken accepting this mans views as in the interest of the publics good doesnt suprise me.


How sad. Thanks Labor

 

[Genersis]

CANBERRA, Australia, June 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Notorious infanticide and inappropriate behavior with animals-promoting ‘ethicist’ Peter Singer was made a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) this week, sparking strong criticism by pro-life advocates, ethicists, and columnists.

Singer was presented with the award, which is the greatest civic honour in Australia and given for “merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or humanity at large,” on Monday at the 2012 Queen’s Birthday honours. It was granted for his “eminent service to philosophy and bioethics as a leader of public debate and communicator of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition.”

It makes you wonder if these people believe what they say or just want their few minutes of fame so they say terrible things to get noted.

How does a country a people give a person like this an award. What is wrong with this country.
Do people listen to this guy, really.


Singer suggests newborns have no value either
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[23]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[24]
Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He wants personhood for animals ???
Our government gave him an order of Australia, how embarrassing.

Does this bloke seem chivalrous and deserving of a public award, does he want to advance our country with his ideas.
In light of the other great steps forward this government has taken accepting this mans views as in the interest of the publics good doesnt suprise me.


How sad. Thanks Labor

Just thought i'd point out:
A does not follow from B.
A Non-sequitur if you will.
Like the actual quote you posted, he says it has less value to a fully developed human, not "no value".

 

[Keachian]

I'm not sure how much the Labor government would have over this decision, from what I just read about it the decision ultimately comes down to either the Queen or the Governor General

 

[EddyMabo]

How does a country a people give a person like this an award. What is wrong with this country.
Do people listen to this guy, really.

Yeah its pretty easy when you don't get all your views from fundamentalist Christian websites. Thus he gets an award for being a famous philosopher and you don't.

 

[Born to Watch]

Yeah its pretty easy when you don't get all your views from fundamentalist Christian websites. Thus he gets an award for being a famous philosopher and you don't.

A chivalry award.
Killing newborns and personhood for animals.
Is that Chivalry to you.

We are different arnt we

 

[Born to Watch]

Just thought i'd point out:
A does not follow from B.
A Non-sequitur if you will.
Like the actual quote you posted, he says it has less value to a fully developed human, not "no value".

So what
Its irrelevant in context.
Kill the child because it has little value or no value.
If the outcome is the same, does the value not become the same. Worthless.
The child has no/little worth at that age so dispose of it.
Semantics.

 

[Born to Watch]

I'm not sure how much the Labor government would have over this decision, from what I just read about it the decision ultimately comes down to either the Queen or the Governor General

Maybe, I would hate to think any government would sanction this as valid philosophy.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Maybe, I would hate to think any government would sanction this as valid philosophy.

Finally we agree on something . That would be tantamount to legislating for thought control - it's very dangerous to sanction any form of thinking.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So what
Its irrelevant in context.
Kill the child because it has little value or no value.
If the outcome is the same, does the value not become the same. Worthless.
The child has no/little worth at that age so dispose of it.
Semantics.

Where does he advocate killing children? You're twisting things again, aren't you? And there's you telling others that context is important .

 

[Born to Watch]

Fallen + FlawedPeter Singer: An Unparalleled Impoverishment of Human Life
Fallen + FlawedPeter Singer: An Unparalleled Impoverishment of Human Life
Anyone who wants to study this bloke can

BB is welcome to his opinion though I recommend everyone make up their own mind.

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer
Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer

YouTube - Peter Singer - YouTube
YouTube - Peter Singer - YouTube

Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


Please I urge everyone to read what the New Age of Atheism is teaching, what they support and what their agenda is.
What their missionary zealots are advocating.
What BB is trying to hide and to defend. The truth is in those links and their is a reason BB is trying to confuse you with his statements.


Imagine an atheist teaching ethics, what a hypocrite, they have none, no standards. Killing new borns is acceptable as well as killing those with disabilities, and whats more the majority of atheists cheer these guys on as heroes.

BB will argue but read the links provided, do your own research.

 

[Born to Watch]

double post oops

 

[TheDag]

Yeah its pretty easy when you don't get all your views from fundamentalist Christian websites. Thus he gets an award for being a famous philosopher and you don't.

Wiki is a fundamentalist christian website??? Since when????
You Tube is a fundamentalist christian website??? Since when????

 

[TheDag]

Fallen + FlawedPeter Singer: An Unparalleled Impoverishment of Human Life

This link does not accurately represent Singer's view. I know this because I have read several of his books. I can't disagree with his logic at all and no honest person could. I do however disagree with him because our starting points are different. He starts with the assumption there is no God. So naturally his arguments reflect that and do not consider God.

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer

Once again perfectly logical arguments. however once again I disagree with his position because of assumption i make that he doesn't. An assumption that has nothing to do with God by the way.

So at the end of the day because your worldview is different from his worldview you are naturally going to disagree with him. However many people share his worldview in which case his arguments are hard to fault. i don't share his worldview so naturally i don't agree because i believe the starting point for his arguments is wrong.

Interestingly he was condemned by many animal rights activists for some of his work. just thought I'd mention that.

 

[Born to Watch]

This link does not accurately represent Singer's view. I know this because I have read several of his books. I can't disagree with his logic at all and no honest person could. I do however disagree with him because our starting points are different. He starts with the assumption there is no God. So naturally his arguments reflect that and do not consider God.


Once again perfectly logical arguments. however once again I disagree with his position because of assumption i make that he doesn't. An assumption that has nothing to do with God by the way.

So at the end of the day because your worldview is different from his worldview you are naturally going to disagree with him. However many people share his worldview in which case his arguments are hard to fault. i don't share his worldview so naturally i don't agree because i believe the starting point for his arguments is wrong.

Interestingly he was condemned by many animal rights activists for some of his work. just thought I'd mention that.

Hence why I suggested every one research if for themselves and placed a so many links.
Different views and opinions, sorta like his.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hence why I suggested every one research if for themselves and placed a so many links.
Different views and opinions, sorta like his.

Trying to make yourself sound reasonable, BtW? When you post things like

Imagine an atheist teaching ethics, what a hypocrite, they have none, no standards. Killing new borns is acceptable as well as killing those with disabilities, and whats more the majority of atheists cheer these guys on as heroes.

that isn't really accepting

Different views and opinions, sorta like his.

You do not accept that he has a valid opinion based on a different worldview, and you are incapable of accurately representing his ideas - perhaps because you have never read anything other than the fundamentalist articles you linked to which twist and misrepresent his philosophy to fit your worldview?

 

[Born to Watch]

BB I have never seen you offer a Christian perspective, ever
Yet you preach at me how I should act while you act the same as me just a different atheist perspective. There is a word for that, escapes me at the moment.

Hey look here, right here a forum, hey look an opportunity to stop sledging ME personally and link some balancing views..

 

[Bungle_Bear]

BB I have never seen you offer a Christian perspective, ever

You need to read more of my posts then.

Hey look here, right here a forum, hey look an opportunity to stop sledging ME personally and link some balancing views..

I don't need to because you've already linked them. But you've then misrepresented what they actually say. So what you call sledging is me asking you to stop the misrepresentation.

 

[madaz]

The author of this thread has demonstrated that he is not only fallacious, slanderous and ignorant, he is morally challenged.

Shame on you for your non sequitur assertions.

 

[AnthonyB]

Clearly the man comes from a different point of view to the Christian one. I certainly wouldn't nominate him for an award but clearly his views do resonate with some.

I wonder if any one has attacked him from the other side. Could he be accused of "processism", the irrational belief that some natural processes (life) should have a higher standing then any other natural process. If "naturalism" is taken to its logical conclusion then why should any process have any higher rights then any other. If it is "speicism", to elevate the most sentient being on the planet to a special plane of rights, why wouldn't it be "processism" to elevate a set of self replicating processes above other processes.