The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Peter Singer Interviewed About Speciesism in NYT
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s an interview in the New York Times, part of a continuing series in which philosopher George Yancy interviews other philosophers. In the Times today, Yancy interviews Peter Singer about his famous but controversial theory of animal rights. I’ll summarize Singer’s responses in order to save space for Yancy’s important questions.

Peter Singer: On Racism, Animal Rights and Human Rights
By GEORGE YANCY and PETER SINGER MAY 27, 2015 7:00 AM May 27, 2015

George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Duquesne University. He has written, edited and co-edited numerous books, including “Black Bodies, White Gazes,” “Look, a White!” and “Pursuing Trayvon Martin,” co-edited with Janine Jones.

Peter Singer

This is the 12th in a series of interviews with philosophers on race that I am conducting for The Stone. This week’s conversation is with Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is the author of numerous books, including, most recently, “The Most Good You Can Do.” — George Yancy

George Yancy: You have popularized the concept of speciesism, which, I believe was first used by the animal activist Richard Ryder. Briefly, define that term and how do you see it as similar to or different from racism?

Peter Singer: Speciesism is an attitude of bias against a being because of the species to which it belongs. Typically, humans show speciesism when …

G.Y.: While I think that it is ethically important to discuss the issue of failing to extend to other (nonhuman) animals the principle of equality, we continue to fail miserably in the ways in which we extend that principle to black people, the disabled, women and others, here in the United States and around the world. What is it that motivates the failure or the refusal to extend this principle to other human beings in ethically robust ways? I’m especially thinking here in terms of the reality of racism.

P.S.: [Blah blah blah] slave trade [blah blah blah].

G.Y.: Having referenced the slave trade, I think that it is important to keep in mind that it was partly constituted by a white racist ideology that held that Africans were sub-persons. There was also the European notion that nonwhites were incapable of planning their own lives and had to be paternalistically ruled over. As a white Australian, are there parallels in terms of how the indigenous people of Australia have been treated, especially in terms of sub-personhood, and paternalism?

P.S.: [Blah blah]

G.Y.: Yet, it seems to me that the issue of alcohol abuse would perhaps not exist had indigenous people in Australia not been subjected to forms of oppression and marginalization in the first place. This is not to deny choice, but to acknowledge that structural forms of oppression, poverty and marginalization should be taken into account. Native Americans and First Nations people in Alaska also have huge problems with alcoholism. Some indigenous people in Australia are even sniffing petrol, which has it own specific devastating consequences. In what ways do you think that the alcoholism and the substance abuse described above are linked to these larger structural issues that disproportionately impact indigenous people?

P.S.: [Blah]

G.Y.: Above, you mentioned “emotional impulses,” but don’t you think that white racism is also based upon institutional structures? Racist practices are expressed systemically through banks, education, the prison industrial complex, health care, etc that just need to keep functioning to continue privileging and empowering some (white people) and oppressing and degrading others (black people). Historically, the concept of institutional racism was systematically deployed during the Black Power Movement in the 1960s and was popularized by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Touré) and Charles V. Hamilton.

P.S.: [Whatever]

G.Y.: And, in turn, can we say that institutional structures can instill and support certain racist emotional impulses?

P.S.: [Talk talk talk]

G.Y.: There is, however, data that shows that black people suffer disproportionately with respect to bank lending practices, quality of education, quality of health care, arrest rates for nonviolent drug offenses. However, returning to what you said earlier, do you think that racism is innate or cultural? Even if there appears to be a proclivity toward a kind of xenophobic tribalism expressed within the human species, racism seems to be of a different order, yes?

P.S.: [TL:DR]

G.Y.: Yes. I think that racism may very well have its roots in a kind of xenophobic tribalism, but white racism expresses itself in all sorts of perverse ways and is perhaps motivated from psychic needs/places that transcend xenophobic tribalism.

P.S.: [Yakety-yak]

G.Y.: To what extent do you think that biases against nonhuman animals are grounded within a certain unethical stewardship toward nature itself? Do you think that this is a specifically Western approach to nature where nature is conceived as an “object” over which we ought to have absolute control? Certainly, Francis Bacon seems to have had this idea. Of course, then there was René Descartes, who argued that nonhuman animals are mere machines.

P.S.: [Stuff]

G.Y.: Today black people are still fighting to be recognized as fully human, to assert that our lives matter. Historically, we have often been compared to nonhuman animals. On various occasions, President Obama has been depicted as a monkey. Obviously, this image is meant to degrade, and can only be understood against the backdrop of black people in the United State fighting against a reduction of our humanity. How can black people, on the one hand, reject the reduction of, say, Obama to a monkey, and yet be against speciesism?

P.S.: [More white male mumbo-jumbo]

G.Y.: Given that we have not even figured out how to treat those of our own species with dignity and respect, as someone who continues to fight against speciesism, do you have thoughts on how we might effectively dismantle racism?

P.S.: [Wrap it up, the clock’s ticking]

 
Hide 183 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Yes, I think Singer is interesting, but it seemed like everything was an excuse to get back to the issue of WHAT ABOUT RACISM?

    And what’s with the baseball cap? Not the usual attire for black philosophers who are full of themselves and need to drop names every few sentences to show how smart they are.

  2. LOL (literally, chuckling to myself in a Starbucks now reading this).

    Re this:

    George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Duquesne University. He has written, edited and co-edited numerous books, including “Black Bodies, White Gazes,” “Look, a White!” and “Pursuing Trayvon Martin,” co-edited with Janine Jones.

    I had to click on all three of those titles to see if they were real books and you weren’t just messing with us.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Dave Pinsen

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Dave Pinsen, @Hippopotamusdrome

    , @Alfa158
    @Dave Pinsen

    What?! You mean that wasn't a put-on!? How is that possible with that photo and the "book" titles?

  3. @Dave Pinsen
    LOL (literally, chuckling to myself in a Starbucks now reading this).

    Re this:

    George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Duquesne University. He has written, edited and co-edited numerous books, including “Black Bodies, White Gazes,” “Look, a White!” and “Pursuing Trayvon Martin,” co-edited with Janine Jones.
     
    I had to click on all three of those titles to see if they were real books and you weren't just messing with us.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Steve Sailer


    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.
     
    Seriously . . . I was certain you'd made them up, Steve, but then I moused over the links and saw amazon entries coming up . . . .

    The whole exchange beggars belief.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    @Steve Sailer

    Those book titles remind me of some of the fake movie titles from Seinfeld: "Cry and Cry Again", "Prognosis: Negative", etc.

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Steve Sailer


    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.
     
    They sould ha included this:

    Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer


    He sees him as a philosopher primarily concerned with human freedom, rather than as an economist or a social scientist.
     
  4. I was hoping you were channeling The Onion. Sadly, no.

  5. I don’t really get it. Yes, the black professor is a moron, but Peter Singer doesn’t actually have anything interesting or reasonable to say. Neither of them deserve to be called philosophers.

    • Replies: @josh
    @Anonymous

    Note that this was an interview (about animal rights) and there seems to have been no need for the interviewee.

    , @Chess Fan
    @Anonymous

    I disagree with this. The concept of speciesism is really interesting. I have used it for the purpose of making arguments against leftists on more than one occasion (e.g. if I am morally obligated to feel comfortable with a black dating my sister, are you morally obligated to feel comfortable with your sister diddling a horse?). Singer really is like a living, breathing reductio ad absurdum on leftism. I love him.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @neuday

  6. Pat Casey says:

    Peter Singer is lookin a lot like Benjamin Button these days. And that black guy looks like a dufus named George Yancy. It is not clear to me at which point people started knowing Singer more for his claptrap about enfranchising dolphins and less for his hatred of unwanted newborns who get put in dumpsters, but I suppose the shift is a kind of progress, if we could just pinpoint the moment we might discover something special. What Singer should be forced to answer, not as an ethical thought experiment but an actual experiment, is if he still enjoys his career as a purveyor of bizarre ethics while he is locked in some unholy dungeon with his eyelids clamped open as Dufus Yancy has bestiality with a hyena that’s eating a black crack-baby

  7. @Dave Pinsen
    LOL (literally, chuckling to myself in a Starbucks now reading this).

    Re this:

    George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Duquesne University. He has written, edited and co-edited numerous books, including “Black Bodies, White Gazes,” “Look, a White!” and “Pursuing Trayvon Martin,” co-edited with Janine Jones.
     
    I had to click on all three of those titles to see if they were real books and you weren't just messing with us.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158

    What?! You mean that wasn’t a put-on!? How is that possible with that photo and the “book” titles?

  8. There’s something wonderful about being alive at the time when the liberal-progressive project finally disappears into its own absurdity. That moment hasn’t quite happened yet but it can only be a year or so down the road. The election of Hillary Clinton will likely smash us through to the other side of the looking glass entirely. See the last third of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey to get an idea of the ride we’re about to take.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Cagey Beast

    Back in the day, we said that they knew more and more about less and less, chasing their tails so fast that they disappeared up their own [behinds].

    , @Clifford Brown
    @Cagey Beast

    We are not approaching The Singularity, but The Liberality.

    Replies: @Dahlia

  9. Singer got his last name ‘cos his head’s like a sewing machine.

  10. If Peter Singer were eaten by coyotes, would anybody care? Would he?

    • Replies: @TWS
    @Mr. Anon

    If he got eaten in my yard I'd have to deal with it. Plus there'd be some 'yotes that needed killing. So depending on circumstances yes. Better if Dingos ate him.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon


    If Peter Singer were eaten by coyotes, would anybody care? Would he?
     
    Dingos, mate. He's from Melb'ne.

    But he supports infanticide. That subject could inspire Yancy to inquire about disparate impact.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Mr. Anon

    The coyotes would be charged with murder and sent to prison, since they're people now.

  11. As a book title, “Look, A White!” is Clayton Bigsby-esque.

  12. A quote from Yancy’s “Reframing the Practice of Philosophy”:

    Charles Mills notes that when it comes down to it “a lot of philosophy is just white guys jerking off.”

    Come again? You can read a lot of Yancy’s “mental ejecta” for free on Amazon.

    More seriously, the basic concept is that philosophy is conditioned by its social context (old Marx idea, thus “bourgeois philosophy”), but since the overriding importance here is not “means of production” but rather “institutional racism” we can safely ignore it, because, when we are reading the Critique of Pure Reason as “raced philosophers” we should realize that Kant did not write his book for POC.*

    So essentially what we are left with are a lot of gaseous rhetoric about racism, and very repetitious.

    This is part of what I meant the other day when I said that mainstream philosophy has basically nothing to contribute anymore.

    * paraphrase; yes, race is a verb now, and to be raced is to be POC; I’m sure the other shoe drops (“was e-raced”) later in the book but I don’t have the time.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @SPMoore8

    Peter Unger argues that it's pretty much all useless: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html

    Replies: @slumber_j, @vinteuil

  13. Peter Singer? Is it the same guy who authored “Heavy Petting”?

    http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001—-.htm

    You know, sex with animals okay?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Twinkie

    Excellent! I wonder if these increasingly bizarre articles coming out of the NYT have anything to do with the Singularity? Are they trying to make liberal-progressive minds limber and flexible enough to handle being uploaded into Ray Kurzweil's supercomputer? That's my guess.

    , @Father O'Hara
    @Twinkie

    I thought it was Pete SEEGER...

    , @Lot
    @Twinkie

    You write *one* article advocating for sex with dogs, and suddenly that's all the yokels know you for.

    , @FWIW
    @Twinkie

    From the seminal article on Singer:
    " not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety."

    I used to think of myself as a fairly liberal guy regarding sex. WW B could go either way.

    In the old days, there used to be something called a dog house. Now it seems that people sleep with them all the time. I just don't get it. I like dogs, but love? It is really one of the last taboos.

    Call me a prude, but....

    What does Singer have to say about intelligence among animals? IQ is just a social construct. After all, wouldn't we need dog whistle recognition on any valid test?

  14. @SPMoore8
    A quote from Yancy's "Reframing the Practice of Philosophy":

    Charles Mills notes that when it comes down to it "a lot of philosophy is just white guys jerking off."
     
    Come again? You can read a lot of Yancy's "mental ejecta" for free on Amazon.

    More seriously, the basic concept is that philosophy is conditioned by its social context (old Marx idea, thus "bourgeois philosophy"), but since the overriding importance here is not "means of production" but rather "institutional racism" we can safely ignore it, because, when we are reading the Critique of Pure Reason as "raced philosophers" we should realize that Kant did not write his book for POC.*

    So essentially what we are left with are a lot of gaseous rhetoric about racism, and very repetitious.

    This is part of what I meant the other day when I said that mainstream philosophy has basically nothing to contribute anymore.

    * paraphrase; yes, race is a verb now, and to be raced is to be POC; I'm sure the other shoe drops ("was e-raced") later in the book but I don't have the time.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @Dave Pinsen

    That's a thoroughly enjoyable read: thanks very much for indicating it.

    It's far from central to the interview, but I liked this funny bit of iSteve-bait, comparing citations of women in the major philosophical journals with the citations for the single most important contemporary male philosopher:


    Then Kealy has something about women in the data. Nineteen items in the data are written by women, or 3.6 percent. By comparison, 6.3 percent of the items are written by David Lewis.
     

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @vinteuil
    @Dave Pinsen

    In that interesting interview, Unger is focusing on relatively recent work in the so-called "core areas" of philosophy - i.e., metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language.

    I wonder if he thinks that time spent reading Plato's Republic or Descartes' Meditations is time wasted.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  15. fnn says:

    Derbyshire says with black intellectuals it’s all “black, black, blackety, black” all the time. I don’t care, I’m infinitely more concerned about the impending extinction in the wild of the African Wild Dog:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140620103129.htm

    African wild dog populations were in good shape until a few decades ago. In the middle of the last century, there were 500,000 of them in 39 countries. But the species is in decline across nearly its entire range south of the Sahara. Today there are somewhere between 3000 and 5500 left, in fewer than 25 countries. That’s roughly one per cent remaining, even in the best case.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @fnn

    Derbyshire writes about mathematics, science, British history and things Chinese, so he moves around in a much bigger mental universe than most black intellectuals.

    Replies: @Hacienda

  16. @Steve Sailer
    @Dave Pinsen

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Dave Pinsen, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    Seriously . . . I was certain you’d made them up, Steve, but then I moused over the links and saw amazon entries coming up . . . .

    The whole exchange beggars belief.

  17. @Twinkie
    Peter Singer? Is it the same guy who authored "Heavy Petting"?

    http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

    You know, sex with animals okay?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Father O'Hara, @Lot, @FWIW

    Excellent! I wonder if these increasingly bizarre articles coming out of the NYT have anything to do with the Singularity? Are they trying to make liberal-progressive minds limber and flexible enough to handle being uploaded into Ray Kurzweil’s supercomputer? That’s my guess.

  18. @Cagey Beast
    There's something wonderful about being alive at the time when the liberal-progressive project finally disappears into its own absurdity. That moment hasn't quite happened yet but it can only be a year or so down the road. The election of Hillary Clinton will likely smash us through to the other side of the looking glass entirely. See the last third of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey to get an idea of the ride we're about to take.

    Replies: @Ivy, @Clifford Brown

    Back in the day, we said that they knew more and more about less and less, chasing their tails so fast that they disappeared up their own [behinds].

  19. The frustrating thing about George Yancy’s books is not that they are terrible, but that they are so expensive; $20-$30 just to read them on Kindle. That’s too much for some laughs.

    The volume Pursuing Trayvon Martin (I thought the police dispatcher said not to do that) is a collecction of essays with titles ranging from the ambitious “Two Forms of Transcendence: Justice and the Problem of Knowledge” to the banal “Should Black Kids Avoid Wearing Hoodies?” culminating in Yancy’s own contribution, “Trayvon Martin: When Effortless Grace is Sacrificed on the Altar of Image.”

    See, this is what remainder tables and used bookstores are for. I’d have a copy for $1.99 by now.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @SPMoore8

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,494,891 in Books. So at $35/ copy, Mr. Yancy has probably made around $150, give or take.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Borachio

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @SPMoore8

    In a previous post, Steve made the observation that smaller bookstores (BDalton; Waldenbooks; etc) that existed in malls offered books that were short on both quality and quantity as compared to today's Barnes and Noble's, some of which the architecture literally resembles a giant cathedral of reading. Unfortunately, people like Professor Yancy's books will be given full access to Barnes and Noble, in plain sight when they wouldn't have seen the time of day in the smaller chain mall stores. In Yancy's case, most likely his books will only be sold regionally and under the section known as "local authors".

    Can't wait to see his next title, no doubt to be along the lines of: "Ferguson and Baltimore: When will YT ever learn?"

    By the way, a friend was about to take one of his philosophy classes or whatever it was he teaches at Duquesne before wisely deciding to pass.

  20. Reminiscent of the 2014 College Debate Championship about restricting the Presidential War Powers authority.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/

  21. I followed George Yancy’s Q&As for a while. Nothing much to learn except the depth of high minded dullness.

    I did a statistical break down of the first few interviews, back in January, not a white man among them. You’d figure that if white men were the source of all their ills a man of philosophy would want to go immediately to the heart of the matter.

    It’s good to see he finally went for the root. How underwhelming. I don’t think these Q&As are about exploring an issue – clearly – just excuses to choir preach. But what’s new?

    For those interested:

    http://droggin.com/george-yancy-and-discussions-on-race/

  22. @Cagey Beast
    There's something wonderful about being alive at the time when the liberal-progressive project finally disappears into its own absurdity. That moment hasn't quite happened yet but it can only be a year or so down the road. The election of Hillary Clinton will likely smash us through to the other side of the looking glass entirely. See the last third of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey to get an idea of the ride we're about to take.

    Replies: @Ivy, @Clifford Brown

    We are not approaching The Singularity, but The Liberality.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    @Clifford Brown


    We are not approaching The Singularity, but The Liberality.

     

    Liberality approached!

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward

  23. @Clifford Brown
    @Cagey Beast

    We are not approaching The Singularity, but The Liberality.

    Replies: @Dahlia

    We are not approaching The Singularity, but The Liberality.

    Liberality approached!

    • Replies: @AnonymousCoward
    @Dahlia

    It's not the Singularity, or the Liberality.

    It's the Signalarity.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

  24. In the year 2015, George Yancy was a leading academic racist at Duquesne University and promoter of ‘scientific’ anti-Caucasianism. In the decade before and after that year, he laid the intellectual foundation for the later attempt by government and militia forces at the organized genocidal slaughter of the new white minority.

  25. That was some pretty funny noticing.

  26. This is a good example of how a good editor can
    improve the presentation of your ideas.
    This example involves an experiment with
    two subjects, one named GY, who is allowed to
    bloviate away, while the other, named PS,
    is edited to make his points tersely and cogently.
    Which subject comes off looking better?

  27. Nowadays Yancy Can’t Even Think

    • Replies: @Ziel
    @Anon

    ...just to let you know that someone noticed:)

    , @ben tillman
    @Anon


    Nowadays Yancy Can’t Even Think
     
    Ha, nice allusion.
  28. Steve,

    I haven’t yet looked at The New York Times site, but you’ve got to be making that up!

    Yancy seems to be an affirmative-action hire (both at his university and at The New York Times), but even he isn’t that loopy.

    Okay, now I looked. Wow. He really did write that nonsense.

  29. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Since these guys can’t shut up about black bodies, I’ve asked myself if the term black body radiation should be applied to something new as well. Why not rap and R&B radio? It invariably accompanies the bodies in question and its intensity is inversely proportional to the square root of distance from its source.

  30. >George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Duquesne University.<

    a star pupil from the other hill

    Hill District

  31. @Twinkie
    Peter Singer? Is it the same guy who authored "Heavy Petting"?

    http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

    You know, sex with animals okay?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Father O'Hara, @Lot, @FWIW

    I thought it was Pete SEEGER…

  32. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I sure wish that I had been born black. Imagine getting paid just to blow hot air and then to be ceremoniously referred to as a ‘philosopher’. Where did I get the foolish idea of working at a job for a living? Why didn’t somebody wise me up to the philosopher racket? I could’ve made a fortune doing nothing. That black guy sure hates whitey and like the rest of his peers is so totally absorbed that he’s jealous of any attention not directed towards blacks but at some mere animals. It’s all about themselves 24/7.

    • Replies: @Harold
    @anonymous

    Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    You blame the whitey, in the NYT

  33. George Yancey would be an excellent subject for a New Yorker cartoon castaway.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @ic1000

    George Yancey, Peter Singer and an orang-utan that's reached the age of consent.

  34. @SPMoore8
    The frustrating thing about George Yancy's books is not that they are terrible, but that they are so expensive; $20-$30 just to read them on Kindle. That's too much for some laughs.

    The volume Pursuing Trayvon Martin (I thought the police dispatcher said not to do that) is a collecction of essays with titles ranging from the ambitious "Two Forms of Transcendence: Justice and the Problem of Knowledge" to the banal "Should Black Kids Avoid Wearing Hoodies?" culminating in Yancy's own contribution, "Trayvon Martin: When Effortless Grace is Sacrificed on the Altar of Image."

    See, this is what remainder tables and used bookstores are for. I'd have a copy for $1.99 by now.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,494,891 in Books. So at $35/ copy, Mr. Yancy has probably made around $150, give or take.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Jack D

    Unless it's required in his classes and more are sold through the university bookstore.

    , @Borachio
    @Jack D

    Of greater philosophical merit than Mr. Yancy's work, but as far as I can tell, not even ranked by Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Love-Breasts-Rinth-Shadley-ebook/dp/B006CBFFHY/

    The author does have the affirmative-active credit of being female but doesn't seem to need it.

  35. Neither of them could be considered a “philosopher”. Could “Look, a White!” ever be the title of a serious philosophy book? And Singer is a fake, not really in the field of honest philosophy either, but of political and social agitation.

    Anyway, one thing Blacks and Jews have in common is their self-obsession: for most blacks, everything is about racism and being black, and for most Jews everything is about antisemitism and being Jewish.

  36. “Look, A White!”

    That’s funny.

    I’m black y’all, I’m black y’all, and I’m blacker than black, and I’m black y’all.

  37. One thing these animal rights activists never quite get. Animals are in effect “food banks”, that is during the long winter when crops do not grow, eating animals is the only way to survive. I would go far as to speculate (unprovable), that if humans had never eaten animals, we would be extinct as a species.

    • Replies: @larry lurker
    @Name Withheld

    Singer's probably aware of this, just as you're probably aware that the survival of the human race no longer depends on eating meat in winter.

    Singer acknowledges that the vegetarian and vegan diets may not be the absolute healthiest. He simply thinks it's less of a burden for him to forgo some extra protein than it is for hundreds of animals to lead miserable lives in order to keep him slightly- or even substantially- better nourished.

    I'm an omnivore, but if I'm willing to ascribe even a sliver of consciousness to non-human animals, I have trouble seeing how Singer is obviously wrong.* Which is why I try not to think about it too much.

    * Obviously wrong now. Not obviously wrong during the last Ice Age.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    , @Jim
    @Name Withheld

    Humans would have had to stay in the tropics. I wonder if Singer believes that foxes should stop eating bunny-wabbits?

  38. @ic1000
    George Yancey would be an excellent subject for a New Yorker cartoon castaway.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    George Yancey, Peter Singer and an orang-utan that’s reached the age of consent.

  39. mr. sailer,

    i enjoy your conversation about life in la. just sharing some pgh.

  40. Hey Steve, if you’re smarter than Ezra Klein, why aren’t you as rich as Klein is about to be?

    Comcast Tries, Tries Again To Buy The Internet –seekingalpha.com

    Seeking Alpha

    6 hours ago – Summary. Having failed to buy AOL, Comcast has turned its eyes to Vox. A deal was presaged by today’s purchase of Re/Code by Vox.

    Comcast can get its way here, having participated in multiple venture rounds with Vox. The hang-up right now seems to be price. The Vox boys reportedly want $1 billion for their creation, which includes the sports blog SB Nation, tech site The Verge, local real estate site Curbed and the restaurant site Eater. The group’s most recent effort is a site actually called Vox, a political-social site run by former Washington Post writer Ezra Klein. …

    (:0/) !!!!

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    @David Davenport


    Having failed to buy AOL, Comcast has turned its eyes to Vox. A deal was presaged by today’s purchase of Re/Code by Vox.
     
    You mean that web site where women learn to cut-n-paste code they have no ability to understand and then claim that they are hot-shot coders?
    , @Lot
    @David Davenport

    Klein now only owns a tiny share of Vox. I'm sure he'll do well though.

  41. @Jack D
    @SPMoore8

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,494,891 in Books. So at $35/ copy, Mr. Yancy has probably made around $150, give or take.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Borachio

    Unless it’s required in his classes and more are sold through the university bookstore.

  42. How can black people, on the one hand, reject the reduction of, say, Obama to a monkey, and yet be against speciesism?

    Stop it, George–you’re killing me!

    It’s your deadpan delivery — where’d you learn to do that?

  43. You crack me up, Steve. Great.

  44. @Steve Sailer
    @Dave Pinsen

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Dave Pinsen, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Those book titles remind me of some of the fake movie titles from Seinfeld: “Cry and Cry Again”, “Prognosis: Negative”, etc.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Dave Pinsen

    If he were to have legal issues, I can definitely see him getting council from 'Jacky Chiles'

  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Lab chimps are enslaved just like African-Americans were, lawyer tells trial as he fights for freedom of two monkeys from Long Island university”

    “The Nonhuman Rights Foundation believe that Hercules and Leo have ‘personhood’ rights and should be freed
    Steven Wise, head of the NRP, compared ​the chimps legal fight to the struggle of enslaved blacks and Native Americans in the U.S.
    The animals are used for locomotion studies at Stony Brook University on Long Island”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098643/Lawyer-demanding-freedom-two-lab-chimps-likens-enslaved-blacks-animal-rights-trial.html

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Didn't Heinlein write a short story about this trial in like 1940?

    Replies: @advancedatheist

  46. “In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?”

    • Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @Sutton


    “In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?"
     
    Chimps are extremely patriarchal and display firmly established hierarchies. They hunt in packs of bonded males and actively restrict female chimp sexuality to ensure paternity. While Singer argues they should be granted "personhood" and eventually suffrage, Chimps are likely natural republicans. That's all well and good for the right, but Singer himself would likely find Chimp voting patterns to be.... as the hipsters say... ""problematic"". Thus, the left will advocate "personhood" and suffrage for Bonobos first.

    This is the part in the movie where we flash forward to the 2028 election and lament how George P. Bush is pandering to Chimpanzee-Americans and Chelsea Clinton is pandering to Bonobo-Americans. Meanwhile, Senator Te-Nehypen Coates is introducing legislation to make the word "monkey" hate speech.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Rob McX, @International Jew

  47. • Replies: @Nathan Wartooth
    @Anonymous

    Here is a question that nobody seems to be asking.

    The guy got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to do this study. Then he stayed at home and faked all of the data.

    Where is the money? I'm guessing he just pocketed it all?

    He almost got away with it too. A teaching job at Princeton, which I'm assuming is a six figure gig, plus the 100,000+ in cash he stole in grant money. He assumed that everyone loved the results so much, because it reaffirmed a big liberal belief, that contact makes people less prejudiced, that the data would never be questioned.

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

  48. @Anonymous
    "Lab chimps are enslaved just like African-Americans were, lawyer tells trial as he fights for freedom of two monkeys from Long Island university"

    "The Nonhuman Rights Foundation believe that Hercules and Leo have 'personhood' rights and should be freed
    Steven Wise, head of the NRP, compared ​the chimps legal fight to the struggle of enslaved blacks and Native Americans in the U.S.
    The animals are used for locomotion studies at Stony Brook University on Long Island"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098643/Lawyer-demanding-freedom-two-lab-chimps-likens-enslaved-blacks-animal-rights-trial.html

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Didn’t Heinlein write a short story about this trial in like 1940?

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @Steve Sailer

    I keep wondering when we will outgrow Heinlein from the fact that his insights and his visions of possible futures haven't aged well. I mean, Huxley and Orwell show signs of writing for the ages and not just for the age - Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four just keep on giving, decades after their respective publications. I can't say that about any of Heinlein's novels.

    I also find it amusing that Martine Rothblatt doesn't see the problem with constructing a philosophy about "living forever," especially as a sex-changer, based in part on Heinlein's novels, when a century from now I doubt that anyone will read them.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  49. Uhh this NYT article could have easily passed muster at the Onion. So much for the newspaper of note.

  50. Wait, now I’m confused. Somebody help me out here.

    Every since the affair where the Univision news reader got fired for comparing the man who got a makeup job to look like Michele Obama to something from the recent Planet of the Apes sequel, I look at her and think, “Well she does look kind of like a girl gorilla in the face, now that you mention it.” It’s sort of a version of the Streisand Effect where she caused the thing she was trying to stop to actually happen more than if she would have let it alone.

    So am I being a Speciesist or a Racist? I need to know so I can figure which privilege to check.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Mark Minter


    So am I being a Speciesist or a Racist?
     
    According to the simpleton hatemonger in the baseball cap, you're just being white. Don't you know, "white racism expresses itself in all sorts of perverse ways and is perhaps motivated from psychic needs/places that transcend xenophobic tribalism"? You and I and the rest of us psychos should just go shoot ourselves.
    , @CK
    @Mark Minter

    Check both, why limit your enjoyments.

  51. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @fnn
    Derbyshire says with black intellectuals it's all "black, black, blackety, black" all the time. I don't care, I'm infinitely more concerned about the impending extinction in the wild of the African Wild Dog:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140620103129.htm

    African wild dog populations were in good shape until a few decades ago. In the middle of the last century, there were 500,000 of them in 39 countries. But the species is in decline across nearly its entire range south of the Sahara. Today there are somewhere between 3000 and 5500 left, in fewer than 25 countries. That's roughly one per cent remaining, even in the best case.
     

    Replies: @advancedatheist

    Derbyshire writes about mathematics, science, British history and things Chinese, so he moves around in a much bigger mental universe than most black intellectuals.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    @advancedatheist

    Maybe. But this jive turkey don't got the feels.

  52. LOL! Funny shit, Steve.

  53. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Didn't Heinlein write a short story about this trial in like 1940?

    Replies: @advancedatheist

    I keep wondering when we will outgrow Heinlein from the fact that his insights and his visions of possible futures haven’t aged well. I mean, Huxley and Orwell show signs of writing for the ages and not just for the age – Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four just keep on giving, decades after their respective publications. I can’t say that about any of Heinlein’s novels.

    I also find it amusing that Martine Rothblatt doesn’t see the problem with constructing a philosophy about “living forever,” especially as a sex-changer, based in part on Heinlein’s novels, when a century from now I doubt that anyone will read them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @advancedatheist

    The space industry is starting to be developed after a few decades of NASA led government bureaucratic stagnation. I could see a Heinlein revival in the future.

    Replies: @5371

  54. @Dave Pinsen
    @Steve Sailer

    Those book titles remind me of some of the fake movie titles from Seinfeld: "Cry and Cry Again", "Prognosis: Negative", etc.

    Replies: @anonymous

    If he were to have legal issues, I can definitely see him getting council from ‘Jacky Chiles’

  55. jJay says:

    Peter Singer: Speciesism is an attitude of bias

    There’s at best a smuggled premise, as Ayn Rand would quickly note, and some circular reasoning that even I can see in that. What’s difference between ‘attitude’ and ‘bias’ in such a general thesis? People really do get payed to write crap like this.

  56. Very off topic, but of interest to iStevers.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32902236

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    @AKAHorace

    Just a heads up Steve and those who comment here. Check your privilege after viewing the next link :

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32289744

  57. @AKAHorace
    Very off topic, but of interest to iStevers.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32902236

    Replies: @AKAHorace

    Just a heads up Steve and those who comment here. Check your privilege after viewing the next link :

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32289744

  58. @SPMoore8
    The frustrating thing about George Yancy's books is not that they are terrible, but that they are so expensive; $20-$30 just to read them on Kindle. That's too much for some laughs.

    The volume Pursuing Trayvon Martin (I thought the police dispatcher said not to do that) is a collecction of essays with titles ranging from the ambitious "Two Forms of Transcendence: Justice and the Problem of Knowledge" to the banal "Should Black Kids Avoid Wearing Hoodies?" culminating in Yancy's own contribution, "Trayvon Martin: When Effortless Grace is Sacrificed on the Altar of Image."

    See, this is what remainder tables and used bookstores are for. I'd have a copy for $1.99 by now.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    In a previous post, Steve made the observation that smaller bookstores (BDalton; Waldenbooks; etc) that existed in malls offered books that were short on both quality and quantity as compared to today’s Barnes and Noble’s, some of which the architecture literally resembles a giant cathedral of reading. Unfortunately, people like Professor Yancy’s books will be given full access to Barnes and Noble, in plain sight when they wouldn’t have seen the time of day in the smaller chain mall stores. In Yancy’s case, most likely his books will only be sold regionally and under the section known as “local authors”.

    Can’t wait to see his next title, no doubt to be along the lines of: “Ferguson and Baltimore: When will YT ever learn?”

    By the way, a friend was about to take one of his philosophy classes or whatever it was he teaches at Duquesne before wisely deciding to pass.

  59. @advancedatheist
    @Steve Sailer

    I keep wondering when we will outgrow Heinlein from the fact that his insights and his visions of possible futures haven't aged well. I mean, Huxley and Orwell show signs of writing for the ages and not just for the age - Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four just keep on giving, decades after their respective publications. I can't say that about any of Heinlein's novels.

    I also find it amusing that Martine Rothblatt doesn't see the problem with constructing a philosophy about "living forever," especially as a sex-changer, based in part on Heinlein's novels, when a century from now I doubt that anyone will read them.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The space industry is starting to be developed after a few decades of NASA led government bureaucratic stagnation. I could see a Heinlein revival in the future.

    • Replies: @5371
    @Anonymous

    Remind me when your thrusting entrepreneurs do anything that NASA hasn't done hundreds of times already.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  60. @Mark Minter
    Wait, now I'm confused. Somebody help me out here.

    Every since the affair where the Univision news reader got fired for comparing the man who got a makeup job to look like Michele Obama to something from the recent Planet of the Apes sequel, I look at her and think, "Well she does look kind of like a girl gorilla in the face, now that you mention it." It's sort of a version of the Streisand Effect where she caused the thing she was trying to stop to actually happen more than if she would have let it alone.

    So am I being a Speciesist or a Racist? I need to know so I can figure which privilege to check.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @CK

    So am I being a Speciesist or a Racist?

    According to the simpleton hatemonger in the baseball cap, you’re just being white. Don’t you know, “white racism expresses itself in all sorts of perverse ways and is perhaps motivated from psychic needs/places that transcend xenophobic tribalism”? You and I and the rest of us psychos should just go shoot ourselves.

  61. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @David Davenport
    Hey Steve, if you're smarter than Ezra Klein, why aren't you as rich as Klein is about to be?

    Comcast Tries, Tries Again To Buy The Internet --seekingalpha.com

    Seeking Alpha

    6 hours ago - Summary. Having failed to buy AOL, Comcast has turned its eyes to Vox. A deal was presaged by today's purchase of Re/Code by Vox.

    ...

    Comcast can get its way here, having participated in multiple venture rounds with Vox. The hang-up right now seems to be price. The Vox boys reportedly want $1 billion for their creation, which includes the sports blog SB Nation, tech site The Verge, local real estate site Curbed and the restaurant site Eater. The group's most recent effort is a site actually called Vox, a political-social site run by former Washington Post writer Ezra Klein. ...

    (:0/) !!!!

    Replies: @The most deplorable one, @Lot

    Having failed to buy AOL, Comcast has turned its eyes to Vox. A deal was presaged by today’s purchase of Re/Code by Vox.

    You mean that web site where women learn to cut-n-paste code they have no ability to understand and then claim that they are hot-shot coders?

  62. Folks, folks, I guess you haven’t read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it’s completely deranged that we now have a “well-known bioethicist” such as this, but here we are.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @Twinkie

    Saw it. One drawback on this site is that it's not possible to register that you have read, or liked, a post here, without writing a post in response. That applies to a lot of material here. Then again, clicks or votes or whatever are insidious in their own way.

    , @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    @Twinkie

    "Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine."
    We have gay marriage, so why can't I marry my dog Kevin?

    , @Dahlia
    @Twinkie

    Peter Singer is very famous and just about all I-Stevers would be familiar with his reputation. His belief in the right of parents to kill their infants was what put him on the map. Everything else he came up after that was met with "Of course, it's coming from the post-birth abortion guy".
    This is what makes the article so great and hence the joke above about not the singularity being approached, but the "liberality".

    The radical and respected (and feared, especially back in the 90s) Dr. Peter Singer, one of the giants of the Liberal intelligentsia, sits down for an interview with another liberal intellectual. Their shared worldview demands that they believe and act as though they are relatively equal. As such, we get this hilarious farce of this most famous and notorious bioethicist seriously engaging in discussion, though he's ostensibly there to discuss his own topic, with someone who basically goes, "Blackity, black, black, bla, bla, blackity, blackity, black, black" during the entire interview. Dr. Singer would have actually been engaged better with Joe Blow in the Wal-Mart check-out line.

    Replies: @LMH

    , @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it's ok to kill them, but it's obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn't say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn't wrong.

    Replies: @5371, @Dahlia, @Twinkie, @donut

    , @Hacienda
    @Twinkie

    It's just a philosophical statement. Any serious philosopher will come up
    with 20 or so absolute bonker statements in a life lived in philosophy.
    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward, @Twinkie

    , @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    I don't know about Singer's specific argument, but generally speaking, many who argue along these lines argue that sex with animals is fine provided there is consent from the animals, with the question of whether animals can or how they can consent being a separate issue.

  63. @Mr. Anon
    If Peter Singer were eaten by coyotes, would anybody care? Would he?

    Replies: @TWS, @Reg Cæsar, @Hippopotamusdrome

    If he got eaten in my yard I’d have to deal with it. Plus there’d be some ‘yotes that needed killing. So depending on circumstances yes. Better if Dingos ate him.

  64. @Twinkie
    Folks, folks, I guess you haven't read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it's completely deranged that we now have a "well-known bioethicist" such as this, but here we are.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever..., @Dahlia, @Anonymous, @Hacienda, @Anonymous

    Saw it. One drawback on this site is that it’s not possible to register that you have read, or liked, a post here, without writing a post in response. That applies to a lot of material here. Then again, clicks or votes or whatever are insidious in their own way.

  65. @Twinkie
    Peter Singer? Is it the same guy who authored "Heavy Petting"?

    http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

    You know, sex with animals okay?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Father O'Hara, @Lot, @FWIW

    You write *one* article advocating for sex with dogs, and suddenly that’s all the yokels know you for.

  66. @Twinkie
    Folks, folks, I guess you haven't read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it's completely deranged that we now have a "well-known bioethicist" such as this, but here we are.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever..., @Dahlia, @Anonymous, @Hacienda, @Anonymous

    “Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine.”
    We have gay marriage, so why can’t I marry my dog Kevin?

  67. @David Davenport
    Hey Steve, if you're smarter than Ezra Klein, why aren't you as rich as Klein is about to be?

    Comcast Tries, Tries Again To Buy The Internet --seekingalpha.com

    Seeking Alpha

    6 hours ago - Summary. Having failed to buy AOL, Comcast has turned its eyes to Vox. A deal was presaged by today's purchase of Re/Code by Vox.

    ...

    Comcast can get its way here, having participated in multiple venture rounds with Vox. The hang-up right now seems to be price. The Vox boys reportedly want $1 billion for their creation, which includes the sports blog SB Nation, tech site The Verge, local real estate site Curbed and the restaurant site Eater. The group's most recent effort is a site actually called Vox, a political-social site run by former Washington Post writer Ezra Klein. ...

    (:0/) !!!!

    Replies: @The most deplorable one, @Lot

    Klein now only owns a tiny share of Vox. I’m sure he’ll do well though.

  68. Dahlia says:
    @Twinkie
    Folks, folks, I guess you haven't read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it's completely deranged that we now have a "well-known bioethicist" such as this, but here we are.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever..., @Dahlia, @Anonymous, @Hacienda, @Anonymous

    Peter Singer is very famous and just about all I-Stevers would be familiar with his reputation. His belief in the right of parents to kill their infants was what put him on the map. Everything else he came up after that was met with “Of course, it’s coming from the post-birth abortion guy”.
    This is what makes the article so great and hence the joke above about not the singularity being approached, but the “liberality”.

    The radical and respected (and feared, especially back in the 90s) Dr. Peter Singer, one of the giants of the Liberal intelligentsia, sits down for an interview with another liberal intellectual. Their shared worldview demands that they believe and act as though they are relatively equal. As such, we get this hilarious farce of this most famous and notorious bioethicist seriously engaging in discussion, though he’s ostensibly there to discuss his own topic, with someone who basically goes, “Blackity, black, black, bla, bla, blackity, blackity, black, black” during the entire interview. Dr. Singer would have actually been engaged better with Joe Blow in the Wal-Mart check-out line.

    • Replies: @LMH
    @Dahlia

    ^ Yeah, pretty much exactly this. He even gives an obligatory spiel on Australian aborigines, the apparent earnestness of which is undercut only by the reference, at the end, to the need for paternalistic policies to protect them from their own petrol cravings.

    Ironically, Singer's ideology is both radically pro- and anti-egalitarian: By eliminating the species distinction and the concept of sacred rights not derived from utilitarian preferences, he creates a world where all primates and indeed all animals can in some respects be treated "equally." Through his lens, policy toward (e.g.) aboriginals becomes less about respecting their tribal savage traditions and more about utilitarian math. Anti-racists are often threatened by Singer because they correctly sense that when the boundary between humans and apes gets elided, some of their dogmas are called into question.

  69. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    Folks, folks, I guess you haven't read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it's completely deranged that we now have a "well-known bioethicist" such as this, but here we are.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever..., @Dahlia, @Anonymous, @Hacienda, @Anonymous

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.

    • Replies: @5371
    @Anonymous

    I'll pass on letting you walk my dog.

    , @Dahlia
    @Anonymous


    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.

     

    Yes, he's wrong. And he's quackers, too. Quackers in that way that both Gregory Cochran and Satoshi Kanazawa have pointed out is a price some intelligent people have had to pay for their intelligence. Intuition, common sense, highly tuned sense of the sacred, strongly repelled by disgust or the profane... Many intelligent people are deficient in these as the price they pay for their intelligence, same as with having myopia. We call them liberals.
    And then there is Peter Singer who paid very, very, very dearly.

    What's wrong with Joel Salatin?! Why do we have choose between Team "Torture and kill animals for food" and Team "Have sex with animals", LOL!

    Replies: @Melendwyr

    , @Twinkie
    @Anonymous


    We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat
     
    Is killing them instantly the same as inflicting suffering? Because I LOVE killing animals instantly (it's called "hunting"). And then I eat the best parts and turn the rest into sausage or jerky.

    So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.
     
    Do NOT get near my dogs. Or you will meet the above-mentioned animal treatment.

    Actually, never mind. Do get near my dogs and try this "sometimes isn't wrong" thing and see what happens. You will find out quickly what happens when dogs do not give their consent to being "petted."

    Replies: @cthoms, @TWS

    , @donut
    @Anonymous

    " but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? "

    I had to open a case once in New York . The lady had just been DC'd from the hospital after a hip replacement and needed home PT. I go to her apt up by Columbia University to do the intake interview . She was Swiss and had a little dog , Bill the Dachshund . I sit down and Bill comes trotting over to check me out , I lean over and pat the little fella , I like dogs . After a moment I sit back up to start getting her information , it takes about 1/2hr . Well when I crossed my legs ole Bill started humping my leg. I tried uncrossing my legs but Bill just took a couple of steps back and started barking at me until I crossed my legs again at which point he started in humping my leg again . The poor woman is mortified "ach Bill it's enough " but Bill wasn't listening , if I uncrossed my legs more barking , cross my legs humping . In the end I just let him go on so I could finish the intake . I suppose I could have picked him up and put him in another room but it was his house after all .

  70. @Mr. Anon
    If Peter Singer were eaten by coyotes, would anybody care? Would he?

    Replies: @TWS, @Reg Cæsar, @Hippopotamusdrome

    If Peter Singer were eaten by coyotes, would anybody care? Would he?

    Dingos, mate. He’s from Melb’ne.

    But he supports infanticide. That subject could inspire Yancy to inquire about disparate impact.

  71. Does Duquesne have anything to brag about other than a basketball team and a crack Slavic dance troupe?

    And when will they catch up to the rest of Francophonie and spell it “Duquêne”? Those S’s are so ancien régime.

  72. OT Link to the Kleiner Perkins annual internet trends presentation by Mary Meeker. Maybe there is a post in here or something. It’s 197 different slides.

    http://www.kpcb.com/internet-trends

  73. @Anonymous
    @advancedatheist

    The space industry is starting to be developed after a few decades of NASA led government bureaucratic stagnation. I could see a Heinlein revival in the future.

    Replies: @5371

    Remind me when your thrusting entrepreneurs do anything that NASA hasn’t done hundreds of times already.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @5371

    Economics is an integral part of engineering and technology. The entrepreneurs have made tremendous strides in lowering launch costs and progressing towards reusability. NASA has taken billions and decades and hasn't really done anything to improve the economics of launches. The masses see televised spectacles of rockets launching into the sky and assume the same thing is happening or that NASA is doing it better, but they don't understand the economics nor the importance of economics to engineering and technology development.

    Replies: @5371, @William Badwhite

  74. @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it's ok to kill them, but it's obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn't say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn't wrong.

    Replies: @5371, @Dahlia, @Twinkie, @donut

    I’ll pass on letting you walk my dog.

  75. @anonymous
    I sure wish that I had been born black. Imagine getting paid just to blow hot air and then to be ceremoniously referred to as a 'philosopher'. Where did I get the foolish idea of working at a job for a living? Why didn't somebody wise me up to the philosopher racket? I could've made a fortune doing nothing. That black guy sure hates whitey and like the rest of his peers is so totally absorbed that he's jealous of any attention not directed towards blacks but at some mere animals. It's all about themselves 24/7.

    Replies: @Harold

    Now that ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
    You blame the whitey, in the NYT

  76. Dahlia says:
    @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it's ok to kill them, but it's obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn't say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn't wrong.

    Replies: @5371, @Dahlia, @Twinkie, @donut

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.

    Yes, he’s wrong. And he’s quackers, too. Quackers in that way that both Gregory Cochran and Satoshi Kanazawa have pointed out is a price some intelligent people have had to pay for their intelligence. Intuition, common sense, highly tuned sense of the sacred, strongly repelled by disgust or the profane… Many intelligent people are deficient in these as the price they pay for their intelligence, same as with having myopia. We call them liberals.
    And then there is Peter Singer who paid very, very, very dearly.

    What’s wrong with Joel Salatin?! Why do we have choose between Team “Torture and kill animals for food” and Team “Have sex with animals”, LOL!

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    @Dahlia

    There are reasons smart people don't consider strong senses of disgust or the profane to be much of a loss.

    Replies: @Dahlia

  77. @Steve Sailer
    @Dave Pinsen

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Dave Pinsen, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Those were the three books the New York Times chose to highlight.

    They sould ha included this:

    Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer

    He sees him as a philosopher primarily concerned with human freedom, rather than as an economist or a social scientist.

  78. @Name Withheld
    One thing these animal rights activists never quite get. Animals are in effect "food banks", that is during the long winter when crops do not grow, eating animals is the only way to survive. I would go far as to speculate (unprovable), that if humans had never eaten animals, we would be extinct as a species.

    Replies: @larry lurker, @Jim

    Singer’s probably aware of this, just as you’re probably aware that the survival of the human race no longer depends on eating meat in winter.

    Singer acknowledges that the vegetarian and vegan diets may not be the absolute healthiest. He simply thinks it’s less of a burden for him to forgo some extra protein than it is for hundreds of animals to lead miserable lives in order to keep him slightly- or even substantially- better nourished.

    I’m an omnivore, but if I’m willing to ascribe even a sliver of consciousness to non-human animals, I have trouble seeing how Singer is obviously wrong.* Which is why I try not to think about it too much.

    * Obviously wrong now. Not obviously wrong during the last Ice Age.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @larry lurker

    You can treat animals humanely and still eat them. A lot of progress has been made on that front in recent years.

    Replies: @larry lurker

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @larry lurker

    I try to buy free-range eggs and pastured meat if possible, but I think the leap from "industrial farming is bad" to "vegetarianism is an ethical requirement" is wrong.

    If I don't eat a hamburger, which cow did I save? Not one. The logistics and economics of meat production don't allow for that simple cause-effect relationship. So while I would support legislation to regulate meat production more, I will not become a vegetarian in the meantime...

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @larry lurker

    Your writing is just another narrow-minded, bigoted, one-dimensional animal kingdomist post!

    How do you know plants don't have a "sliver of consciousness"? How do you know rocks don't have a "sliver of consciousness"? How would you feel if you were ground up and put down as an aggregate base for an asphalt road?

    Expand your horizons! There may well be a host of "differently-conscioused beings" out there. All of them are suffering because of the bias perpetuated by the miserable philosophizing of Singer and his ilk. Words resulting from conditioning resulting from the present social context!

    Now stop bothering me while I finish my bacon cheeseburger.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  79. @Mr. Anon
    If Peter Singer were eaten by coyotes, would anybody care? Would he?

    Replies: @TWS, @Reg Cæsar, @Hippopotamusdrome

    The coyotes would be charged with murder and sent to prison, since they’re people now.

  80. Random but still important…

    I think Yancy has some Asian in him…

    Being black with a bit of Asian would explain the IQ+Crazy

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @OhComeOn


    Being black with a bit of Asian would explain the IQ+Crazy
     
    Sounds like the world's greatest black golfer.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @OhComeOn


    I think Yancy has some Asian in him…

     

    They said the same about George Takei's white boyfriend.

    But "Yancy" does sound like "Yangtze", doesn't it?

  81. @Anonymous
    OT, but why no coverage of gaygate?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/science/maligned-study-on-gay-marriage-is-shaking-trust.html

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/michael-lacour-made-up-a-teaching-award-too.html

    Replies: @Nathan Wartooth

    Here is a question that nobody seems to be asking.

    The guy got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to do this study. Then he stayed at home and faked all of the data.

    Where is the money? I’m guessing he just pocketed it all?

    He almost got away with it too. A teaching job at Princeton, which I’m assuming is a six figure gig, plus the 100,000+ in cash he stole in grant money. He assumed that everyone loved the results so much, because it reaffirmed a big liberal belief, that contact makes people less prejudiced, that the data would never be questioned.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    @Nathan Wartooth

    "The guy got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to do this study. "

    That's what the guy said.

    "Virginia Hughes of BuzzFeed reported last week that spokespeople for three of the sources listed in the acknowledgements sections of the study — the Ford Foundation, the Williams Institute at UCLA, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr., Fund — told her that their organizations hadn't actually contributed funds to LaCour's research. We can now add another name to that list.

    For various institutional reasons, it's simply difficult for graduate students in political science to rack up all that much grant funding. And yet LaCour lists $793,000 worth of grants received from various foundations, including the Haas and Ford foundations, on the strength of his persuasion research. (LaCour appears to have pulled the CV down from his website sometime over the last few days, but I downloaded a copy before he did.) The largest of these is a $160,000 grant in 2014 from the Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation of Minnesota. But Patrick J. Troska, executive director of the foundation, which is focused on projects that combat discrimination, wrote in an email to Science of Us, "The Foundation did not provide a grant of any size to Mr. LaCour for this research. We did not make a grant of $160,000 to him.""


    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/lacour-made-up-his-biggest-funding-source.html

    Replies: @Nathan Wartooth

  82. @larry lurker
    @Name Withheld

    Singer's probably aware of this, just as you're probably aware that the survival of the human race no longer depends on eating meat in winter.

    Singer acknowledges that the vegetarian and vegan diets may not be the absolute healthiest. He simply thinks it's less of a burden for him to forgo some extra protein than it is for hundreds of animals to lead miserable lives in order to keep him slightly- or even substantially- better nourished.

    I'm an omnivore, but if I'm willing to ascribe even a sliver of consciousness to non-human animals, I have trouble seeing how Singer is obviously wrong.* Which is why I try not to think about it too much.

    * Obviously wrong now. Not obviously wrong during the last Ice Age.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    You can treat animals humanely and still eat them. A lot of progress has been made on that front in recent years.

    • Replies: @larry lurker
    @Dave Pinsen

    There's been a lot of consciousness raising, yes, but 99% of farm animals in the US are still raised in factory farms. (According to the ASPCA, anyway. If the USDA publishes figures I'm happy to use those.)

    Until that percentage drops to single digits it's a topic I'll continue to avoid thinking about.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

  83. @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it's ok to kill them, but it's obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn't say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn't wrong.

    Replies: @5371, @Dahlia, @Twinkie, @donut

    We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat

    Is killing them instantly the same as inflicting suffering? Because I LOVE killing animals instantly (it’s called “hunting”). And then I eat the best parts and turn the rest into sausage or jerky.

    So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.

    Do NOT get near my dogs. Or you will meet the above-mentioned animal treatment.

    Actually, never mind. Do get near my dogs and try this “sometimes isn’t wrong” thing and see what happens. You will find out quickly what happens when dogs do not give their consent to being “petted.”

    • Replies: @cthoms, @TWS
    @Twinkie

    Humans are hunters. Anything less than that and we are domesticated. That's why all my ancestors including the farmers, smiths, and ranchers also hunted. It maintains what makes us human.

    We have evolved to eat meat. If it's ok to kill a toddler because he's inconvenient it's ok to kill an elk because nature evolved him to be prey. We have an obligation to maintain our place in the eco chain.

    Ranching is just a subset of hunting. Kind of like a hunting preserve where you control the breeding of the prey. And the killing is more like trapping than hunting.

  84. Did picture day fall right in the middle of Mr Yancy’s hair-plug procedure? what in the hell…?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Dennis Dale

    I don't know why you guys think it is strange to see a black intellectual in a baseball cap. It denotes solidarity with "resistance" and the 'hood.

    http://urbanmecca.net/news/wp-content/uploads/spikelee1.jpg

    http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/russell_simmons2011-baseball-cap-med-wide.jpg

    http://i3.cpcache.com/product/233392620/i_love_cornel_west_trucker_hat.jpg

    Replies: @dcite

  85. @OhComeOn
    Random but still important...

    I think Yancy has some Asian in him...

    Being black with a bit of Asian would explain the IQ+Crazy

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Reg Cæsar

    Being black with a bit of Asian would explain the IQ+Crazy

    Sounds like the world’s greatest black golfer.

  86. Riding the tiger. Liberals SWPL elites used Blaks as voting blocs and cultural shock troops and now cannot ever ever get off the tiger

    Absent utter and total reliance on Blacks Yancy would be a janitor crackpot not a Professor writing in the NYT. But that’s the price for elite dominance over the middle class.

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    @Whiskey

    Whiskey said - "Liberals SWPL elites used Blaks as voting blocs and cultural shock troops and now cannot ever ever get off the tiger "
    The Nazis in the film "The Blues Brothers" said - "The Jew is using the black as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless."
    Eerie!

  87. This was worth reading to see Steve Sailer’s take on Singer. Yancy is a fraud, a race hustler, but the more celebrated Singer is an empty suit when he is not reprehensible. The whole interview reads like a Sascha Baron Cohen character interviewing Alfred Rosenberg.

    • Replies: @Rapparee
    @Ed

    Mr. Sailer has written the world's clearest (and funniest) succinct summary of Peter Singer's ideas. Actually, it could serve as a pretty good summary of Zizek or Derrida, too.

    Much of modern "Philosophy" is really just warmed-over Sophistry. As Socrates discovered 2,400 years ago, most people can't tell the difference.

    "The whole interview reads like a Sascha Baron Cohen character interviewing Alfred Rosenberg."

    That image is too funny for me not to steal and drop into a conversation someday.

  88. @Anon
    Nowadays Yancy Can't Even Think

    Replies: @Ziel, @ben tillman

    …just to let you know that someone noticed:)

  89. @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it's ok to kill them, but it's obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn't say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn't wrong.

    Replies: @5371, @Dahlia, @Twinkie, @donut

    ” but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? ”

    I had to open a case once in New York . The lady had just been DC’d from the hospital after a hip replacement and needed home PT. I go to her apt up by Columbia University to do the intake interview . She was Swiss and had a little dog , Bill the Dachshund . I sit down and Bill comes trotting over to check me out , I lean over and pat the little fella , I like dogs . After a moment I sit back up to start getting her information , it takes about 1/2hr . Well when I crossed my legs ole Bill started humping my leg. I tried uncrossing my legs but Bill just took a couple of steps back and started barking at me until I crossed my legs again at which point he started in humping my leg again . The poor woman is mortified “ach Bill it’s enough ” but Bill wasn’t listening , if I uncrossed my legs more barking , cross my legs humping . In the end I just let him go on so I could finish the intake . I suppose I could have picked him up and put him in another room but it was his house after all .

  90. @Whiskey
    Riding the tiger. Liberals SWPL elites used Blaks as voting blocs and cultural shock troops and now cannot ever ever get off the tiger

    Absent utter and total reliance on Blacks Yancy would be a janitor crackpot not a Professor writing in the NYT. But that's the price for elite dominance over the middle class.

    Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...

    Whiskey said – “Liberals SWPL elites used Blaks as voting blocs and cultural shock troops and now cannot ever ever get off the tiger ”
    The Nazis in the film “The Blues Brothers” said – “The Jew is using the black as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless.”
    Eerie!

  91. @Anonymous
    I don't really get it. Yes, the black professor is a moron, but Peter Singer doesn't actually have anything interesting or reasonable to say. Neither of them deserve to be called philosophers.

    Replies: @josh, @Chess Fan

    Note that this was an interview (about animal rights) and there seems to have been no need for the interviewee.

  92. @larry lurker
    @Name Withheld

    Singer's probably aware of this, just as you're probably aware that the survival of the human race no longer depends on eating meat in winter.

    Singer acknowledges that the vegetarian and vegan diets may not be the absolute healthiest. He simply thinks it's less of a burden for him to forgo some extra protein than it is for hundreds of animals to lead miserable lives in order to keep him slightly- or even substantially- better nourished.

    I'm an omnivore, but if I'm willing to ascribe even a sliver of consciousness to non-human animals, I have trouble seeing how Singer is obviously wrong.* Which is why I try not to think about it too much.

    * Obviously wrong now. Not obviously wrong during the last Ice Age.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I try to buy free-range eggs and pastured meat if possible, but I think the leap from “industrial farming is bad” to “vegetarianism is an ethical requirement” is wrong.

    If I don’t eat a hamburger, which cow did I save? Not one. The logistics and economics of meat production don’t allow for that simple cause-effect relationship. So while I would support legislation to regulate meat production more, I will not become a vegetarian in the meantime…

  93. @Mark Minter
    Wait, now I'm confused. Somebody help me out here.

    Every since the affair where the Univision news reader got fired for comparing the man who got a makeup job to look like Michele Obama to something from the recent Planet of the Apes sequel, I look at her and think, "Well she does look kind of like a girl gorilla in the face, now that you mention it." It's sort of a version of the Streisand Effect where she caused the thing she was trying to stop to actually happen more than if she would have let it alone.

    So am I being a Speciesist or a Racist? I need to know so I can figure which privilege to check.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @CK

    Check both, why limit your enjoyments.

  94. Peter Singer introduced me to iSteve.

    Back in the days of Steve’s split with NR, I was a “good” person and thought “well, he’s just a racist… Good to get them out of the movement.”

    But when I was reading about animal welfare a few years back, I had to come to the dual conclusion that (1) Peter Singer is mostly correct and (2) I simply couldn’t care.

    This recognition forced me to examine my own beliefs more critically and led me to the conclusion that the entire “equality project” since the enlightenment has been, while pragmatically good in some aspects, from a pure philosophical perspective, a mistake. I.e., Peter Singer made me stop caring about discrimination qua discrimination.

    It was just a short trip from there to iSteve, helped along by the fact that I had been enjoying Radio Derb and the Straggler columns while losing interest and trust in many other writers and sources.

    So I say, “Let a thousand Singers bloom!” The more people have to confront the implications of the equality monster, the more people will have the scales fall from their eyes.

  95. @Twinkie
    Peter Singer? Is it the same guy who authored "Heavy Petting"?

    http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

    You know, sex with animals okay?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Father O'Hara, @Lot, @FWIW

    From the seminal article on Singer:
    ” not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.”

    I used to think of myself as a fairly liberal guy regarding sex. WW B could go either way.

    In the old days, there used to be something called a dog house. Now it seems that people sleep with them all the time. I just don’t get it. I like dogs, but love? It is really one of the last taboos.

    Call me a prude, but….

    What does Singer have to say about intelligence among animals? IQ is just a social construct. After all, wouldn’t we need dog whistle recognition on any valid test?

  96. @Jack D
    @SPMoore8

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,494,891 in Books. So at $35/ copy, Mr. Yancy has probably made around $150, give or take.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Borachio

    Of greater philosophical merit than Mr. Yancy’s work, but as far as I can tell, not even ranked by Amazon:

    The author does have the affirmative-active credit of being female but doesn’t seem to need it.

  97. @Twinkie
    @Anonymous


    We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat
     
    Is killing them instantly the same as inflicting suffering? Because I LOVE killing animals instantly (it's called "hunting"). And then I eat the best parts and turn the rest into sausage or jerky.

    So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.
     
    Do NOT get near my dogs. Or you will meet the above-mentioned animal treatment.

    Actually, never mind. Do get near my dogs and try this "sometimes isn't wrong" thing and see what happens. You will find out quickly what happens when dogs do not give their consent to being "petted."

    Replies: @cthoms, @TWS

  98. Cryptogenic [AKA "Mr. Zeepie"] says:

    “The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents, and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who are transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have even been set free, still not a single one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality, even though among the whites some continually rise aloft from the lowest rabble, and through superior gifts earn respect in the world. So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in colour. The religion of fetishes so widespread among them is perhaps a sort of idolatry that sinks as deeply into the trifling as appears to be possible to human nature. A bird’s feather, a cow’s horn, a conch shell, or any other common object, as soon as it becomes consecrated by a few words, is an object of veneration and of invocation in swearing oaths. The blacks are very vain but in the Negro’s way, and so talkative that they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings.”

    –Immanuel Kant, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime

  99. @Dennis Dale
    Did picture day fall right in the middle of Mr Yancy's hair-plug procedure? what in the hell...?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I don’t know why you guys think it is strange to see a black intellectual in a baseball cap. It denotes solidarity with “resistance” and the ‘hood.

    • Replies: @dcite
    @Chrisnonymous

    The baseball cap is the most interesting thing about him. The rest is blackety black black black. But I've found baseball caps usually mean a nice, unassuming person is underneath. I sort of like them, no matter who wears them, if they are on properly.

  100. @Sutton
    "In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?"

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown

    “In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?”

    Chimps are extremely patriarchal and display firmly established hierarchies. They hunt in packs of bonded males and actively restrict female chimp sexuality to ensure paternity. While Singer argues they should be granted “personhood” and eventually suffrage, Chimps are likely natural republicans. That’s all well and good for the right, but Singer himself would likely find Chimp voting patterns to be…. as the hipsters say… “”problematic””. Thus, the left will advocate “personhood” and suffrage for Bonobos first.

    This is the part in the movie where we flash forward to the 2028 election and lament how George P. Bush is pandering to Chimpanzee-Americans and Chelsea Clinton is pandering to Bonobo-Americans. Meanwhile, Senator Te-Nehypen Coates is introducing legislation to make the word “monkey” hate speech.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    I wish you guys could maintain an Onion-style publication!

    , @Rob McX
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Thanks for that prognosis - the future is far more interesting than I had imagined.

    , @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    What if the various archaic Homo species -- Neanderthalis, Robustus, Ergaster, etc -- had survived into our own time, so that rather than the great chasm between humans and other primates we now have, there were instead a smooth continuum? How would that make our politics different?

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown, @ben tillman

  101. @Dave Pinsen
    @SPMoore8

    Peter Unger argues that it's pretty much all useless: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html

    Replies: @slumber_j, @vinteuil

    That’s a thoroughly enjoyable read: thanks very much for indicating it.

    It’s far from central to the interview, but I liked this funny bit of iSteve-bait, comparing citations of women in the major philosophical journals with the citations for the single most important contemporary male philosopher:

    Then Kealy has something about women in the data. Nineteen items in the data are written by women, or 3.6 percent. By comparison, 6.3 percent of the items are written by David Lewis.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @slumber_j

    Whenever David Lewis comes up, I'm always like, "Okay, time to buckle my seatbelt because this is going to be a wild ride."

  102. Peter Singer is a very smart, very articulate guy, who performs the useful service of explaining in detail what follows from the (not immediately obviously implausible) premises of utilitarianism – which is, after all, by far the most influential school of ethical thought in the Anglosphere for more than a century now.

    George Yancy, on the other hand, belongs in a zoo.

  103. … How can black people, on the one hand, reject the reduction of, say, Obama to a monkey, and yet be against speciesism?

    P.S.: I don’t see any problem in opposing both racism and speciesism, indeed, to me the greater intellectual

    I want to know…

    Does this exchange constitute a microaggression on the part of Singer (in as much as Yancy seems to have mis-spoken)?

  104. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @Sutton


    “In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?"
     
    Chimps are extremely patriarchal and display firmly established hierarchies. They hunt in packs of bonded males and actively restrict female chimp sexuality to ensure paternity. While Singer argues they should be granted "personhood" and eventually suffrage, Chimps are likely natural republicans. That's all well and good for the right, but Singer himself would likely find Chimp voting patterns to be.... as the hipsters say... ""problematic"". Thus, the left will advocate "personhood" and suffrage for Bonobos first.

    This is the part in the movie where we flash forward to the 2028 election and lament how George P. Bush is pandering to Chimpanzee-Americans and Chelsea Clinton is pandering to Bonobo-Americans. Meanwhile, Senator Te-Nehypen Coates is introducing legislation to make the word "monkey" hate speech.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Rob McX, @International Jew

    I wish you guys could maintain an Onion-style publication!

  105. @Dave Pinsen
    @SPMoore8

    Peter Unger argues that it's pretty much all useless: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html

    Replies: @slumber_j, @vinteuil

    In that interesting interview, Unger is focusing on relatively recent work in the so-called “core areas” of philosophy – i.e., metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language.

    I wonder if he thinks that time spent reading Plato’s Republic or Descartes’ Meditations is time wasted.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @vinteuil

    I was wondering if Singer was impressed by Yancy's name-dropping... "Oh, he referenced Descartes... This guy is really on the ball!"

  106. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @Sutton


    “In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?"
     
    Chimps are extremely patriarchal and display firmly established hierarchies. They hunt in packs of bonded males and actively restrict female chimp sexuality to ensure paternity. While Singer argues they should be granted "personhood" and eventually suffrage, Chimps are likely natural republicans. That's all well and good for the right, but Singer himself would likely find Chimp voting patterns to be.... as the hipsters say... ""problematic"". Thus, the left will advocate "personhood" and suffrage for Bonobos first.

    This is the part in the movie where we flash forward to the 2028 election and lament how George P. Bush is pandering to Chimpanzee-Americans and Chelsea Clinton is pandering to Bonobo-Americans. Meanwhile, Senator Te-Nehypen Coates is introducing legislation to make the word "monkey" hate speech.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Rob McX, @International Jew

    Thanks for that prognosis – the future is far more interesting than I had imagined.

  107. If George Yancy were chosen from all philosophers on earth to have the once-in-an-eternity chance to interview Socrates, his line of questioning would probably be about the same.

    By the way, in line with the recent catcalling video, shouldn’t Yancy write a book titled, White Bodies, Black Gazes?

  108. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Steve

    You need to post something about Yancy’s interview with Noam Chomsky in the NYT…it almost seemed like Chomsky was agitating for Black racial violence against Native Born White Americans.

  109. @Nathan Wartooth
    @Anonymous

    Here is a question that nobody seems to be asking.

    The guy got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to do this study. Then he stayed at home and faked all of the data.

    Where is the money? I'm guessing he just pocketed it all?

    He almost got away with it too. A teaching job at Princeton, which I'm assuming is a six figure gig, plus the 100,000+ in cash he stole in grant money. He assumed that everyone loved the results so much, because it reaffirmed a big liberal belief, that contact makes people less prejudiced, that the data would never be questioned.

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

    “The guy got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to do this study. “

    That’s what the guy said.

    “Virginia Hughes of BuzzFeed reported last week that spokespeople for three of the sources listed in the acknowledgements sections of the study — the Ford Foundation, the Williams Institute at UCLA, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr., Fund — told her that their organizations hadn’t actually contributed funds to LaCour’s research. We can now add another name to that list.

    For various institutional reasons, it’s simply difficult for graduate students in political science to rack up all that much grant funding. And yet LaCour lists $793,000 worth of grants received from various foundations, including the Haas and Ford foundations, on the strength of his persuasion research. (LaCour appears to have pulled the CV down from his website sometime over the last few days, but I downloaded a copy before he did.) The largest of these is a $160,000 grant in 2014 from the Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation of Minnesota. But Patrick J. Troska, executive director of the foundation, which is focused on projects that combat discrimination, wrote in an email to Science of Us, “The Foundation did not provide a grant of any size to Mr. LaCour for this research. We did not make a grant of $160,000 to him.””

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/lacour-made-up-his-biggest-funding-source.html

    • Replies: @Nathan Wartooth
    @Anonymous Nephew

    Oh thanks. I've read a few articles about this but that is the first one that actually talks about the money.

    I guess he was just a liar all around.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  110. @OhComeOn
    Random but still important...

    I think Yancy has some Asian in him...

    Being black with a bit of Asian would explain the IQ+Crazy

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Reg Cæsar

    I think Yancy has some Asian in him…

    They said the same about George Takei’s white boyfriend.

    But “Yancy” does sound like “Yangtze”, doesn’t it?

  111. @Name Withheld
    One thing these animal rights activists never quite get. Animals are in effect "food banks", that is during the long winter when crops do not grow, eating animals is the only way to survive. I would go far as to speculate (unprovable), that if humans had never eaten animals, we would be extinct as a species.

    Replies: @larry lurker, @Jim

    Humans would have had to stay in the tropics. I wonder if Singer believes that foxes should stop eating bunny-wabbits?

  112. @Anonymous
    I don't really get it. Yes, the black professor is a moron, but Peter Singer doesn't actually have anything interesting or reasonable to say. Neither of them deserve to be called philosophers.

    Replies: @josh, @Chess Fan

    I disagree with this. The concept of speciesism is really interesting. I have used it for the purpose of making arguments against leftists on more than one occasion (e.g. if I am morally obligated to feel comfortable with a black dating my sister, are you morally obligated to feel comfortable with your sister diddling a horse?). Singer really is like a living, breathing reductio ad absurdum on leftism. I love him.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Chess Fan


    I disagree with this. The concept of speciesism is really interesting. I have used it for the purpose of making arguments against leftists on more than one occasion (e.g. if I am morally obligated to feel comfortable with a black dating my sister, are you morally obligated to feel comfortable with your sister diddling a horse?). Singer really is like a living, breathing reductio ad absurdum on leftism.
     
    Without question, speciesism is as legitimate a concept as racism (or personism, for that matter). The fact that politically correct doctrine does not accord with this fact reminds us that the focus on "racism" is completely unprincipled.

    Why, for Whites, is it okay to pursue one's "personal" self-interest and okay to pursue the self-interest of the human race, while it is utterly evil to pursue racial self-interest? There's no principled way to explain this distinction; it's pure particularism; it's quite simply an attack on Whites.
    , @neuday
    @Chess Fan

    I think in our marriage choices we're all guilty of organismism. I'm certain that my ex-wife, always a non-conformist in her approach to rational thought, believed she was marrying an ATM. [rimshot]

  113. TWS says:
    @Twinkie
    @Anonymous


    We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat
     
    Is killing them instantly the same as inflicting suffering? Because I LOVE killing animals instantly (it's called "hunting"). And then I eat the best parts and turn the rest into sausage or jerky.

    So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.
     
    Do NOT get near my dogs. Or you will meet the above-mentioned animal treatment.

    Actually, never mind. Do get near my dogs and try this "sometimes isn't wrong" thing and see what happens. You will find out quickly what happens when dogs do not give their consent to being "petted."

    Replies: @cthoms, @TWS

    Humans are hunters. Anything less than that and we are domesticated. That’s why all my ancestors including the farmers, smiths, and ranchers also hunted. It maintains what makes us human.

    We have evolved to eat meat. If it’s ok to kill a toddler because he’s inconvenient it’s ok to kill an elk because nature evolved him to be prey. We have an obligation to maintain our place in the eco chain.

    Ranching is just a subset of hunting. Kind of like a hunting preserve where you control the breeding of the prey. And the killing is more like trapping than hunting.

  114. @Anonymous Nephew
    @Nathan Wartooth

    "The guy got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to do this study. "

    That's what the guy said.

    "Virginia Hughes of BuzzFeed reported last week that spokespeople for three of the sources listed in the acknowledgements sections of the study — the Ford Foundation, the Williams Institute at UCLA, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr., Fund — told her that their organizations hadn't actually contributed funds to LaCour's research. We can now add another name to that list.

    For various institutional reasons, it's simply difficult for graduate students in political science to rack up all that much grant funding. And yet LaCour lists $793,000 worth of grants received from various foundations, including the Haas and Ford foundations, on the strength of his persuasion research. (LaCour appears to have pulled the CV down from his website sometime over the last few days, but I downloaded a copy before he did.) The largest of these is a $160,000 grant in 2014 from the Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation of Minnesota. But Patrick J. Troska, executive director of the foundation, which is focused on projects that combat discrimination, wrote in an email to Science of Us, "The Foundation did not provide a grant of any size to Mr. LaCour for this research. We did not make a grant of $160,000 to him.""


    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/lacour-made-up-his-biggest-funding-source.html

    Replies: @Nathan Wartooth

    Oh thanks. I’ve read a few articles about this but that is the first one that actually talks about the money.

    I guess he was just a liar all around.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Nathan Wartooth

    A social science grad student pulled in $793,000 in grant money by concocting research results desired by gay political interests.

    Big Gay Money is a real thing.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  115. @larry lurker
    @Name Withheld

    Singer's probably aware of this, just as you're probably aware that the survival of the human race no longer depends on eating meat in winter.

    Singer acknowledges that the vegetarian and vegan diets may not be the absolute healthiest. He simply thinks it's less of a burden for him to forgo some extra protein than it is for hundreds of animals to lead miserable lives in order to keep him slightly- or even substantially- better nourished.

    I'm an omnivore, but if I'm willing to ascribe even a sliver of consciousness to non-human animals, I have trouble seeing how Singer is obviously wrong.* Which is why I try not to think about it too much.

    * Obviously wrong now. Not obviously wrong during the last Ice Age.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Your writing is just another narrow-minded, bigoted, one-dimensional animal kingdomist post!

    How do you know plants don’t have a “sliver of consciousness”? How do you know rocks don’t have a “sliver of consciousness”? How would you feel if you were ground up and put down as an aggregate base for an asphalt road?

    Expand your horizons! There may well be a host of “differently-conscioused beings” out there. All of them are suffering because of the bias perpetuated by the miserable philosophizing of Singer and his ilk. Words resulting from conditioning resulting from the present social context!

    Now stop bothering me while I finish my bacon cheeseburger.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    Expand your horizons! There may well be a host of “differently-conscioused beings” out there...

    ...Now stop bothering me while I finish my bacon cheeseburger.
     
    We are part of a self-aware universe in which everyone and everything suffers because of the existence of the European race of humans. Haven't you figured this out yet? Now put some ketchup on that burger and give thanks to the tomatoes for their sacrifice.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  116. @Ed
    This was worth reading to see Steve Sailer's take on Singer. Yancy is a fraud, a race hustler, but the more celebrated Singer is an empty suit when he is not reprehensible. The whole interview reads like a Sascha Baron Cohen character interviewing Alfred Rosenberg.

    Replies: @Rapparee

    Mr. Sailer has written the world’s clearest (and funniest) succinct summary of Peter Singer’s ideas. Actually, it could serve as a pretty good summary of Zizek or Derrida, too.

    Much of modern “Philosophy” is really just warmed-over Sophistry. As Socrates discovered 2,400 years ago, most people can’t tell the difference.

    “The whole interview reads like a Sascha Baron Cohen character interviewing Alfred Rosenberg.

    That image is too funny for me not to steal and drop into a conversation someday.

  117. @Twinkie
    Folks, folks, I guess you haven't read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it's completely deranged that we now have a "well-known bioethicist" such as this, but here we are.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever..., @Dahlia, @Anonymous, @Hacienda, @Anonymous

    It’s just a philosophical statement. Any serious philosopher will come up
    with 20 or so absolute bonker statements in a life lived in philosophy.
    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.

    • Replies: @AnonymousCoward
    @Hacienda

    "great philosophy"

    That's, like, your opinion, man.

    , @Twinkie
    @Hacienda


    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.
     
    Ok, so if a "philosopher" were to advocate child rape (a "bonker statement" certainly), you'd just consider that a hallmark of a great philosopher?

    Replies: @Hacienda

  118. @vinteuil
    @Dave Pinsen

    In that interesting interview, Unger is focusing on relatively recent work in the so-called "core areas" of philosophy - i.e., metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language.

    I wonder if he thinks that time spent reading Plato's Republic or Descartes' Meditations is time wasted.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I was wondering if Singer was impressed by Yancy’s name-dropping… “Oh, he referenced Descartes… This guy is really on the ball!”

  119. @advancedatheist
    @fnn

    Derbyshire writes about mathematics, science, British history and things Chinese, so he moves around in a much bigger mental universe than most black intellectuals.

    Replies: @Hacienda

    Maybe. But this jive turkey don’t got the feels.

  120. How can black people, on the one hand, reject the reduction of, say, Obama to a monkey, and yet be against speciesism?

    That was Yancy’s best question. (Even if, by saying “reduction”, he has committed speciesism.)

    Singer is the perfect posterboy for academic wacky depravity, and he reminds us why right from the get-go when he says that when considering the morality of euthanasia, we mustn’t accept it for animals and reject it for disabled humans *just because* the latter are humans.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @International Jew

    Doh!

    Re my comment on the same passage, I am embarrassed to admit I misinterpreted Yancy's question, which I understand now. Thanks.

    Yeah, in a sense, you're right. It would be a great question if he were an undergrad in a philosophy class.

    Is it a great question in an absolute sense? Singer does not believe, simplistically, that chimps and people are the same. He just thinks they are similar enough in ethically important ways. But when people compare Obama to a monkey, they aren't suggesting that Obama shouldn't have human rights, they are attacking his higher brain functions like IQ and impulse control, which Singer wouldn't deny are different between people and chimps. So, as Singer says, it is completely consistent to be "anti-speciesist" and "anti-racist". You can attack the cartoon and still think chimps should have "personhood" under the law, just as very low-IQ people do.

    To me it seems Yancy's question is so parochial and focused on the pragmatics of "combating racism" that it's like he's not engaged in the same discussion as Singer. That's why I had misinterpreted him to be asking why black people can be "anti-racist" and yet maintain "speciesist" views.

  121. Vegetarian fanatics of Phuket butcher human faces to prove how much they hate butchering animals. Singer and Yancy should have discussed this:
    http://www.crass.us/2015/05/phucket-thailands-vegetarians-cut-their-tongues-to-prove-they-dont-have-a-taste-for-blood-in-huge-public-festival-this-month/

  122. @Dave Pinsen
    @larry lurker

    You can treat animals humanely and still eat them. A lot of progress has been made on that front in recent years.

    Replies: @larry lurker

    There’s been a lot of consciousness raising, yes, but 99% of farm animals in the US are still raised in factory farms. (According to the ASPCA, anyway. If the USDA publishes figures I’m happy to use those.)

    Until that percentage drops to single digits it’s a topic I’ll continue to avoid thinking about.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @larry lurker

    Even factory farms have gotten better though. McDonald's, for example, had a big impact on raising standards in its supply chain.

  123. @Dahlia
    @Clifford Brown


    We are not approaching The Singularity, but The Liberality.

     

    Liberality approached!

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward

    It’s not the Singularity, or the Liberality.

    It’s the Signalarity.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @AnonymousCoward

    Where do you get your posts framed.

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward

  124. @Hacienda
    @Twinkie

    It's just a philosophical statement. Any serious philosopher will come up
    with 20 or so absolute bonker statements in a life lived in philosophy.
    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward, @Twinkie

    “great philosophy”

    That’s, like, your opinion, man.

  125. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @larry lurker

    Your writing is just another narrow-minded, bigoted, one-dimensional animal kingdomist post!

    How do you know plants don't have a "sliver of consciousness"? How do you know rocks don't have a "sliver of consciousness"? How would you feel if you were ground up and put down as an aggregate base for an asphalt road?

    Expand your horizons! There may well be a host of "differently-conscioused beings" out there. All of them are suffering because of the bias perpetuated by the miserable philosophizing of Singer and his ilk. Words resulting from conditioning resulting from the present social context!

    Now stop bothering me while I finish my bacon cheeseburger.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Expand your horizons! There may well be a host of “differently-conscioused beings” out there…

    …Now stop bothering me while I finish my bacon cheeseburger.

    We are part of a self-aware universe in which everyone and everything suffers because of the existence of the European race of humans. Haven’t you figured this out yet? Now put some ketchup on that burger and give thanks to the tomatoes for their sacrifice.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I am working on figuring it out. But I will apply ketchup with gratitude.

  126. Peter Singer is one of the most worthless subjects you posted about. I avoid reading anything this publicity hound has to say. And another useless slackademic is interviewing him. A twofer.

  127. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @Sutton


    “In terms of your speciesism, when chimps challenge the precepts of the patriarchy, is it considered to be a chimp out , or do the Afro-feminist prevailing influences of the whole food deprived inhabitants of the predominately minority community prevail?"
     
    Chimps are extremely patriarchal and display firmly established hierarchies. They hunt in packs of bonded males and actively restrict female chimp sexuality to ensure paternity. While Singer argues they should be granted "personhood" and eventually suffrage, Chimps are likely natural republicans. That's all well and good for the right, but Singer himself would likely find Chimp voting patterns to be.... as the hipsters say... ""problematic"". Thus, the left will advocate "personhood" and suffrage for Bonobos first.

    This is the part in the movie where we flash forward to the 2028 election and lament how George P. Bush is pandering to Chimpanzee-Americans and Chelsea Clinton is pandering to Bonobo-Americans. Meanwhile, Senator Te-Nehypen Coates is introducing legislation to make the word "monkey" hate speech.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Rob McX, @International Jew

    What if the various archaic Homo species — Neanderthalis, Robustus, Ergaster, etc — had survived into our own time, so that rather than the great chasm between humans and other primates we now have, there were instead a smooth continuum? How would that make our politics different?

    • Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Well, International Jew, it's difficult to speculate how primitive hominids would line up politically since so little is known about their polling data. However, if I had to put money on it, I'd wager it would look a lot like this......

    https://retrointhe90s.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/politicalcaveman0011.png

    Replies: @Dennis Dale, @International Jew, @Chrisnonymous

    , @ben tillman
    @International Jew


    What if the various archaic Homo species — Neanderthalis, Robustus, Ergaster, etc — had survived into our own time, so that rather than the great chasm between humans and other primates we now have, there were instead a smooth continuum?
     
    You may still be able to find people who are a quarter Neanderthal or so.
  128. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @5371
    @Anonymous

    Remind me when your thrusting entrepreneurs do anything that NASA hasn't done hundreds of times already.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Economics is an integral part of engineering and technology. The entrepreneurs have made tremendous strides in lowering launch costs and progressing towards reusability. NASA has taken billions and decades and hasn’t really done anything to improve the economics of launches. The masses see televised spectacles of rockets launching into the sky and assume the same thing is happening or that NASA is doing it better, but they don’t understand the economics nor the importance of economics to engineering and technology development.

    • Replies: @5371
    @Anonymous

    They are progressing towards reusability in the same sense in which you and I are progressing towards becoming emperors of the universe, and they are lowering costs by using different accounting principles.

    , @William Badwhite
    @Anonymous

    "Economics is an integral part of engineering and technology. The entrepreneurs have made tremendous strides in lowering launch costs and progressing towards reusability. NASA has taken billions and decades and hasn’t really done anything to improve the economics of launches. "

    Lowering launch costs is pretty far down the list of things NASA is/was trying to accomplish.

  129. @Twinkie
    Folks, folks, I guess you haven't read my link above. Singer is someone who thinks sex with animals is fine. Yes, I know that it's completely deranged that we now have a "well-known bioethicist" such as this, but here we are.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever..., @Dahlia, @Anonymous, @Hacienda, @Anonymous

    I don’t know about Singer’s specific argument, but generally speaking, many who argue along these lines argue that sex with animals is fine provided there is consent from the animals, with the question of whether animals can or how they can consent being a separate issue.

  130. Peter Singer. Australian and zodiac sign cancer. Both as relevant.

  131. @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    What if the various archaic Homo species -- Neanderthalis, Robustus, Ergaster, etc -- had survived into our own time, so that rather than the great chasm between humans and other primates we now have, there were instead a smooth continuum? How would that make our politics different?

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown, @ben tillman

    Well, International Jew, it’s difficult to speculate how primitive hominids would line up politically since so little is known about their polling data. However, if I had to put money on it, I’d wager it would look a lot like this……

    • Replies: @Dennis Dale
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    This would happen:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZhUdMTRrcE

    , @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    I wasn't thinking about how they'd vote. I was thinking, would "they" get to vote at all? Without today's huge gap between humans and the next-most-human species -- chimpanzees -- the decision is easy: let all humans vote. But if there were a continuum, we'd have to face up to the need to draw a line somewhere. Would it be based on biology? On literacy? Something else?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gunnar von Cowtown

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Erect Gait, Don't Shoot...?

  132. I love the word speciesism , even though spell check doubts it’s validity. So much harder to say than racism So, what would you call me , a specist ? Spell check doen’t like that either.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Buffalo Joe

    Specist (or Speccie) could also mean a reader of The Spectator ;)

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/

  133. @AnonymousCoward
    @Dahlia

    It's not the Singularity, or the Liberality.

    It's the Signalarity.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Where do you get your posts framed.

    • Replies: @AnonymousCoward
    @Buffalo Joe

    I still don't know what the goldybox means. I think it might be a benediction from Ron or Steve.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Harry Baldwin

  134. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Well, International Jew, it's difficult to speculate how primitive hominids would line up politically since so little is known about their polling data. However, if I had to put money on it, I'd wager it would look a lot like this......

    https://retrointhe90s.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/politicalcaveman0011.png

    Replies: @Dennis Dale, @International Jew, @Chrisnonymous

    This would happen:

  135. @Buffalo Joe
    @AnonymousCoward

    Where do you get your posts framed.

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward

    I still don’t know what the goldybox means. I think it might be a benediction from Ron or Steve.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @AnonymousCoward

    Wow, cooler than contact lenses with frames....congrats to you!

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @AnonymousCoward

    At the annual white-tie Sailer gala, you are entitled to wear one gold stripe on your left cuff for every gold frame you've been awarded at the site. Anyone who has earned ten gold frames is entitled to wear the coveted gold sash and sit at the head table.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

  136. @larry lurker
    @Dave Pinsen

    There's been a lot of consciousness raising, yes, but 99% of farm animals in the US are still raised in factory farms. (According to the ASPCA, anyway. If the USDA publishes figures I'm happy to use those.)

    Until that percentage drops to single digits it's a topic I'll continue to avoid thinking about.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Even factory farms have gotten better though. McDonald’s, for example, had a big impact on raising standards in its supply chain.

  137. @AnonymousCoward
    @Buffalo Joe

    I still don't know what the goldybox means. I think it might be a benediction from Ron or Steve.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Harry Baldwin

    Wow, cooler than contact lenses with frames….congrats to you!

  138. If I’m reading this right, Singer’s giving people permission to like dogs better than blacks. Or Jews.

    Hey, don’t blame me, he’s the one who said it!

    Now that ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
    You blame the whitey, in the NYT

    Lol, classic.

    In the end I just let him go on so I could finish the intake . I suppose I could have picked him up and put him in another room but it was his house after all.

    Okay, I gotta ask: do dogs “finish” when given their druthers? Never seen them given the opportunity.

    Chrisnonymous says:
    May 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I mean no offense when I say that you have an unusual mind.

    How do you know plants don’t have a “sliver of consciousness”?

    I tried to be a vegetarian, for a while. But one day, as I raised an impaled, quivering floret of broccoli to my lips, I could hear it screaming. Suddenly, I could hear them all screaming. From the plates, the serving trays, the crisper drawer. It’s been nothing but meat and potatoes for me since that day, and I sleep much better for it.

    I love the word speciesism , even though spell check doubts it’s validity. So much harder to say than racism So, what would you call me , a specist ? Spell check doen’t like that either.

    The list is so long that adding another word doesn’t make much of a stir: racist, sexist, heterosexist, misogynist, nationalist, jingoist, capitalist, speciesist.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Svigor


    I mean no offense when I say that you have an unusual mind.
     
    Yeah, maybe I am stupid, or at least not as smart as the Jew (see above). No surprise to readers of this blog on that score, though!
    , @Rob McX
    @Svigor

    But one day, as I raised an impaled, quivering floret of broccoli to my lips, I could hear it screaming.

    You sure it wasn't peyote?

  139. Just a matter of time before the libtards are chastizing us for not celebrating gay beastiality.

  140. How very strange. I posted a comment on the Times article that, as of this afternoon, was ranked in the top five or so, and now it’s gone! It was of course critical, but really no more critical than many of the others that are still there. Retroactive censorship?

  141. @Buffalo Joe
    I love the word speciesism , even though spell check doubts it's validity. So much harder to say than racism So, what would you call me , a specist ? Spell check doen't like that either.

    Replies: @Ivy

    Specist (or Speccie) could also mean a reader of The Spectator 😉

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/

  142. I think everyone is being a bit hard on Prof Yancy. I mean, if Peter Singer came to my house for dinner, I would keep the conversation on the weather and sports.

  143. @Nathan Wartooth
    @Anonymous Nephew

    Oh thanks. I've read a few articles about this but that is the first one that actually talks about the money.

    I guess he was just a liar all around.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    A social science grad student pulled in $793,000 in grant money by concocting research results desired by gay political interests.

    Big Gay Money is a real thing.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    Big Gay Money is a real thing.
     
    Big Gay Money is a powerful force multiplier in politics and entertainment when it latches onto a bigger fish. But when used on its own, it often leads to embarrassing defeats: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-chris-hughes-and-sean-eldridge-america-s-worst-gay-couple.html

    Replies: @5371

  144. @slumber_j
    @Dave Pinsen

    That's a thoroughly enjoyable read: thanks very much for indicating it.

    It's far from central to the interview, but I liked this funny bit of iSteve-bait, comparing citations of women in the major philosophical journals with the citations for the single most important contemporary male philosopher:


    Then Kealy has something about women in the data. Nineteen items in the data are written by women, or 3.6 percent. By comparison, 6.3 percent of the items are written by David Lewis.
     

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Whenever David Lewis comes up, I’m always like, “Okay, time to buckle my seatbelt because this is going to be a wild ride.”

  145. @Dahlia
    @Anonymous


    Is he necessarily wrong? We inflict so much suffering on animals to raise them for meat, suffering that could be greatly reduced with a few measures that might cost slightly more while still eating them. So it’s ok to kill them, but it’s obviously evil to let a dog hump your leg? Singer doesn’t say that sex with animals is never wrong, just that it sometimes isn’t wrong.

     

    Yes, he's wrong. And he's quackers, too. Quackers in that way that both Gregory Cochran and Satoshi Kanazawa have pointed out is a price some intelligent people have had to pay for their intelligence. Intuition, common sense, highly tuned sense of the sacred, strongly repelled by disgust or the profane... Many intelligent people are deficient in these as the price they pay for their intelligence, same as with having myopia. We call them liberals.
    And then there is Peter Singer who paid very, very, very dearly.

    What's wrong with Joel Salatin?! Why do we have choose between Team "Torture and kill animals for food" and Team "Have sex with animals", LOL!

    Replies: @Melendwyr

    There are reasons smart people don’t consider strong senses of disgust or the profane to be much of a loss.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    @Melendwyr

    I strongly doubt there are 500 lay people in the United States who have analyzed and compared their levels of disgust sensitivity to have ever formed an opinion on it.

    For the unitiated, I'm partially referencing Jonathan Haidt's work in "The Righteous Mind" which Agnostic at Face to Face has discussed in many posts such as this one, http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2014/08/liberal-vs-conservative-flavors-of.html?m=1

    But Kanazawa and his writings that many of the intelligent have made trade-offs are what most inform my thoughts above. I don't see the equivalence that Haidt, and perhaps Agnostic?, see on disgust and purity. My own personal theory is that deficits in disgust and purity (perhaps a couple others) are like myopia: unfortunate costs made for higher intelligence than otherwise would be had
    (Kanazawa focused on very different anomalies, btw).

  146. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    Expand your horizons! There may well be a host of “differently-conscioused beings” out there...

    ...Now stop bothering me while I finish my bacon cheeseburger.
     
    We are part of a self-aware universe in which everyone and everything suffers because of the existence of the European race of humans. Haven't you figured this out yet? Now put some ketchup on that burger and give thanks to the tomatoes for their sacrifice.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I am working on figuring it out. But I will apply ketchup with gratitude.

  147. @AnonymousCoward
    @Buffalo Joe

    I still don't know what the goldybox means. I think it might be a benediction from Ron or Steve.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Harry Baldwin

    At the annual white-tie Sailer gala, you are entitled to wear one gold stripe on your left cuff for every gold frame you’ve been awarded at the site. Anyone who has earned ten gold frames is entitled to wear the coveted gold sash and sit at the head table.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Harry Baldwin

    You should have issued a "trigger" alert. The term White Tie is surely an act of micro-aggression and conjures up thoughts of lynching.

  148. Dahlia says:
    @Melendwyr
    @Dahlia

    There are reasons smart people don't consider strong senses of disgust or the profane to be much of a loss.

    Replies: @Dahlia

    I strongly doubt there are 500 lay people in the United States who have analyzed and compared their levels of disgust sensitivity to have ever formed an opinion on it.

    For the unitiated, I’m partially referencing Jonathan Haidt’s work in “The Righteous Mind” which Agnostic at Face to Face has discussed in many posts such as this one, http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2014/08/liberal-vs-conservative-flavors-of.html?m=1

    But Kanazawa and his writings that many of the intelligent have made trade-offs are what most inform my thoughts above. I don’t see the equivalence that Haidt, and perhaps Agnostic?, see on disgust and purity. My own personal theory is that deficits in disgust and purity (perhaps a couple others) are like myopia: unfortunate costs made for higher intelligence than otherwise would be had
    (Kanazawa focused on very different anomalies, btw).

  149. @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    What if the various archaic Homo species -- Neanderthalis, Robustus, Ergaster, etc -- had survived into our own time, so that rather than the great chasm between humans and other primates we now have, there were instead a smooth continuum? How would that make our politics different?

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown, @ben tillman

    What if the various archaic Homo species — Neanderthalis, Robustus, Ergaster, etc — had survived into our own time, so that rather than the great chasm between humans and other primates we now have, there were instead a smooth continuum?

    You may still be able to find people who are a quarter Neanderthal or so.

  150. @Anon
    Nowadays Yancy Can't Even Think

    Replies: @Ziel, @ben tillman

    Nowadays Yancy Can’t Even Think

    Ha, nice allusion.

  151. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Well, International Jew, it's difficult to speculate how primitive hominids would line up politically since so little is known about their polling data. However, if I had to put money on it, I'd wager it would look a lot like this......

    https://retrointhe90s.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/politicalcaveman0011.png

    Replies: @Dennis Dale, @International Jew, @Chrisnonymous

    I wasn’t thinking about how they’d vote. I was thinking, would “they” get to vote at all? Without today’s huge gap between humans and the next-most-human species — chimpanzees — the decision is easy: let all humans vote. But if there were a continuum, we’d have to face up to the need to draw a line somewhere. Would it be based on biology? On literacy? Something else?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @International Jew

    Maybe some combination of assets and service. I think this is how the Roman political system got started, right? Based on wartime contributions--equites could bring horses to battle, etc? Of course they had the benefit of homogeneity. If Neanderthals were permanently disenfranchised because they couldn't accumulate enough wealth, it would create Neanderthal resentment and someone would have to act as Tribune of the Clades.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Oh, that was a serious question? My bad. I thought we were playing comedy cavalcade of comedy. Regardless, it would be interesting to see how different countries addressed the issue of hominid rights. There are many possibilities.

    1. I think that fundamentally serious countries like Russia, China and Israel would restrict the franchise to homo sapiens, and actively discourage hominid immigration. The justification would likely be a biological basis. If one defines "human" as "Homo sapiens", then some of us would clearly be more human than others. Issues would be raised by the inevitable interbreeding, but some minimum threshold of "sapienhood" could be established. Ultimately, it's their country and their rules.

    2. The concept of hominid reservations seems like a quick and easy, albeit half-assed, solution. But politicians generally love the expedient, and to them kicking the ticking time bomb to future generations is a feature not a bug.

    3. Fundamentally unserious countries, like post-modern America, would likely welcome unlimited hominid immigration with open arms because melting pot/diversity/cheap-mastodon-chalupas/etc. So long as Homo erectus can pick fruit , flip burgers and clean hotel rooms for pennies on the peso, the Chamber of Commerce types will lobby for a path to citizenship and eventual suffrage. "These guys will work for polished stones and boar tusks! Our profit margin has never looked better!" The media and academia would treat Paleo-Americans like any other non-white minority, write click-bait articles about sapiens microaggressions and conveniently ignore the fact that the Denisovans are ethnically cleansing the Mexicans from Compton. Discourse on the issue would be limited to the following, "What do you mean Hominid-Americans shouldn't be able to vote! I'm not going to sit hear and listen to your Jim Cro-Mag hate speech.... I can't even....Wow.... just, wow! #problematic #triggered..."

    I'm not trying to be funny or satirical. America is so far gone into the equality/diversity death cult that all "right thinking" people would consider you a horrible bigot if you don't want your daughter dating Homo rhodesiensis.

    4. It would also be interesting to see if some groups of proto-humans are more prone to assimilation and civilized behavior than others and what niches they'd fill in the current job market. Their entry in to professional sports and entertainment would be absolutely fascinating.

    @ Chrisnonymous
    Erect Gait, Don’t Shoot…?
    Lolz. That's the stuff.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Rob McX

  152. @International Jew

    How can black people, on the one hand, reject the reduction of, say, Obama to a monkey, and yet be against speciesism?
     
    That was Yancy's best question. (Even if, by saying "reduction", he has committed speciesism.)

    Singer is the perfect posterboy for academic wacky depravity, and he reminds us why right from the get-go when he says that when considering the morality of euthanasia, we mustn't accept it for animals and reject it for disabled humans *just because* the latter are humans.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Doh!

    Re my comment on the same passage, I am embarrassed to admit I misinterpreted Yancy’s question, which I understand now. Thanks.

    Yeah, in a sense, you’re right. It would be a great question if he were an undergrad in a philosophy class.

    Is it a great question in an absolute sense? Singer does not believe, simplistically, that chimps and people are the same. He just thinks they are similar enough in ethically important ways. But when people compare Obama to a monkey, they aren’t suggesting that Obama shouldn’t have human rights, they are attacking his higher brain functions like IQ and impulse control, which Singer wouldn’t deny are different between people and chimps. So, as Singer says, it is completely consistent to be “anti-speciesist” and “anti-racist”. You can attack the cartoon and still think chimps should have “personhood” under the law, just as very low-IQ people do.

    To me it seems Yancy’s question is so parochial and focused on the pragmatics of “combating racism” that it’s like he’s not engaged in the same discussion as Singer. That’s why I had misinterpreted him to be asking why black people can be “anti-racist” and yet maintain “speciesist” views.

  153. @Svigor
    If I'm reading this right, Singer's giving people permission to like dogs better than blacks. Or Jews.

    Hey, don't blame me, he's the one who said it!

    Now that ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
    You blame the whitey, in the NYT
     
    Lol, classic.

    In the end I just let him go on so I could finish the intake . I suppose I could have picked him up and put him in another room but it was his house after all.
     
    Okay, I gotta ask: do dogs "finish" when given their druthers? Never seen them given the opportunity.

    Chrisnonymous says:
    May 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm GMT • 200 Words
     
    I mean no offense when I say that you have an unusual mind.

    How do you know plants don’t have a “sliver of consciousness”?
     
    I tried to be a vegetarian, for a while. But one day, as I raised an impaled, quivering floret of broccoli to my lips, I could hear it screaming. Suddenly, I could hear them all screaming. From the plates, the serving trays, the crisper drawer. It's been nothing but meat and potatoes for me since that day, and I sleep much better for it.

    I love the word speciesism , even though spell check doubts it’s validity. So much harder to say than racism So, what would you call me , a specist ? Spell check doen’t like that either.
     
    The list is so long that adding another word doesn't make much of a stir: racist, sexist, heterosexist, misogynist, nationalist, jingoist, capitalist, speciesist.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Rob McX

    I mean no offense when I say that you have an unusual mind.

    Yeah, maybe I am stupid, or at least not as smart as the Jew (see above). No surprise to readers of this blog on that score, though!

  154. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Well, International Jew, it's difficult to speculate how primitive hominids would line up politically since so little is known about their polling data. However, if I had to put money on it, I'd wager it would look a lot like this......

    https://retrointhe90s.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/politicalcaveman0011.png

    Replies: @Dennis Dale, @International Jew, @Chrisnonymous

    Erect Gait, Don’t Shoot…?

  155. @Hacienda
    @Twinkie

    It's just a philosophical statement. Any serious philosopher will come up
    with 20 or so absolute bonker statements in a life lived in philosophy.
    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.

    Replies: @AnonymousCoward, @Twinkie

    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.

    Ok, so if a “philosopher” were to advocate child rape (a “bonker statement” certainly), you’d just consider that a hallmark of a great philosopher?

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    @Twinkie

    No one's for child rape as a philosophical position. Not all bonker statements are equal. Just as not all criminals are the same. Singer has that strange white man's disease of these times. A huge ability to take, maybe enjoy, the abuse and subversion of colored men. Bonkers. It does make him a "great" whitey philosopher for these times. Just another academic chair. Professor/Furniture- a chair, coffee table, sofa. A set piece.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @AnonymousCoward

  156. @Chess Fan
    @Anonymous

    I disagree with this. The concept of speciesism is really interesting. I have used it for the purpose of making arguments against leftists on more than one occasion (e.g. if I am morally obligated to feel comfortable with a black dating my sister, are you morally obligated to feel comfortable with your sister diddling a horse?). Singer really is like a living, breathing reductio ad absurdum on leftism. I love him.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @neuday

    I disagree with this. The concept of speciesism is really interesting. I have used it for the purpose of making arguments against leftists on more than one occasion (e.g. if I am morally obligated to feel comfortable with a black dating my sister, are you morally obligated to feel comfortable with your sister diddling a horse?). Singer really is like a living, breathing reductio ad absurdum on leftism.

    Without question, speciesism is as legitimate a concept as racism (or personism, for that matter). The fact that politically correct doctrine does not accord with this fact reminds us that the focus on “racism” is completely unprincipled.

    Why, for Whites, is it okay to pursue one’s “personal” self-interest and okay to pursue the self-interest of the human race, while it is utterly evil to pursue racial self-interest? There’s no principled way to explain this distinction; it’s pure particularism; it’s quite simply an attack on Whites.

  157. @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    I wasn't thinking about how they'd vote. I was thinking, would "they" get to vote at all? Without today's huge gap between humans and the next-most-human species -- chimpanzees -- the decision is easy: let all humans vote. But if there were a continuum, we'd have to face up to the need to draw a line somewhere. Would it be based on biology? On literacy? Something else?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Maybe some combination of assets and service. I think this is how the Roman political system got started, right? Based on wartime contributions–equites could bring horses to battle, etc? Of course they had the benefit of homogeneity. If Neanderthals were permanently disenfranchised because they couldn’t accumulate enough wealth, it would create Neanderthal resentment and someone would have to act as Tribune of the Clades.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm rather fond of that one:

    "...Sharpton, Tribune of the Clades, said in a statement yesterday that he bears no responsibility for the violence in New Gorham and reminded people of the inviolability of his person under US law..."

  158. @Chrisnonymous
    @International Jew

    Maybe some combination of assets and service. I think this is how the Roman political system got started, right? Based on wartime contributions--equites could bring horses to battle, etc? Of course they had the benefit of homogeneity. If Neanderthals were permanently disenfranchised because they couldn't accumulate enough wealth, it would create Neanderthal resentment and someone would have to act as Tribune of the Clades.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I’m rather fond of that one:

    “…Sharpton, Tribune of the Clades, said in a statement yesterday that he bears no responsibility for the violence in New Gorham and reminded people of the inviolability of his person under US law…”

  159. @Steve Sailer
    @Nathan Wartooth

    A social science grad student pulled in $793,000 in grant money by concocting research results desired by gay political interests.

    Big Gay Money is a real thing.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Big Gay Money is a real thing.

    Big Gay Money is a powerful force multiplier in politics and entertainment when it latches onto a bigger fish. But when used on its own, it often leads to embarrassing defeats: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-chris-hughes-and-sean-eldridge-america-s-worst-gay-couple.html

    • Replies: @5371
    @Twinkie

    Cat fight!

    Replies: @Ivy

  160. @Anonymous
    @5371

    Economics is an integral part of engineering and technology. The entrepreneurs have made tremendous strides in lowering launch costs and progressing towards reusability. NASA has taken billions and decades and hasn't really done anything to improve the economics of launches. The masses see televised spectacles of rockets launching into the sky and assume the same thing is happening or that NASA is doing it better, but they don't understand the economics nor the importance of economics to engineering and technology development.

    Replies: @5371, @William Badwhite

    They are progressing towards reusability in the same sense in which you and I are progressing towards becoming emperors of the universe, and they are lowering costs by using different accounting principles.

  161. @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    Big Gay Money is a real thing.
     
    Big Gay Money is a powerful force multiplier in politics and entertainment when it latches onto a bigger fish. But when used on its own, it often leads to embarrassing defeats: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-chris-hughes-and-sean-eldridge-america-s-worst-gay-couple.html

    Replies: @5371

    Cat fight!

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @5371

    Kitten fight

  162. @Twinkie
    @Hacienda


    Bonker statements are a hallmark of great philosophy.
     
    Ok, so if a "philosopher" were to advocate child rape (a "bonker statement" certainly), you'd just consider that a hallmark of a great philosopher?

    Replies: @Hacienda

    No one’s for child rape as a philosophical position. Not all bonker statements are equal. Just as not all criminals are the same. Singer has that strange white man’s disease of these times. A huge ability to take, maybe enjoy, the abuse and subversion of colored men. Bonkers. It does make him a “great” whitey philosopher for these times. Just another academic chair. Professor/Furniture- a chair, coffee table, sofa. A set piece.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Hacienda

    Okay. So for you, child rape is no go, but sex with animals maybe?

    Glad to know you have limits.

    , @AnonymousCoward
    @Hacienda


    "No one’s for child rape as a philosophical position."
     
    Don't be silly. Just to name one branch of child-rapist defenders, apologists and advocates for child marriage are without number in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, arguing that it leads to the best kind of marriage.

    Replies: @dcite

  163. @Hacienda
    @Twinkie

    No one's for child rape as a philosophical position. Not all bonker statements are equal. Just as not all criminals are the same. Singer has that strange white man's disease of these times. A huge ability to take, maybe enjoy, the abuse and subversion of colored men. Bonkers. It does make him a "great" whitey philosopher for these times. Just another academic chair. Professor/Furniture- a chair, coffee table, sofa. A set piece.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @AnonymousCoward

    Okay. So for you, child rape is no go, but sex with animals maybe?

    Glad to know you have limits.

  164. @Hacienda
    @Twinkie

    No one's for child rape as a philosophical position. Not all bonker statements are equal. Just as not all criminals are the same. Singer has that strange white man's disease of these times. A huge ability to take, maybe enjoy, the abuse and subversion of colored men. Bonkers. It does make him a "great" whitey philosopher for these times. Just another academic chair. Professor/Furniture- a chair, coffee table, sofa. A set piece.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @AnonymousCoward

    “No one’s for child rape as a philosophical position.”

    Don’t be silly. Just to name one branch of child-rapist defenders, apologists and advocates for child marriage are without number in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, arguing that it leads to the best kind of marriage.

    • Replies: @dcite
    @AnonymousCoward

    Yeah. See National Geographic, 2011, on the topic in Yemen. "Too young to wed: the secret world of child brides" on youtube. "Child" bride means just that in some cases, 6-8 years old, not 14 or 15. Ghastly. Even some of the Yemenis were freaked out. Totally sick. And yes, there are pedophiles in the "west" but it's illegal here, considered sick, and the perps are despised. Get it?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c_zppPutQw
    Too Young to Wed: The Secret World of Child Brides

  165. @Harry Baldwin
    @AnonymousCoward

    At the annual white-tie Sailer gala, you are entitled to wear one gold stripe on your left cuff for every gold frame you've been awarded at the site. Anyone who has earned ten gold frames is entitled to wear the coveted gold sash and sit at the head table.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    You should have issued a “trigger” alert. The term White Tie is surely an act of micro-aggression and conjures up thoughts of lynching.

  166. LMH says:
    @Dahlia
    @Twinkie

    Peter Singer is very famous and just about all I-Stevers would be familiar with his reputation. His belief in the right of parents to kill their infants was what put him on the map. Everything else he came up after that was met with "Of course, it's coming from the post-birth abortion guy".
    This is what makes the article so great and hence the joke above about not the singularity being approached, but the "liberality".

    The radical and respected (and feared, especially back in the 90s) Dr. Peter Singer, one of the giants of the Liberal intelligentsia, sits down for an interview with another liberal intellectual. Their shared worldview demands that they believe and act as though they are relatively equal. As such, we get this hilarious farce of this most famous and notorious bioethicist seriously engaging in discussion, though he's ostensibly there to discuss his own topic, with someone who basically goes, "Blackity, black, black, bla, bla, blackity, blackity, black, black" during the entire interview. Dr. Singer would have actually been engaged better with Joe Blow in the Wal-Mart check-out line.

    Replies: @LMH

    ^ Yeah, pretty much exactly this. He even gives an obligatory spiel on Australian aborigines, the apparent earnestness of which is undercut only by the reference, at the end, to the need for paternalistic policies to protect them from their own petrol cravings.

    Ironically, Singer’s ideology is both radically pro- and anti-egalitarian: By eliminating the species distinction and the concept of sacred rights not derived from utilitarian preferences, he creates a world where all primates and indeed all animals can in some respects be treated “equally.” Through his lens, policy toward (e.g.) aboriginals becomes less about respecting their tribal savage traditions and more about utilitarian math. Anti-racists are often threatened by Singer because they correctly sense that when the boundary between humans and apes gets elided, some of their dogmas are called into question.

  167. @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    I wasn't thinking about how they'd vote. I was thinking, would "they" get to vote at all? Without today's huge gap between humans and the next-most-human species -- chimpanzees -- the decision is easy: let all humans vote. But if there were a continuum, we'd have to face up to the need to draw a line somewhere. Would it be based on biology? On literacy? Something else?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Oh, that was a serious question? My bad. I thought we were playing comedy cavalcade of comedy. Regardless, it would be interesting to see how different countries addressed the issue of hominid rights. There are many possibilities.

    1. I think that fundamentally serious countries like Russia, China and Israel would restrict the franchise to homo sapiens, and actively discourage hominid immigration. The justification would likely be a biological basis. If one defines “human” as “Homo sapiens”, then some of us would clearly be more human than others. Issues would be raised by the inevitable interbreeding, but some minimum threshold of “sapienhood” could be established. Ultimately, it’s their country and their rules.

    2. The concept of hominid reservations seems like a quick and easy, albeit half-assed, solution. But politicians generally love the expedient, and to them kicking the ticking time bomb to future generations is a feature not a bug.

    3. Fundamentally unserious countries, like post-modern America, would likely welcome unlimited hominid immigration with open arms because melting pot/diversity/cheap-mastodon-chalupas/etc. So long as Homo erectus can pick fruit , flip burgers and clean hotel rooms for pennies on the peso, the Chamber of Commerce types will lobby for a path to citizenship and eventual suffrage. “These guys will work for polished stones and boar tusks! Our profit margin has never looked better!” The media and academia would treat Paleo-Americans like any other non-white minority, write click-bait articles about sapiens microaggressions and conveniently ignore the fact that the Denisovans are ethnically cleansing the Mexicans from Compton. Discourse on the issue would be limited to the following, “What do you mean Hominid-Americans shouldn’t be able to vote! I’m not going to sit hear and listen to your Jim Cro-Mag hate speech…. I can’t even….Wow…. just, wow! #problematic #triggered…”

    I’m not trying to be funny or satirical. America is so far gone into the equality/diversity death cult that all “right thinking” people would consider you a horrible bigot if you don’t want your daughter dating Homo rhodesiensis.

    4. It would also be interesting to see if some groups of proto-humans are more prone to assimilation and civilized behavior than others and what niches they’d fill in the current job market. Their entry in to professional sports and entertainment would be absolutely fascinating.

    @ Chrisnonymous
    Erect Gait, Don’t Shoot…?
    Lolz. That’s the stuff.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    It was indeed a serious question, and I like your answer.

    My take: the equality/diversity cult would never be able to gain the upper hand. Even the most starry-eyed idealists would be forced to draw a line: if not between H. Sapiens and Erectus, then somewhere further down, and surely well short of chimps (to say nothing of baboons or lemurs). And once one is willing to draw a line *somewhere*, and talk frankly about the criteria, it's no longer taboo to recognize differences all up and down the gamut, including between the subspecies of H. Sapiens.

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Rob McX
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    There'd be a vast reordering of the hierarchy of victimhood and micro-aggression - candle-lit vigils following the placing of a flint axe-head outside a college dorm, etc. And, of course, the new N-word would be Neanderthal.

  168. MW says:

    Some conservatives may like to imagine animal rights activism as something leftist but that’s not true. If it were leftist it wouldn’t be about not torturing and not killing animals but about importing a million African lions a year and putting them in kindergartens and schools. THEN you could put anti-speciesism and anti-racism in one box, and only then. Instead it’s simply about being a decent person and not causing suffering when it’s not at all necessary. Eating animals is like shitting in the woods – it’s okay as long as there REALLY is no other solution but you better try to escape that embarrassing situation as fast as you can. Whites and even some others have done exactly that and can now live like human humans instead of animal humans. Eating animals is for the non-White underclass (see India, the more Aryan, the less animal eating). Fortunately, more and more people understand how important civilized behavior regarding animals is, including conservatives (Matthew Scully) and nationalists ( to give one small example: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=973590899347560&id=839933549379963 )

  169. @5371
    @Twinkie

    Cat fight!

    Replies: @Ivy

    Kitten fight

  170. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Oh, that was a serious question? My bad. I thought we were playing comedy cavalcade of comedy. Regardless, it would be interesting to see how different countries addressed the issue of hominid rights. There are many possibilities.

    1. I think that fundamentally serious countries like Russia, China and Israel would restrict the franchise to homo sapiens, and actively discourage hominid immigration. The justification would likely be a biological basis. If one defines "human" as "Homo sapiens", then some of us would clearly be more human than others. Issues would be raised by the inevitable interbreeding, but some minimum threshold of "sapienhood" could be established. Ultimately, it's their country and their rules.

    2. The concept of hominid reservations seems like a quick and easy, albeit half-assed, solution. But politicians generally love the expedient, and to them kicking the ticking time bomb to future generations is a feature not a bug.

    3. Fundamentally unserious countries, like post-modern America, would likely welcome unlimited hominid immigration with open arms because melting pot/diversity/cheap-mastodon-chalupas/etc. So long as Homo erectus can pick fruit , flip burgers and clean hotel rooms for pennies on the peso, the Chamber of Commerce types will lobby for a path to citizenship and eventual suffrage. "These guys will work for polished stones and boar tusks! Our profit margin has never looked better!" The media and academia would treat Paleo-Americans like any other non-white minority, write click-bait articles about sapiens microaggressions and conveniently ignore the fact that the Denisovans are ethnically cleansing the Mexicans from Compton. Discourse on the issue would be limited to the following, "What do you mean Hominid-Americans shouldn't be able to vote! I'm not going to sit hear and listen to your Jim Cro-Mag hate speech.... I can't even....Wow.... just, wow! #problematic #triggered..."

    I'm not trying to be funny or satirical. America is so far gone into the equality/diversity death cult that all "right thinking" people would consider you a horrible bigot if you don't want your daughter dating Homo rhodesiensis.

    4. It would also be interesting to see if some groups of proto-humans are more prone to assimilation and civilized behavior than others and what niches they'd fill in the current job market. Their entry in to professional sports and entertainment would be absolutely fascinating.

    @ Chrisnonymous
    Erect Gait, Don’t Shoot…?
    Lolz. That's the stuff.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Rob McX

    It was indeed a serious question, and I like your answer.

    My take: the equality/diversity cult would never be able to gain the upper hand. Even the most starry-eyed idealists would be forced to draw a line: if not between H. Sapiens and Erectus, then somewhere further down, and surely well short of chimps (to say nothing of baboons or lemurs). And once one is willing to draw a line *somewhere*, and talk frankly about the criteria, it’s no longer taboo to recognize differences all up and down the gamut, including between the subspecies of H. Sapiens.

    • Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Your probably more optimistic than I, but if an influx of hominids would finally make SJWs capable of drawing a line, then I, for one, would welcome our new caveman overlords.

    BTW, that was my first gold box. Thank you for pushing my selective-compulsive analytical absurdity to the next level.

    @Rob McX
    "the new N-word would be Neanderthal."
    lolz!

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @International Jew

    Does anybody know of projected mean IQ for these early hominid populations? My thinking is that if they were low enough, they really might not be able to vote. In that case, drawing a line would be necessary and easy and wouldn't necessarily change the enfranchisement dynamics within H.sapiens populations. If you look at the example of Singer, who says there is no conflict between being anti-speciesist and anti-racist, you can see that SJWs would not necessarily fall into your logic trap.

  171. @Svigor
    If I'm reading this right, Singer's giving people permission to like dogs better than blacks. Or Jews.

    Hey, don't blame me, he's the one who said it!

    Now that ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
    You blame the whitey, in the NYT
     
    Lol, classic.

    In the end I just let him go on so I could finish the intake . I suppose I could have picked him up and put him in another room but it was his house after all.
     
    Okay, I gotta ask: do dogs "finish" when given their druthers? Never seen them given the opportunity.

    Chrisnonymous says:
    May 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm GMT • 200 Words
     
    I mean no offense when I say that you have an unusual mind.

    How do you know plants don’t have a “sliver of consciousness”?
     
    I tried to be a vegetarian, for a while. But one day, as I raised an impaled, quivering floret of broccoli to my lips, I could hear it screaming. Suddenly, I could hear them all screaming. From the plates, the serving trays, the crisper drawer. It's been nothing but meat and potatoes for me since that day, and I sleep much better for it.

    I love the word speciesism , even though spell check doubts it’s validity. So much harder to say than racism So, what would you call me , a specist ? Spell check doen’t like that either.
     
    The list is so long that adding another word doesn't make much of a stir: racist, sexist, heterosexist, misogynist, nationalist, jingoist, capitalist, speciesist.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Rob McX

    But one day, as I raised an impaled, quivering floret of broccoli to my lips, I could hear it screaming.

    You sure it wasn’t peyote?

  172. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Oh, that was a serious question? My bad. I thought we were playing comedy cavalcade of comedy. Regardless, it would be interesting to see how different countries addressed the issue of hominid rights. There are many possibilities.

    1. I think that fundamentally serious countries like Russia, China and Israel would restrict the franchise to homo sapiens, and actively discourage hominid immigration. The justification would likely be a biological basis. If one defines "human" as "Homo sapiens", then some of us would clearly be more human than others. Issues would be raised by the inevitable interbreeding, but some minimum threshold of "sapienhood" could be established. Ultimately, it's their country and their rules.

    2. The concept of hominid reservations seems like a quick and easy, albeit half-assed, solution. But politicians generally love the expedient, and to them kicking the ticking time bomb to future generations is a feature not a bug.

    3. Fundamentally unserious countries, like post-modern America, would likely welcome unlimited hominid immigration with open arms because melting pot/diversity/cheap-mastodon-chalupas/etc. So long as Homo erectus can pick fruit , flip burgers and clean hotel rooms for pennies on the peso, the Chamber of Commerce types will lobby for a path to citizenship and eventual suffrage. "These guys will work for polished stones and boar tusks! Our profit margin has never looked better!" The media and academia would treat Paleo-Americans like any other non-white minority, write click-bait articles about sapiens microaggressions and conveniently ignore the fact that the Denisovans are ethnically cleansing the Mexicans from Compton. Discourse on the issue would be limited to the following, "What do you mean Hominid-Americans shouldn't be able to vote! I'm not going to sit hear and listen to your Jim Cro-Mag hate speech.... I can't even....Wow.... just, wow! #problematic #triggered..."

    I'm not trying to be funny or satirical. America is so far gone into the equality/diversity death cult that all "right thinking" people would consider you a horrible bigot if you don't want your daughter dating Homo rhodesiensis.

    4. It would also be interesting to see if some groups of proto-humans are more prone to assimilation and civilized behavior than others and what niches they'd fill in the current job market. Their entry in to professional sports and entertainment would be absolutely fascinating.

    @ Chrisnonymous
    Erect Gait, Don’t Shoot…?
    Lolz. That's the stuff.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Rob McX

    There’d be a vast reordering of the hierarchy of victimhood and micro-aggression – candle-lit vigils following the placing of a flint axe-head outside a college dorm, etc. And, of course, the new N-word would be Neanderthal.

  173. @Chess Fan
    @Anonymous

    I disagree with this. The concept of speciesism is really interesting. I have used it for the purpose of making arguments against leftists on more than one occasion (e.g. if I am morally obligated to feel comfortable with a black dating my sister, are you morally obligated to feel comfortable with your sister diddling a horse?). Singer really is like a living, breathing reductio ad absurdum on leftism. I love him.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @neuday

    I think in our marriage choices we’re all guilty of organismism. I’m certain that my ex-wife, always a non-conformist in her approach to rational thought, believed she was marrying an ATM. [rimshot]

  174. @Chrisnonymous
    @Dennis Dale

    I don't know why you guys think it is strange to see a black intellectual in a baseball cap. It denotes solidarity with "resistance" and the 'hood.

    http://urbanmecca.net/news/wp-content/uploads/spikelee1.jpg

    http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/russell_simmons2011-baseball-cap-med-wide.jpg

    http://i3.cpcache.com/product/233392620/i_love_cornel_west_trucker_hat.jpg

    Replies: @dcite

    The baseball cap is the most interesting thing about him. The rest is blackety black black black. But I’ve found baseball caps usually mean a nice, unassuming person is underneath. I sort of like them, no matter who wears them, if they are on properly.

  175. @AnonymousCoward
    @Hacienda


    "No one’s for child rape as a philosophical position."
     
    Don't be silly. Just to name one branch of child-rapist defenders, apologists and advocates for child marriage are without number in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, arguing that it leads to the best kind of marriage.

    Replies: @dcite

    Yeah. See National Geographic, 2011, on the topic in Yemen. “Too young to wed: the secret world of child brides” on youtube. “Child” bride means just that in some cases, 6-8 years old, not 14 or 15. Ghastly. Even some of the Yemenis were freaked out. Totally sick. And yes, there are pedophiles in the “west” but it’s illegal here, considered sick, and the perps are despised. Get it?

    Too Young to Wed: The Secret World of Child Brides

  176. @Anonymous
    @5371

    Economics is an integral part of engineering and technology. The entrepreneurs have made tremendous strides in lowering launch costs and progressing towards reusability. NASA has taken billions and decades and hasn't really done anything to improve the economics of launches. The masses see televised spectacles of rockets launching into the sky and assume the same thing is happening or that NASA is doing it better, but they don't understand the economics nor the importance of economics to engineering and technology development.

    Replies: @5371, @William Badwhite

    “Economics is an integral part of engineering and technology. The entrepreneurs have made tremendous strides in lowering launch costs and progressing towards reusability. NASA has taken billions and decades and hasn’t really done anything to improve the economics of launches. ”

    Lowering launch costs is pretty far down the list of things NASA is/was trying to accomplish.

  177. @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    It was indeed a serious question, and I like your answer.

    My take: the equality/diversity cult would never be able to gain the upper hand. Even the most starry-eyed idealists would be forced to draw a line: if not between H. Sapiens and Erectus, then somewhere further down, and surely well short of chimps (to say nothing of baboons or lemurs). And once one is willing to draw a line *somewhere*, and talk frankly about the criteria, it's no longer taboo to recognize differences all up and down the gamut, including between the subspecies of H. Sapiens.

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Chrisnonymous

    Your probably more optimistic than I, but if an influx of hominids would finally make SJWs capable of drawing a line, then I, for one, would welcome our new caveman overlords.

    BTW, that was my first gold box. Thank you for pushing my selective-compulsive analytical absurdity to the next level.


    “the new N-word would be Neanderthal.”
    lolz!

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Gold Box well deserved, because funny.

    Yesterday I did not have the time but I was going to propose that if homo erectus came down from the hills into some builtup area today it would probably be regarded as physically disabled and seriously retarded but very much as human. Which means that the prototypical Democrat voter evolved almost 2 million years ago.

    Now the interesting thing is that if there were only small numbers of Neanders, Pekings, Ergasters, Denisovans, etc. floating around they would be regarded as trophies or circus attractions or novelties. However, if there were large numbers of them, then there would be some problems of placement.

    But let's also be honest and admit that when we are talking about extending the right to vote to Neanderthals (remember Geico did a running gag about gay Neanderthals for years, what we are also talking about is the notion that there are differences in human sub-species that rise to the level of speciation, even if interbreeding of fertile offspring is possible. (After all Tigons and Ligers do exist.)

    So at some point this becomes more a question of how we choose to interpret the reality around us than one of some "what if?" thought experiment. But that's where the humor comes in.

    Suppose instead of putting problems in terms of race we put them in terms of mental disability? Well, we know that wouldn't work. But the discussion is really about the latter, and not the former.

  178. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @International Jew

    Your probably more optimistic than I, but if an influx of hominids would finally make SJWs capable of drawing a line, then I, for one, would welcome our new caveman overlords.

    BTW, that was my first gold box. Thank you for pushing my selective-compulsive analytical absurdity to the next level.

    @Rob McX
    "the new N-word would be Neanderthal."
    lolz!

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    Gold Box well deserved, because funny.

    Yesterday I did not have the time but I was going to propose that if homo erectus came down from the hills into some builtup area today it would probably be regarded as physically disabled and seriously retarded but very much as human. Which means that the prototypical Democrat voter evolved almost 2 million years ago.

    Now the interesting thing is that if there were only small numbers of Neanders, Pekings, Ergasters, Denisovans, etc. floating around they would be regarded as trophies or circus attractions or novelties. However, if there were large numbers of them, then there would be some problems of placement.

    But let’s also be honest and admit that when we are talking about extending the right to vote to Neanderthals (remember Geico did a running gag about gay Neanderthals for years, what we are also talking about is the notion that there are differences in human sub-species that rise to the level of speciation, even if interbreeding of fertile offspring is possible. (After all Tigons and Ligers do exist.)

    So at some point this becomes more a question of how we choose to interpret the reality around us than one of some “what if?” thought experiment. But that’s where the humor comes in.

    Suppose instead of putting problems in terms of race we put them in terms of mental disability? Well, we know that wouldn’t work. But the discussion is really about the latter, and not the former.

  179. Eating animals is like shitting in the woods – it’s okay as long as there REALLY is no other solution but you better try to escape that embarrassing situation as fast as you can. Whites and even some others have done exactly that and can now live like human humans instead of animal humans. Eating animals is for the non-White underclass (see India, the more Aryan, the less animal eating).

    Sorry, but the meat of that argument is nonsense. It is important to preserve hunting skills and traditions. In the event that the Roman Empire collapses supply chains break down, or poverty becomes widespread, people with that skill set will be in a better position to survive and thrive. Preserving these skills is an acknowledgement that men are not gods, and man is himself an animal. Your position would increase human suffering, in the event.

    A better understanding of what’s involved in bringing meat to the table is also very much baked into the hunting cake. It’s hard to pretend ignorance once you’ve had to clean an animal yourself.

    Then there’s the fact that a diet that includes meat is healthier than the alternative.

    I also think we’d be better off if we made sure our kids took a shit in the woods now and then.

  180. You sure it wasn’t peyote?

    It was all the plants, man. If there was peyote there, it was screaming…

    Yeah, maybe I am stupid, or at least not as smart as the Jew (see above). No surprise to readers of this blog on that score, though!

    Not at all. It’s just very unusual for a person to take an event (especially a relatively innocuous one) like that, do an extensive inventory of his beliefs, and then drop a whole raft of socially popular dogma.

  181. @International Jew
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    It was indeed a serious question, and I like your answer.

    My take: the equality/diversity cult would never be able to gain the upper hand. Even the most starry-eyed idealists would be forced to draw a line: if not between H. Sapiens and Erectus, then somewhere further down, and surely well short of chimps (to say nothing of baboons or lemurs). And once one is willing to draw a line *somewhere*, and talk frankly about the criteria, it's no longer taboo to recognize differences all up and down the gamut, including between the subspecies of H. Sapiens.

    Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Chrisnonymous

    Does anybody know of projected mean IQ for these early hominid populations? My thinking is that if they were low enough, they really might not be able to vote. In that case, drawing a line would be necessary and easy and wouldn’t necessarily change the enfranchisement dynamics within H.sapiens populations. If you look at the example of Singer, who says there is no conflict between being anti-speciesist and anti-racist, you can see that SJWs would not necessarily fall into your logic trap.

  182. MW says:

    – I’m for practicing all kinds of things. People should also practice killing humans but only actually kill humans under certain circumstances.
    – Eating meat isn’t especially healthy. It’s not automatically totally unhealthy (other arguments against it are more important) but not eating it is at least as good if not better for health.
    – I’m glad we cleared up that animal rights are not a leftist idea. (Of course “they” will try to dominate everything but domination of ideas, groups, countries doesn’t say anything about their value.)
    – Not causing suffering when it isn’t necessary is something everyone can agree with. Not eating animals (under most circumstances) is the right/White thing to do.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS