• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lets celebrate a true Hero

Discussion in 'Australian & New Zealand' started by Born to Watch, Jun 19, 2012.

  1. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    CANBERRA, Australia, June 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Notorious infanticide and bestiality-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
     
  2. Genersis

    Genersis *Sigh*

    +726
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Single
    UK-Greens
    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".
    :wave:
     
  3. Keachian

    Keachian On Sabbatical

    +238
    Baptist
    Single
    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
     
  4. EddyMabo

    EddyMabo Newbie

    420
    +10
    Atheist
    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.
     
  5. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    A chivalry award.
    Killing newborns and personhood for animals.
    Is that Chivalry to you.

    We are different arnt we
     
  6. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.
     
  7. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Maybe, I would hate to think any government would sanction this as valid philosophy.
     
  8. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +469
    Agnostic
    Married
    Finally we agree on something ^_^ . That would be tantamount to legislating for thought control - it's very dangerous to sanction any form of thinking.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012
  9. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +469
    Agnostic
    Married
    Where does he advocate killing children? You're twisting things again, aren't you? And there's you telling others that context is important :thumbsup:.
     
  10. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.
     
  11. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    double post oops
     
  12. TheDag

    TheDag I don't like titles

    +197
    Christian
    Single
    Wiki is a fundamentalist christian website??? Since when????
    You Tube is a fundamentalist christian website??? Since when????
     
  13. TheDag

    TheDag I don't like titles

    +197
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  14. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married

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

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +469
    Agnostic
    Married
    Trying to make yourself sound reasonable, BtW? When you post things like
    that isn't really accepting
    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?
     
  16. Born to Watch

    Born to Watch Newbie

    +12
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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..
     
  17. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +469
    Agnostic
    Married
    You need to read more of my posts then.
    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.
     
  18. madaz

    madaz dyslexic agnostic insomniac

    +23
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
     
  19. AnthonyB

    AnthonyB Disciple

    143
    +8
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
Loading...