Talk:Peter Singer

	This Philosophy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

A specification

Budziszewski's quote wasn't in response to Singer, it was, actually, a response to John Stuart Mill. But it deals with the same question. --Earthland (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer's ideas about special needs people is similar to Nazi Germany

Advocating euthanasia of special needs/disabled people is the same as Nazi Germany. The Nazis saw disabled people as "unfit" and they killed them off. If he said what he did about non-whites or homosexuals then he would have been fired and made a public outcast; what he says is hate speech no matter how you slice it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A poem dedicated to mr. Peter Singer

Not one of my best works, I assume

I've been through the wringer:
I've read Peter Singer!
It was like a thriller:
he's a baby killer!

Oh, baby-killing Pete:
he doesn't eat meat
Infanticide is crime
It takes all his time
(Wow! These words rhyme!)

He hates old people, too
Next he kills YOU!
Peter, go to hell!
We won't ring the knell!

He's called utilitarian
And a vegeterian
But he's just barbarian
And slimy totalitarian

--Idiot number 58 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is good, I like it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

This article is a bit short on substantiating references I feel. And I don't mean references about what other people think he said.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm random page-ing right now and finding fact-soup all over, unfortunately mostly outside my areas of interest and knowledge so there's not too much I can do apart from visit Wikipedia and copy/paste the refs there. ^moral 13:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've switched a bit so that it's about what he says he says - rather a quote about what the Discovery Institute thinks he says.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this page (moved from userspace)

Hey, why was my edit on the Peter Singer page reverted? Granted, it's a bit much for my edit history, but I saw quite a few inaccurate statements on the page so I decided to edit them. I'd sort the inaccuracies/edits into three categories (maybe four, if you include the additional info added):

Effective altruism - it simply isn't true that Singer gave up/stop advocating his beliefs after his 1971 paper. Rather, he published the 2009 book, The Life You Can Save, which furthered his drowning child argument, basically saying in effect that it's amoral not to donate to charity with surplus wealth when you're living in a world where there's so many people undergoing great suffering because they don't have as much as you. You can read the Wikipedia article on the topic for more info, but there's simply no doubt that Singer did expand on his argument later, albeit a few decades later.

Infanticide/Replacability Argument - Nowhere can you find Singer advocating infantacide for the sake of it (as the article largely implies), let alone the arbitrary "28 day" timeframe listed (even less grounding in reality - the so-called number was pulled out of the editor's ass, to be frank). Rather, he simply advocates non-voluntary euthanasia in the case of severely disabled/ill infants whom the doctors and parents believe will suffer gravely if they continue to live, in addition to severe dementia/Alzheimer's patients who have regressed to the point of simply laying in a bed and being force-fed through a tube where the family members believe that they should be allowed to die in dignity, as stated in the sources linked.

As far as the replacibility argument goes, it's a theoretical statement in relation to animal rights/veganist views held by Singer, not euthanasia. Literally a quick google search would find that: http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0008 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=wright1433172495&disposition=inline https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-28627-7_4

Rape apology part - Out of all of these parts, that part is the most slanderous/misleading. Singer instead argues that the man was consenting and enjoyed the relationship, based on the evidence at hand. Again, one would find that by reading the article linked as a "source".

And if you really want an explanation for the additional info part, I just decided to include other views of Peter Singer that seem to get far less attention but give you a better insight on the views of the philosopher (as well as added another external link in the form of an entire library full of Singer's papers, books and excerpts).

Anyways, thanks for reading this. DancingCake (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)