Lifenews, but kinda on topic too.

He's my kind of guy. Cold and logical, facts and reality come first and emotions and ethics come next. It seems to be, logically, you can't argue against us. We've all seen the arguments people have against zoophiles and once you counter all their arguments they just fall back onto the 'its gross' point of view.

Anyway, this is a horrendous article.

In a world in which someone who makes a politically incorrect utterance can be ruined, Peter Singer should be anathema, given his truly awful beliefs.

The very first sentence already tells the audience what to think of the following article. ridiculously biased from the outset.

Instead of the article presenting his views in a way to invite the reader to ponder them, its basically "look at this weirdo and his awful views". case in point, comparing his ideas to nazi germany. You don't support nazi germany do you? cause if you think singer has some interesting ideas, you pretty much support nazi germany..../s

I've never heard of the guy before and he does have some interesting points of view, but once again we're told to think of these views as 'awful', thereby implying they are to be wholly dismissed without thought or discussion. Yes his ideas might not be politically correct, but that itself doesn't mean they are wrong.

Remember folks, if you don't immediately dismiss this sicko and his awful views then you must be a supporter of him and everything he stands for, don't forget the nazi germany thing /s.

I hate this kind of closed off 'if you're not one of us, you must be one of them' style of argueing. what happened to being open to other points of view?

I didn't know half of the positions that are supposed to turn me off to Singer were his, but I agree with every one of them. Of course, I'm biased in his favor, since my ethical views align pretty closely with his. Then I read who the author is:

Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exceptionalism.

Following the link to his blog (from which the above article was copied, I found some things of interest.

1. Wesley Smith has a real hate hardon for Peter Singer. He's been writing badly about him for the past decade at least, with over 100 posts about him (evidence).
2. Other common topics include PETA, euthanasia, abortion, and animal rights in general. All of this is attacked from an explicit human exceptionalist standpoint.
3. He also attacks bestiality in general, but with a disapproving frown about the motives of those who are against it because they think it's abuse or that animals can't consent. He first wrote about the topic (at least within the archives of his blog) in the weekly Standard, where his one and only argument is that sex with animals acknowledges the idea that humans aren't the center of the moral universe.
4. Every other article he's written on the topic since (other than for brief jabs at Peter Singer) has just quoted or referred to this article (evidence). His only new argument, ironically, tries to state that animals do have intrinsic value, which is violated with sex but nor when the animals are eaten because they're part of the food chain (evidence).

Also, he's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an organization whose most famous work so far has been failing to defend intelligent design in court. He heads the Center on Human Exceptionalism.

TL;DR Wesley Smith is a one trick pony whose handlers fail at their most basic missions.

Just Biased BS. If you haven't read it, you really don't need to.

if you want a TL;DR version of Peter singer:

He is a philosopher that raises a lot of valid points, albeit some may be devoid of emotion, logically they are all sound.

He did highlight the whole 'happy meat' fallacy and how it's BS which i agree wholeheartedly

First of all, the author of this article is the article of a book entitled "Human Exceptionalism," so right off the bat we know where this guy's priorities are.

Secondly, this guy just cares about the concept that Singer's philosophy allows for cold, uncompassionate treatment of a number of people. I'm not sure if this guy is full of shit or not, because I'm not well versed in Singer's positions other than his animal rights stance, which itself is straightforward. Relevant to us, however, the author of this article only uses Singer's stance on bestiality as a "confirmation" of his "moral decrepitude", nothing more.

This article smells like shit.

You can dislike Peter Singer's views. But comparing his views with nazi's ones...

Singer is a pragmatic.

There is nothing wrong with pragmatism. Only cold and pure logical based ideas.

I knew he supported Bestiality but I didn't know he supported Infanticide. Makes me think less of him.

In case people don't know Peter Singer's view:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAhAlbsAbLM&t=77

I agree with most positions of Singer, the only think I would say to him, is that we always have to be careful of the precedent we set, otherwise we open the door to abuses, in this case new born killing. Also a doping advantage and a gentic advantage are completely different things, one requires much less effort, it has to be bought and it is much less safe.

Singer does agree so far with was has been stated in this site.

I believe you can't really understand Singer without understanding Bentham first. Bentham created utilitarianism: if an act created enough happiness (or utility) to balance out its detriments, it is justified. So it's ok to kill a man to save two. Utilitarianism clashed with other schools of ethics, especially the one dominant in the Western world which says everyone have rights that cannot be violated (so killing one person is wrong even if it saves two others).

The most important contribution of Singer is expanding utilitarianism to other species, claiming all animals (at least animals with a nervous system) can feel happiness and pain so the utility measure should consider all animals, including but not limited to humans. But it is still utilitarianism; so Bentham's legacy of "cold and pragmatic" was inherited.