The pope of Princeton
Having previously informed us that infanticide, if performed in a timely fashion, is compatible with die Neue Ethik of which he is a champion, the professorial pride of New Jersey is now turning his attention toward correcting the moral misapprehensions of Middle America.
In a recent column in the Guardian, [Peter] Singer draws on the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and HLA Hart, the sexually explicit temple carvings of India and international anti-discrimination laws in a meandering attempt to disguise the fact that he has no intention of even beginning to explain why the view that homosexuality is immoral is incorrect. Considering that the assertion of this flawed legal foundation is supposedly the central point of his article, the omission is astounding and its curious absence goes a long way toward explaining some of Singer's other, equally convincing lines of reason.
Vox Day
As usual, homosexuality apologists will read way too much into this article. It appears to be a rebuttal, not a position piece. I found it interesting for its exposé of the dichotomy of arguments use to defend homosexuality and abortion.
I doubt Vox is suggesting that homosexuality should be made illegal, first because he is a libertarian and second, because he likes to play provocateur. Earlier, he offered the argument that the same reasons for supporting homosexual marriage could be given for supporting polygamy.
Vox seems to enjoy exposing a logical progression, also known as the slippery slope. The fact that A leads to B which inevitably leads to C always seems to escape modern social liberals. The question is: do modern liberals miss the obvious progression because they lack the mental capacity, or is it that people who lack the mental capacity to see obvious outcomes will inevitably become liberals?
In a recent column in the Guardian, [Peter] Singer draws on the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and HLA Hart, the sexually explicit temple carvings of India and international anti-discrimination laws in a meandering attempt to disguise the fact that he has no intention of even beginning to explain why the view that homosexuality is immoral is incorrect. Considering that the assertion of this flawed legal foundation is supposedly the central point of his article, the omission is astounding and its curious absence goes a long way toward explaining some of Singer's other, equally convincing lines of reason.
Vox Day
As usual, homosexuality apologists will read way too much into this article. It appears to be a rebuttal, not a position piece. I found it interesting for its exposé of the dichotomy of arguments use to defend homosexuality and abortion.
I doubt Vox is suggesting that homosexuality should be made illegal, first because he is a libertarian and second, because he likes to play provocateur. Earlier, he offered the argument that the same reasons for supporting homosexual marriage could be given for supporting polygamy.
Vox seems to enjoy exposing a logical progression, also known as the slippery slope. The fact that A leads to B which inevitably leads to C always seems to escape modern social liberals. The question is: do modern liberals miss the obvious progression because they lack the mental capacity, or is it that people who lack the mental capacity to see obvious outcomes will inevitably become liberals?
posted by Anonymous | 10:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home