"Singer also argued that the severely disabled should be killed
This is simply not true, as far as I can tell"
Fair enough. "May be killed" is a better way of summing it up. And he's publically supported the killing of a specific disabled woman, details at the URL below.
"He is definitely inconsistent here. But hell, 20% (where'd you get that figure, by the way? I've never seen him put a number on it) is pretty good."
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/19/60II/main329882.shtml
The point is that according to his philosophy frivolous spending is equivalent to letting a train run over a child. You don't just save 20% of the children from the trains, right?
"One might think less of him for not living in accordance with his own reasoning, but that does not make said reasoning automatically invalid"
Interesting point. I suppose that the behaviour of the person putting forward the argument doesn't necessarily affect the strength of the argument. But it does go to show how irrelevent the philosophy is to real life. If even Singer himself finds it too onerous, why should we bother?
"I'm unlikely to go back to eating meat, just because the herbivorous lifestyle seems to suit my physiology, but I'd also be very interested in arguments contra Singer on this issue."
Well, Singer also argued that the severely disabled should be killed to avoid wasting resources on them and that all household income above $30,000 should be donated to the poor, on the same ethical grounds as his veganism. But he spent huge sums caring for his Altzheimers-afflicted mother, and he earns far more than $30,000 and only donates 20% of it to charity. On that record I imagine he has a tab at a steak house under an assumed name.
Although perhaps that's not what you were looking for.
"I don't think Shrub is an idiot - it's comforting to think that, but he's not."
Indeed. There's a obvious logical problem in saying that your opponent is an idiot when he keeps winning.
I didn't mind that Sorkin got the speech from anonymous e-mail. What I did mind was Bartlet's behaviour. The Dr. Laura character was invited to the White House and then ranted at for 90 seconds and then ordered to stand up in the presence of the President. Because, you know, the President is a figure of such dignity and worthy of such respect. I kept trying to come up with responses "Dr. Laura" could have made. I suspect the best would have been to stay silent but _keep sitting down_....
Gareth Wilson
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 2 |
Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Gareth Wilson:
Show all comments by Gareth Wilson.