PDA

View Full Version : NYT: Should this be the last generation?



Elspeth
06-16-2010, 01:35 AM
:eek:


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/?hp

JUNE 6, 2010, 5:15 PM
Should This Be the Last Generation?

By PETER SINGER

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.

All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered — and why they fail — I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?

If there were to be no future generations, there would be nothing for us to feel to guilty about. Is there anything wrong with this scenario?

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.

Erin Schell Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
What do you think?

Sonnabend
06-16-2010, 03:38 AM
So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!You first.


In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals,

http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-1538.gif

He's a fan of PETA as well, a vegan :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
06-16-2010, 07:37 AM
I think this is a GREAT idea!!!!

We can promote this in all of the lefty circles. Hell, we can pay for the party - let them have their fill of drugs sex and booze - as long as they sterilize themselves.

We can build them a resort with the most lavish accommodations and in the most exotic places - let them live out their lives in a totally hedonistic bliss. Just keep them the hell away from the children so they don't keep brainwashing them.

It would save our nation.

linda22003
06-16-2010, 07:44 AM
I never wanted children, so I didn't have them, but it had nothing to do with my world view. It was just a personal decision.

Gingersnap
06-16-2010, 11:41 AM
If there was ever an 'end of the world' post, this qualifies.

Luckily, in every social upheaval that results in mass death and cultural realignment, it's guys like this one who are always the very first up against the wall. :)

wilbur
06-16-2010, 01:58 PM
Not sure why this qualifies as an end of the world thread, unless I misunderstand the purpose of this section - while the editorial spends most of its time laying out a pretty bleak and extreme view of an old 19th century philosopher, the article is ended with the author's disagreement of it:



I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

What do you think?


So he doesn't want to "party to extinction", after all. He also believes that we should, as the post laid out, sacrifice some our own pleasure for the sake of the future desires of not-yet-existent people. I agree - I'm sure most others do too. The question he's raising is, why? How do we justify this conclusion? Most importantly, just how much should we sacrifice of our own pleasure, to either prevent suffering or promote the happiness of future generations?

It's also interesting to note, that this is the same Peter Singer who literally wrote the book (Animal Liberation) which the animal rights movement used as its inspiration (though, I'm not sure how related the two are anymore), and also is a strong proponent of abortion, and has been very active in the debate. He's very active in debates surrounding all sorts of life and death issues like abortion, and euthanasia, etc.

Because of his views on these issues, most Christians who know of him, pretty much think he's satan incarnate - though if one actually dares to read his work, one will find he is far more reasonable than he is portrayed.

CueSi
06-16-2010, 04:54 PM
Because if you don't want to sound like an inhuman monster. . . which to many minds, Peter Singer DID EVEN BEFORE THIS . . .there are some questions you don't ask.

The idea of voluntary extinction is against our very evolutionary programming/Creator's vision and he knows this. It's and it's even more restrictive cousin, eugenics, been voted down time and again by human action and society.

And based on his history, his nominal objection at the end seems like a put-on. Even if he probably means it.

And...dude, he just comes across as the "never lived in the real world intellectual" that wants to tell us how to live our lives that makes Americans as a people crazy.

Libs wonder why people like the Duggars and Sarah Palin exist and are popular? Peter Singer. You can't have the former without the latter.

~QC

warpig
06-16-2010, 08:29 PM
There are many more who support his view of humans

“We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass…equally remarkable and equally dispensable.” (Quote from, “Human Beings Deserve the Right to Life Because They Are Human,” Wesley J. Smith, Life News, 8/27/07)

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” (Earth First! Journal editor, John Daily)

“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.” ….Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Human happiness, and…fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet…until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”…David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service

wilbur
06-16-2010, 08:32 PM
Peter Singer doesn't ask any different questions than any other philosopher. Even theologian's ask the same sorts of questions. They often ask (and try to answer) questions like, "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should we value our lives?", "Why should we value the lives of others?", "Do our lives actually have value at all?", and yes - "Why should we care about the what happens to the world after we don't exist?"

I'm not sure why any philosophical questions of these sorts should be off limits, ever. It's not like we have any certain answers to any of them. It's really the answers , not the questions, that bother some people any ways, isn't it?



And based on his history, his nominal objection at the end seems like a put-on. Even if he probably means it.

And...dude, he just comes across as the "never lived in the real world intellectual" that wants to tell us how to live our lives that makes Americans as a people crazy.


That's pretty extraordinary - so you know enough about him to be able to peer into his psyche from across the internet, and judge his character?

I'd hazard a guess that you're impression of him comes mostly from second-hand rather than first-hand experience. I don't know how anyone can read what he writes - or even what he says in lecture or debate - and walk away thinking he is anything but calm, reasonable, non-dogmatic, careful, methodical and intellectually humble. You don't have to agree with every word he says to notice the *huge* discrepancy between what this guy actually says, and what others (mostly Christian thinkers) say that he says. I've never seen anything like it, really. Hell, he even got some begrudging approval from Bill O'Reilly when he went on his show, even though you could tell Bill was expecting a different outcome.

I've read quite a bit from him, and if you had asked me my opinion about how he would answer the questions he raised in the article - I'd have been right - that he'd say life is probably worth living. I don't think it was a put on, at all.

Elspeth
06-16-2010, 09:50 PM
If there was ever an 'end of the world' post, this qualifies.


I'm guessing that's why it got moved. ;)

CueSi
06-17-2010, 04:18 AM
Peter Singer doesn't ask any different questions than any other philosopher. Even theologian's ask the same sorts of questions. They often ask (and try to answer) questions like, "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should we value our lives?", "Why should we value the lives of others?", "Do our lives actually have value at all?", and yes - "Why should we care about the what happens to the world after we don't exist?"

I'm not sure why any philosophical questions of these sorts should be off limits, ever. It's not like we have any certain answers to any of them. It's really the answers , not the questions, that bother some people any ways, isn't it?



That's pretty extraordinary - so you know enough about him to be able to peer into his psyche from across the internet, and judge his character?

I'd hazard a guess that you're impression of him comes mostly from second-hand rather than first-hand experience. I don't know how anyone can read what he writes - or even what he says in lecture or debate - and walk away thinking he is anything but calm, reasonable, non-dogmatic, careful, methodical and intellectually humble. You don't have to agree with every word he says to notice the *huge* discrepancy between what this guy actually says, and what others (mostly Christian thinkers) say that he says. I've never seen anything like it, really. Hell, he even got some begrudging approval from Bill O'Reilly when he went on his show, even though you could tell Bill was expecting a different outcome.

I've read quite a bit from him, and if you had asked me my opinion about how he would answer the questions he raised in the article - I'd have been right - that he'd say life is probably worth living. I don't think it was a put on, at all.

For me, I have a surprisingly immediate view of the world, for someone who believes in an afterlife and all the rest of it...and I guess the difference between most theologians, some philosophers, and Singer I guess is the framework...or at least I thought when you see that he's not the only person who thinks this way. And did you not see the qualifiers? Or are you so wrapped up in defending this guy that ...."Seems" or . . ."Comes across". That's the language of impression, not of fact. Here I am thinking that nuance would be noticed. My bad.

I actually had to read parts of Animal Liberation in college, and honestly didn't like him from that point on. So you're assuming what you think that I know about him. And you're forgetting that in many ways, philosophy is pretty subjective. . . .your calm, reasonable, non-dogmatic is my "Kiss my ass".

And throwing Bill O'Reilly as a pacifying factor? REALLY, Wilbur? REALLY? I just want to smack you for those two assumptions alone. (yeah, I saw the Christian sources. . . there are disabilities rights groups that hate this guy too... THAT'S actually who I think of when it comes to negative press about Peter Singer)

~QC

noonwitch
06-17-2010, 03:06 PM
I always wanted to have at least one child, but I never got married.


It's funny-the teenaged girls I work with ask me if I have kids. I tell them, no, I've never been married. They look at me like I'm from another planet, not just another generation. Some will even say, "that doesn't mean you can't have babies", to which I usually respond "can and should are two very different words".

Odysseus
06-17-2010, 05:17 PM
Peter Singer doesn't ask any different questions than any other philosopher. Even theologian's ask the same sorts of questions. They often ask (and try to answer) questions like, "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should we value our lives?", "Why should we value the lives of others?", "Do our lives actually have value at all?", and yes - "Why should we care about the what happens to the world after we don't exist?"

I'm not sure why any philosophical questions of these sorts should be off limits, ever. It's not like we have any certain answers to any of them. It's really the answers , not the questions, that bother some people any ways, isn't it?
Of course the answers are what are bothersome. Singer comes to conclusions that lead inevitably to a devaluation of human life, not just pre-natal, but across the spectrum. His arguments in favor of bestiality, that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" may occur between humans and animals, is no different than those arguments advanced by NAMBLA and other molesters of children, and is the direct result of his utilitarian, rather than rights-based outlook.


I'd hazard a guess that you're impression of him comes mostly from second-hand rather than first-hand experience. I don't know how anyone can read what he writes - or even what he says in lecture or debate - and walk away thinking he is anything but calm, reasonable, non-dogmatic, careful, methodical and intellectually humble. You don't have to agree with every word he says to notice the *huge* discrepancy between what this guy actually says, and what others (mostly Christian thinkers) say that he says. I've never seen anything like it, really. Hell, he even got some begrudging approval from Bill O'Reilly when he went on his show, even though you could tell Bill was expecting a different outcome.

I've read quite a bit from him, and if you had asked me my opinion about how he would answer the questions he raised in the article - I'd have been right - that he'd say life is probably worth living. I don't think it was a put on, at all.
He doesn't deny that he thinks that his life is worth living. It's the rest of ours that he is willing to consider less than justified. For example, Singer has written that arguments for or against abortion should be based on the weight of the preferences of a mother against those of the fetus, and that a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having preferences, which a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, lacks (in his view, it has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction), so it cannot hold any preferences, and thus does not warrant consideration in the abortion debate. Taken to its logical conclusion, this premise extends to newborn babies, who also lack what Singer considers the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness." Consequently, he has concluded that "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." This further applies to adults whose capacity to exhibit the "essential characteristcs of personhood" has been reduced by disease or injury may also be killed. These "essential characteristics" are, of course, highly subjective and hardly quantifiable. How do you measure rationality? Autonomy? Self-consciousness? You cannot, but by making these the criteria by which we decide that life has value, Singer creates a paradigm in which anyone can be said to lack those attributes. It is not that far from the newborn baby to the toddler, to the disabled adult. This is the involuntary euthanasia argument by which eugenicists justified the sterilization and execution of those that they considered inferior, which invariably leads to atrocity.

Singer is just the latest in a string of nihilists who can (and do) end up justifying the worst impulses in the the worst men.

Sonnabend
06-18-2010, 09:37 AM
Singer is just the latest in a string of nihilists who can (and do) end up justifying the worst impulses in the the worst men.

..under the guise and mantle of environazis.

wilbur
06-18-2010, 11:32 AM
Of course the answers are what are bothersome. Singer comes to conclusions that lead inevitably to a devaluation of human life, not just pre-natal, but across the spectrum.

His arguments in favor of bestiality, that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" may occur between humans and animals, is no different than those arguments advanced by NAMBLA and other molesters of children, and is the direct result of his utilitarian, rather than rights-based outlook.


First off, utilitarianism is not mutually exclusive with rights. Secondly, sex with pre-pubescent children is always harmful, so you're going to have a hard time finding any utilitarian arguments in NAMBLA's favor. So who cares if NAMBLA tries, as you allege, to defend themselves with such statements - they don't actually work. In fact, NAMBLA is slain spectacularly by utilitarian/consequentialist reasoning.

Secondly, I think you need to read him more carefully. He doesn't endorse bestiality, at least not that I have seen. He's raised questions about it, in an open-minded way - but that's not endorsement, that's how good tempered philosophers go about reasoned inquiry. They don't live in the world of pop journalism and politics where sides have to be dogmatically chosen and scathing polemics have to be written. If you approach philosophy that sort of polemical mindset, you're going to get it very badly wrong.

As it is, bestiality is pretty tricky. Most of us certainly feel that its wrong, or at least a sign of dysfunction. Its just really hard to articulate why, aside from just asserting so. Good philosopher's usually like to go beyond bare assertions.



He doesn't deny that he thinks that his life is worth living. It's the rest of ours that he is willing to consider less than justified. For example, Singer has written that arguments for or against abortion should be based on the weight of the preferences of a mother against those of the fetus, and that a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having preferences, which a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, lacks (in his view, it has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction), so it cannot hold any preferences, and thus does not warrant consideration in the abortion debate.


Ok, you're describing a pretty typical pro-choice argument. Singer's view here is not atypical or exceptional.



Taken to its logical conclusion, this premise extends to newborn babies, who also lack what Singer considers the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness." Consequently, he has concluded that "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."


Right- but he's not claiming that its right or permissible to just off a baby because you feel like it, or that babies are worthless. He's essentially saying it causes demonstrably less *harm* to kill a baby, that it does a being with full blown preferences and desires. Again, that's pretty clear cut.

What he does not say, is that its OK to just kill a baby for the heck of it. Again, I think there are fundamental problems with your approach to philosophy. Bad unwarranted assumptions cause you to make straw-man arguments.



This further applies to adults whose capacity to exhibit the "essential characteristcs of personhood" has been reduced by disease or injury may also be killed.


You're misstating his positions. He's never argued that we should be able to kill more people than we do already - he argues that we already do kill people, and that *everybody* all ready thinks it's OK.

He argues, in cases where adults have completely lost the capacity to exhibit the essential characteristics of personhood, that removing a feeding tube, respirator, etc is conceptually the same actively killing the being. So he argues that we might as well use more efficient, direct means to quickly kill the person.




These "essential characteristics" are, of course, highly subjective and hardly quantifiable. How do you measure rationality? Autonomy? Self-consciousness? You cannot, but by making these the criteria by which we decide that life has value, Singer creates a paradigm in which anyone can be said to lack those attributes.

You're free to make the case that his paradigm causes this, but I don't think it'd go very well. I couldnt deny that you are a person under his paradigm, nor could you deny that I am a person, and it's pretty clear cut.

I'll agree that it is very hard to come up with a criteria for personhood that is exhaustive (that is, it includes all persons), and that excludes all non-persons, but that is OK. It's not very hard to come up with criteria that includes *only* non-persons. For grey areas, we err on the side of personhood. If we accidentally include a few non-persons in the net, so be it.



It is not that far from the newborn baby to the toddler, to the disabled adult. This is the involuntary euthanasia argument by which eugenicists justified the sterilization and execution of those that they considered inferior, which invariably leads to atrocity.


Peter Singer does not argue for involuntary euthanasia (at least not of conceptually a different form than what is already widely accepted) , so this is another straw-man.

NJCardFan
06-18-2010, 11:47 AM
There are many more who support his view of humans

“We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass…equally remarkable and equally dispensable.” (Quote from, “Human Beings Deserve the Right to Life Because They Are Human,” Wesley J. Smith, Life News, 8/27/07)

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” (Earth First! Journal editor, John Daily)

“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.” ….Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Human happiness, and…fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet…until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”…David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service

This kind of rhetoric makes me laugh out loud. Every one of these people are wealthy self loathing idiots. No one is keeping them from committing mass suicide. Just more dripping hypocrisy from a bunch of elitist leftists.

DU+NU_Reject
06-18-2010, 11:28 PM
I think this is a GREAT idea!!!!

We can promote this in all of the lefty circles. Hell, we can pay for the party - let them have their fill of drugs sex and booze - as long as they sterilize themselves.

We can build them a resort with the most lavish accommodations and in the most exotic places - let them live out their lives in a totally hedonistic bliss. Just keep them the hell away from the children so they don't keep brainwashing them.

It would save our nation.

Easier to let them keep drinking kool aid.

warpig
06-19-2010, 08:31 AM
This kind of rhetoric makes me laugh out loud. Every one of these people are wealthy self loathing idiots. No one is keeping them from committing mass suicide. Just more dripping hypocrisy from a bunch of elitist leftists.

Oh, but they feel everyone else should make the sacrifice not them. They feel they are too valuable.

Dan D. Doty
06-19-2010, 05:36 PM
If Singer wants to snuff himself for the good of animals/the Earth / Universe, I'm not going to stop.

But to suggest that we all die in a pool of our own vomit, is beyond stupid; Truth be told Singer would most likely run for cover if his existence were in danger just like every other lifeform on the planet.
How do I know, because he is still alive.

No where in our planet's history has any species ever committed mass suicide; I think the last T-Rex lifted his claw to the Universe, gave it the finger and told cosmos to f*ck itself.

Guys like Singer want us to party till we die, I'll remember to toss my invite in the trash, thank you.

DU+NU_Reject
06-19-2010, 11:30 PM
If Singer wants to snuff himself for the good of animals/the Earth / Universe, I'm not going to stop.

But to suggest that we all die in a pool of our own vomit, is beyond stupid; Truth be told Singer would most likely run for cover if his existence were in danger just like every other lifeform on the planet.
How do I know, because he is still alive.

No where in our planet's history has any species ever committed mass suicide; I think the last T-Rex lifted his claw to the Universe, gave it the finger and told cosmos to f*ck itself.

Guys like Singer want us to party till we die, I'll remember to toss my invite in the trash, thank you.

I think.. that humanity simply isn't designed for the 21st century. Time to build a better species?

Hmph. Dunno. But singer simply believes that humanity is an obsolete concept... and misery loves company.

wilbur
06-20-2010, 10:40 AM
If Singer wants to snuff himself for the good of animals/the Earth / Universe, I'm not going to stop.

But to suggest that we all die in a pool of our own vomit, is beyond stupid; Truth be told Singer would most likely run for cover if his existence were in danger just like every other lifeform on the planet.
How do I know, because he is still alive.

No where in our planet's history has any species ever committed mass suicide; I think the last T-Rex lifted his claw to the Universe, gave it the finger and told cosmos to f*ck itself.

Guys like Singer want us to party till we die, I'll remember to toss my invite in the trash, thank you.

Somebody didn't make it to the end of the article.

Odysseus
06-21-2010, 12:25 PM
First off, utilitarianism is not mutually exclusive with rights. Secondly, sex with pre-pubescent children is always harmful, so you're going to have a hard time finding any utilitarian arguments in NAMBLA's favor. So who cares if NAMBLA tries, as you allege, to defend themselves with such statements - they don't actually work. In fact, NAMBLA is slain spectacularly by utilitarian/consequentialist reasoning.

I don't simply allege it. NAMBLA has repeatedly made that argument, drawing from Kinsey's observations of sexual behavior in children. Singer's arguments, which quantifies humanity into those whose "desires" warrant consideration and those whose don't, because they lack the capacity for desire, is entirely inconsistent with a rights-based view in which all people share rights equally. The abortion debate, according to a rights-based perspective, is about whether a fetus has rights, based on its humanity. This can also be argued back and forth, but it assumes that being human confers the basic right of life, and that liberty and the pursuit of happiness follow.


Secondly, I think you need to read him more carefully. He doesn't endorse bestiality, at least not that I have seen. He's raised questions about it, in an open-minded way - but that's not endorsement, that's how good tempered philosophers go about reasoned inquiry. They don't live in the world of pop journalism and politics where sides have to be dogmatically chosen and scathing polemics have to be written. If you approach philosophy that sort of polemical mindset, you're going to get it very badly wrong.

How can you read statements like "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" may occur between humans and animals and not conclude that he is giving tacit approval to the practice?

And Singer does live in a world of pop journalism and politics. In fact, he has used the former to influence the latter, to the advantage of political groups such as PETA. To claim that he is somehow "above" the fray as a philosopher would be news to the philosophers of the past, who sought ways to live in the world, not to retreat from it into hypotheticals.


As it is, bestiality is pretty tricky.
Perhaps if you offered a treat and tried to pet the animal first... :D


Right- but he's not claiming that its right or permissible to just off a baby because you feel like it, or that babies are worthless. He's essentially saying it causes demonstrably less *harm* to kill a baby, that it does a being with full blown preferences and desires. Again, that's pretty clear cut.
And I'm saying that the amount of harm is not demonstrably lessened by the choice of a victim who lacks awareness. The baby is certainly harmed as much as an adult would be by the termination of his/her life. The fact that the baby doesn't necessarily understand what is happening doesn't mean that he/she isn't being harmed.


What he does not say, is that its OK to just kill a baby for the heck of it. Again, I think there are fundamental problems with your approach to philosophy. Bad unwarranted assumptions cause you to make straw-man arguments.
Don't you mean "thought experiments?"
Singer doesn't say that it is okay to kill a baby just for the heck of it, but he does say that it is more permissible to kill a baby than a sentient adult. By that logic, it is more permissible to kill a non-sentient adult than a sentient one. Once you accept that premise, then all lives are not equal, and we can eliminate any innocent once we decide what constitutes a life lacking in sufficient value.

You're misstating his positions. He's never argued that we should be able to kill more people than we do already - he argues that we already do kill people, and that *everybody* all ready thinks it's OK.

He argues, in cases where adults have completely lost the capacity to exhibit the essential characteristics of personhood, that removing a feeding tube, respirator, etc is conceptually the same actively killing the being. So he argues that we might as well use more efficient, direct means to quickly kill the person.

Not everybody thinks it's okay. Terry Schiavo was the obvious example. The arguments about her level of cognition were ultimately irrelevent; if she could feel, then removing the feeding tube consigned her to a cruel, slow death by starvation--if she could not feel, then there was no harm in continuing to feed her until her state could be determined by an objective observer. Ultimately, however, the court decided that she could be killed because her "quality of life" (a phrase not found in any law) had deteriorated. At that point, her rights became immaterial, and only the arguments of those around her held sway. Her family wanted her kept alive, but her husband, who had taken up with another woman and exhausted the money from her insurance settlement, wanted her gone. Her life had become inconvenient to him, so he argued that it was not worth living.


You're free to make the case that his paradigm causes this, but I don't think it'd go very well. I couldnt deny that you are a person under his paradigm, nor could you deny that I am a person, and it's pretty clear cut.

Is it? Singer defines the attributes of personhood as " rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness." The eugenicists of the last century began their euthanasia campaign among those that they considered irrational, i.e., the mentally ill, or "feeble-minded." Autonomy, the capacity to act independently, is severely diminished among drug addicts, to cite one example (we are constantly told that their "disease" renders them unable to take responsibility for their actions), the physically impaired (stroke victims, for example) or a host of other conditions. The "feeble in body" were also targeted by the progressive eugenecists for eradication. Self-consciousness is a tough one. How do you define whether or not a creature knows that it exists? DeCartes began with doubt, wondering if he did, in fact, exist, which led to his realization that doubt was a form of thought, and that to think was proof of existence. But we have already shown that those who do not think at the level approved by the Singers of the world, the "feeble-minded," are fodder for the gas chambers.


I'll agree that it is very hard to come up with a criteria for personhood that is exhaustive (that is, it includes all persons), and that excludes all non-persons, but that is OK. It's not very hard to come up with criteria that includes *only* non-persons. For grey areas, we err on the side of personhood. If we accidentally include a few non-persons in the net, so be it.
Want to bet? See below:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Peter Singer does not argue for involuntary euthanasia (at least not of conceptually a different form than what is already widely accepted) , so this is another straw-man.

Singer doesn't argue for it, he simply sets the preconditions for it. It isn't a straw man, it's the logical culmination of his arguments. If all lives are not of equal value, then some may be dispatched more casually than others. Terry Schiavo becomes less worthy of life than you or I, in his world, as does my toddler daughter, as does a less rational or wholly irrational person (a standard that could eliminate most of the current congress and mass media). Life becomes defined by its worth, rather than the rights inherent in our natural order. The animal rights activist who sees no difference between a boy, a pig or an amoeba sees no special sanctity of life of the former.

Elspeth
06-21-2010, 09:47 PM
Not everybody thinks it's okay. Terry Schiavo was the obvious example. The arguments about her level of cognition were ultimately irrelevent; if she could feel, then removing the feeding tube consigned her to a cruel, slow death by starvation--if she could not feel, then there was no harm in continuing to feed her until her state could be determined by an objective observer. Ultimately, however, the court decided that she could be killed because her "quality of life" (a phrase not found in any law) had deteriorated. At that point, her rights became immaterial, and only the arguments of those around her held sway. Her family wanted her kept alive, but her husband, who had taken up with another woman and exhausted the money from her insurance settlement, wanted her gone. Her life had become inconvenient to him, so he argued that it was not worth living.


That was how I saw the Sciavo case. The money ran out and it was no longer convenient for the hubby. Her parents had no say. It's different when it's your kid.

Odysseus
06-22-2010, 09:25 AM
That was how I saw the Sciavo case. The money ran out and it was no longer convenient for the hubby. Her parents had no say. It's different when it's your kid.

Agreed. Once the husband had abandoned the marriage, he had a clear conflict of interest and the court should have appointed another guardian. That judge's decision was completely without justification, as was the rush to act. Courts are supposed to deliberate and then reach decisions, but it was obvious that the judge had already reached his conclusions and would not hear any evidence to the contrary. The worst thing about this was that if Schiavo were a convicted murderer, the judge would have found that removing the feeding tube violated her due process rights.

When lawyers, who are paid by the hour, demand a rush to judgement, you know that something is up.

CueSi
06-22-2010, 11:15 AM
Agreed. Once the husband had abandoned the marriage, he had a clear conflict of interest and the court should have appointed another guardian. That judge's decision was completely without justification, as was the rush to act. Courts are supposed to deliberate and then reach decisions, but it was obvious that the judge had already reached his conclusions and would not hear any evidence to the contrary. The worst thing about this was that if Schiavo were a convicted murderer, the judge would have found that removing the feeding tube violated her due process rights.

When lawyers, who are paid by the hour, demand a rush to judgement, you know that something is up.

Major, you've made it clear that you are too old and too married...but if you have a junior officer that thinks like you, I'd like him posted to me . . . post haste.

:p

~QC

Odysseus
06-22-2010, 02:24 PM
Major, you've made it clear that you are too old and too married...but if you have a junior officer that thinks like you, I'd like him posted to me . . . post haste.

:p

~QC

I'll keep my eyes and ears open. What age group are you looking for? ;)

CueSi
06-22-2010, 09:07 PM
I'll keep my eyes and ears open. What age group are you looking for? ;)

30- 45. :) My last couple partners were over 40...so yeah.

~QC

JBG
07-05-2010, 11:50 PM
This point of view is ultimately selfish. Raising children is tough but ultimately satisfying. It's an excuse to shirk responsiblity.

jnkbortka
04-13-2011, 11:02 AM
am I the only one who thinks this article is fucking retarded? if we don't have children, our lives are meaningless! although i am sorta radical as I dont like the idea of birth control...

linda22003
04-13-2011, 11:08 AM
am I the only one who thinks this article is fucking retarded? if we don't have children, our lives are meaningless! although i am sorta radical as I dont like the idea of birth control...

I hope the girls you'll date will be well aware of that. :p

FlaGator
04-13-2011, 11:27 AM
Peter Singer has some... let's just say eye opening views on human/animal relationships


Singer thus applies his form of rationalistic "preference utilitarianism" to bestiality, in a recent article, "Heavy Petting". He concludes that bestiality can be an "ethically correct" action, if it is not performed as a cruel "domination of animals", but rather as a ""love for animals", and if it is mutually "preferred" ["Heavy Petting", a review by Peter Singer [Nerve.com: http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/ (http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/). Caution: Singer's article is posted on a pornography website, and discretion should be used in reading the article itself.]
In this "philosophical" defense of "ethical" bestiality, Singer explains that sex with animals does not always involve cruelty, in which cases such sex could be "ethical". Singer cites as an example his discussions with Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes, at Camp Leakey -- a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo. Galdikas blithely dismissed being sexually pressed by a large male orangutan by assuring Singer that the orangutan "would not harm her".
As Singer explained, we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it can be ethical -- i.e., "it ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings."
In other words, according to Singer's preference utilitarianism, bestiality is ethically correct as long as (1) it is not cruel; (2) if it satisfies the mutual preferences of those affected (i.e., the human and the animal); and (3) if it has the best consequences for the greatest number of people involved (i.e., the total amount of "pleasure" experienced in the world would be increased).


From... (http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_23singerglobalethics.html)

Novaheart
04-13-2011, 11:48 AM
When the gas lines first formed in the 1970's, I came up with the idea that we should declare ourselves to be the last generation, and burn gas like it was going out of style.

The problem is, all the wrong people tend to have the most children and since they don't conform to societal norms now, why would anyone think they would have any self control or ability to keep to the plan?

jnkbortka
04-13-2011, 11:08 PM
When the gas lines first formed in the 1970's, I came up with the idea that we should declare ourselves to be the last generation, and burn gas like it was going out of style.

The problem is, all the wrong people tend to have the most children and since they don't conform to societal norms now, why would anyone think they would have any self control or ability to keep to the plan?

OK, you liberals go sterilize yourselves then, no one's stopping you!

And if by the wrong people, you mean people such as the duggars, SCREW YOU!


I hope the girls you'll date will be well aware of that. :p

haha I know, but i do live in a rather redneck area, so it'll be fine. i'm also catholic, and artificial birth control is against the religion, not to mention I'm gonna be the guy in the next 19 & counting-type show in about 30 years :D

Oh yea, and the pill is actually just an early abortion. anyone wish me to elaborate?

fettpett
04-13-2011, 11:16 PM
Oh yea, and the pill is actually just an early abortion. anyone wish me to elaborate?

no it's not, the pill tricks the body into thinking it's pregnant , it doesn't do anything to abort a pregnancy. The morning after pill yes, but not Birth Control Pill

jnkbortka
04-13-2011, 11:50 PM
no it's not, the pill tricks the body into thinking it's pregnant , it doesn't do anything to abort a pregnancy. The morning after pill yes, but not Birth Control Pill


There are four ways the pill acts to stop sperm reaching an egg (ovum). First, the hormones in the pill try to stop an ovum being released from your ovary each month. This is known as the suppression of ovulation. Research has shown that neither the progesterone-only pill nor the combined progesterone-oestrogen formulations always stop ovulation.

Second, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the cervical mucus that your body produces. The cervical mucus may become thicker and more difficult for sperm to fertilize an ovum.

Third, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the lining of the womb (properly known as the endometrium). Under the influence of the chemicals in the pill, the lining of the womb doesn’t grow to the proper thickness. You will notice that your periods are lighter when you are on the pill. This is because the lining of the womb has not developed properly. But this change also means that the womb is not in the right stage of development to allow a fertilized egg to attach properly (this attachment process is known as implantation). This action of the pill will be discussed again in this booklet.

Fourth, the pill causes changes to the movement of the Fallopian tubes. This effect may reduce the possibility of the ovum being fertilised.

It is very important for you to understand that none of these ways the pill works is completely reliable. Ovulation is not always stopped, cervical mucus does not always stop the movement of sperm the damage to the lining of the womb sometimes allows for implantation to occur, and Fallopian tube activity does not always stop sperm and ovum from joining to create a new human person.

check this website out

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html

fettpett
04-13-2011, 11:54 PM
check this website out

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_birth.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/od/thepill/f/howpillworks.htm
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills

Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of synthetic estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from releasing an egg from the ovary. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

I suggest taking an Anatomy class kid

jnkbortka
04-14-2011, 12:52 AM
http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_birth.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/od/thepill/f/howpillworks.htm
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills


Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of synthetic estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from releasing an egg from the ovary. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

I suggest taking an Anatomy class kid

kidshealth.org
"The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus."

womenshealth.about.com
"The lining of the uterus is also affected in a way that prevents fertilized eggs from implanting into the wall of the uterus."

webmd.com
"the hormone in the pills also changes the lining of the uterus, so that implantation of a fertilized egg is much less likely to occur."
"Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation."

all of these websites fail to mention that the baby has already been growing for several days before it implants itself on the endometrium

and that said USUALLY. isn't it worth it to save even one life?

Madisonian
04-14-2011, 07:41 AM
am I the only one who thinks this article is fucking retarded? if we don't have children, our lives are meaningless! although i am sorta radical as I dont like the idea of birth control...

Ahhhh.... the ignorance of youth.
I remember when I was barely post pubescent and knew everything too.

linda22003
04-14-2011, 07:51 AM
all of these websites fail to mention that the baby has already been growing for several days before it implants itself on the endometrium

and that said USUALLY. isn't it worth it to save even one life?

If you don't want to use contraception, don't. If you think you can keep other people from using it, well...
:p :p :p :p

fettpett
04-14-2011, 08:27 AM
kidshealth.org
"The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus."

womenshealth.about.com
"The lining of the uterus is also affected in a way that prevents fertilized eggs from implanting into the wall of the uterus."

webmd.com
"the hormone in the pills also changes the lining of the uterus, so that implantation of a fertilized egg is much less likely to occur."
"Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation."

all of these websites fail to mention that the baby has already been growing for several days before it implants itself on the endometrium

and that said USUALLY. isn't it worth it to save even one life?

look, It's your own personal and religious choice to not use birth control, but to say that it's a form of abortion is just ridiculous and shows lack of understanding how the body works, again, I suggest you take some anatomy courses and figure out how hormones work

jnkbortka
04-14-2011, 10:46 AM
look, It's your own personal and religious choice to not use birth control, but to say that it's a form of abortion is just ridiculous and shows lack of understanding how the body works, again, I suggest you take some anatomy courses and figure out how hormones work

I don't have a problem with condoms etc, because those actualy can prevent pregnancy, without risk of a spontaneous abortion. I'm not saying its all bad, but ONE of the functions of the pill, is basicly an IUD. yes it does prevent pregnancy, but sometimes conception occurs, and when it does, the baby is killed because it cannot implant.


Ahhhh.... the ignorance of youth.
I remember when I was barely post pubescent and knew everything too.

lol at least I had a source for my information

linda22003
04-14-2011, 11:05 AM
I don't have a problem with condoms etc, because those actualy can prevent pregnancy, without risk of a spontaneous abortion. I'm not saying its all bad, but ONE of the functions of the pill, is basicly an IUD. yes it does prevent pregnancy, but sometimes conception occurs, and when it does, the baby is killed because it cannot implant.

This is the "baby" that doesn't implant. It's fine if you equate it with a "baby", but I doubt many people do. It certainly doesn't resemble anyone on MY side of the family. :D

http://archive.eurostemcell.org/images/StemCell/Human-blastocyst.gif

Novaheart
04-14-2011, 01:02 PM
This is the "baby" that doesn't implant. It's fine if you equate it with a "baby", but I doubt many people do. It certainly doesn't resemble anyone on MY side of the family. :D

http://archive.eurostemcell.org/images/StemCell/Human-blastocyst.gif

Some moslems have claimed that sperm is half a baby therefore masturbation or oral sex is murder.

linda22003
04-14-2011, 01:24 PM
Some moslems have claimed that sperm is half a baby therefore masturbation or oral sex is murder.

a)My family isn't muslim, and b) I'll bet muslims are like other guys and would willingly make exceptions for masturbation or oral sex. :)

jnkbortka
04-14-2011, 02:59 PM
its not the same thing. the baby is growing, the sperm is not.

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 03:56 PM
This is the "baby" that doesn't implant. It's fine if you equate it with a "baby", but I doubt many people do. It certainly doesn't resemble anyone on MY side of the family. :D

http://archive.eurostemcell.org/images/StemCell/Human-blastocyst.gif
Oh, come on. You tell me that he doesn't have your Uncle Fred's eyes. :D

Some moslems have claimed that sperm is half a baby therefore masturbation or oral sex is murder.

And yet, the Qur'an justifies buggering boys. Go figure.

Novaheart
04-14-2011, 05:02 PM
And yet, the Qur'an justifies buggering boys. Go figure.

It does?

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 05:31 PM
It does?
The afterlife isn't just female virgins. Here is how the boys are described:


(QURAN 52:24): "And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them as if they were preserved pearls."

(QURAN 56:17): "They will be served by immortal boys."

(QURAN 76:19): "And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls."
In addition, there is a great deal of discussion of this in the Hadiths and Post-Islamic Arab poetry. For example, in one of the Hadiths, Bukhari's Authentic Traditions, Book LXII (Marriage), Chapter 25:

As for whom(ever) plays with a boy: if he caused him to enter him, then he shall not marry his mother.

Another example, from the poem 'Perfumed Garden', by Abu Nuwas:


O the joy of sodomy!
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils

Now don't go converting based on that. There are also a number of prohibitions, and the jurisprudence is complex. Also, the Arabs are more screwed up sexually than any other people on the planet, and they're as likely to hang a gay as to seduce him.

Rockntractor
04-14-2011, 06:43 PM
The afterlife isn't just female virgins. Here is how the boys are described:


(QURAN 52:24): "And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them as if they were preserved pearls."

(QURAN 56:17): "They will be served by immortal boys."

(QURAN 76:19): "And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls."
In addition, there is a great deal of discussion of this in the Hadiths and Post-Islamic Arab poetry. For example, in one of the Hadiths, Bukhari's Authentic Traditions, Book LXII (Marriage), Chapter 25:

As for whom(ever) plays with a boy: if he caused him to enter him, then he shall not marry his mother.

Another example, from the poem 'Perfumed Garden', by Abu Nuwas:


O the joy of sodomy!
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils

Now don't go converting based on that. There are also a number of prohibitions, and the jurisprudence is complex. Also, the Arabs are more screwed up sexually than any other people on the planet, and they're as likely to hang a gay as to seduce him.
Nova will have to think on that.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/2cy2u80.jpg

Madisonian
04-14-2011, 06:58 PM
lol at least I had a source for my information

And what is the source of your information that if I decide with my wife to not have children that my life is meaningless?
(You wonder why adults do not want you to vote?)

fettpett
04-14-2011, 07:39 PM
I don't have a problem with condoms etc, because those actualy can prevent pregnancy, without risk of a spontaneous abortion. I'm not saying its all bad, but ONE of the functions of the pill, is basicly an IUD. yes it does prevent pregnancy, but sometimes conception occurs, and when it does, the baby is killed because it cannot implant.



lol at least I had a source for my information

so did I

Condoms aren't 100% foolproof and you're more likely to get someone pregnant than the pill. the chances that a woman ovaries will release an egg is small, then for it to get fertilized is even smaller. There are many cases of women getting pregnant while on the pill but it happens rarely

jnkbortka
04-14-2011, 08:10 PM
so did I

I was talking to madisonian, who basically said i was just being an ignorant teenager


Condoms aren't 100% foolproof and you're more likely to get someone pregnant than the pill. the chances that a woman ovaries will release an egg is small, then for it to get fertilized is even smaller. There are many cases of women getting pregnant while on the pill but it happens rarely

as I said before, isn't it worth it to save even one life? a birth control caused miscarriage is what caused the duggars to stop using birth control.

A wise man named Theodore Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, once said, "A person's a person no matter how small"


The afterlife isn't just female virgins. Here is how the boys are described:

(QURAN 52:24): "And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them as if they were preserved pearls."

(QURAN 56:17): "They will be served by immortal boys."

(QURAN 76:19): "And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls."

In addition, there is a great deal of discussion of this in the Hadiths and Post-Islamic Arab poetry. For example, in one of the Hadiths, Bukhari's Authentic Traditions, Book LXII (Marriage), Chapter 25:

As for whom(ever) plays with a boy: if he caused him to enter him, then he shall not marry his mother.

Another example, from the poem 'Perfumed Garden', by Abu Nuwas:

O the joy of sodomy!
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils

Now don't go converting based on that. There are also a number of prohibitions, and the jurisprudence is complex. Also, the Arabs are more screwed up sexually than any other people on the planet, and they're as likely to hang a gay as to seduce him.

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165

None of your canonical quotes actually refer to having sex with other men

Novaheart
04-14-2011, 10:12 PM
The afterlife isn't just female virgins. Here is how the boys are described:

(QURAN 52:24): "And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them as if they were preserved pearls."

(QURAN 56:17): "They will be served by immortal boys."

(QURAN 76:19): "And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls."[/INDENT]


lol!

Go read the actual passages instead of relying on that crackpot website. Those passages have nothing to do with sex.

Islam is evil, you don't have to try to make it evil in some useful way. That makes you a liar, even if Islam is evil.