<p>I will be doing FSI this summer at Pton and our first lecture will be delivered by Peter Singer, the famous bio-ethicist. I was looking him up on Wikipedia and this article was there. He argues that its ok for humans to have sexual relationships with non-humans (dogs, horses, etc.). Read the article </p>
<p>i read it. quite a strange, albeit interesting read. seems like a fascinating guy to have a friendly and intellectual conversation/argument with.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say he's "sick," but it would be interesting to find out the basis of his viewpoints. Yay for intellectual diversity! Hehe.</p>
<p>On second glance, I don't think he was promoting it or even saying that he believed in it. He was simply noting that it's not completely unnormal. Interesting.</p>
<p>I don't know about "interesting", just seems disturbing to me. Just entertaining the thought of humans having any type of sexual relationship with non-humans is mind boggling to me.</p>
<p>I guess you need to open your mind up a bit, even to that which appears to be absurd. Are you not willing to watch History Channel documentaries on the Nazi's? The organized slaughter of human beings is quite mind-boggling as well, but the essence of intellectual discussion is allowing one to free their mind from the restrictions of that which is so often and so subjectively called "normal." The fact of the matter is, statistics show that people, in fact, do engage in sexual conduct with other animals, and I can't see this as such a "disturbing" fact; while it may be "disgusting" in the majority's eyes (as well as my own), I believe Singer is merely displaying the existence of such "eccentric" activities in as non-biased a light as possible.</p>
<p>I would suggest that you read some of Singer's writings on the topics you disagree with. Often times people both inside and outside of Princeton who disagree with him will go, "OMG WANTS 2 KILL BABIES" never having read any of his writings or attended a lecture of his. If you are really interested, Prof. Singer offered a Fall freshman seminar last year; you could apply for that and challenge him there.</p>
<p>I'll never EVER take a class with him. Ever.</p>
<p>I dunno. I think his classes would probably be really interesting albeit a tad ...ummm strange.</p>
<p>at CA last year, he came and had dinner w/ our group. he didnt talk very much.</p>
<p>he's a surprisingly dull lecturer, given his subject matter.</p>
<p>oh is he dull? I was just beginning to anticipate some interesting lectures :(</p>
<p>I'm not a closed minded person (come on, i'm from liberal california) but you know, for me some things are not up for discussion. Also, i don't think i need to take a class with him or read all of his material to understand him. I don't need to read the communist manifesto to understand Lenin or Castro and I don't need to read Mein Kampf to understand Hitler and his attrocities. I reject that notion.</p>
<p>Having sex with animals is completely wrong because it is like rape. Why don't you legalize rape then Mr. Dumb Princeton Professor.</p>
<p>i'm not sure either of you has read singer correctly on this. he is, after all, widely credited as the father of the animal rights movement. from an editorial review of his 1975 book, animal liberation, on amazon.com:</p>
<p>"The modern animal rights movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of Animal Liberation by Australian philosopher Peter Singer," declared Newsweek of the first edition, and this "bible" for animal rights activists has just undergone a second edition. Singer continues his "blistering indictment of so-called humane use of animals in scientific research" ( LJ 12/1/75), describes the current (and still atrocious) state of animal testing, and brings up to date the activities of the animal rights movement, nascent at the time of the first edition's release. This is a necessary purchase for any animal rights collection.</p>
<p>From the article:
[quote]
The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that 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 ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
[/quote]
I fail to see how that promotes sexual relations between animals and humans--but just acknowledging that it happens seems to be almost as controversial as if he were condoning it.</p>
<p>eh, It seems princeton has been having a bit more than its share (in whatever random way that can be defined) of sexuals noncomformists in the news, ie that one guy who "contaminated" girls drinks and now... this prof, come on, is nj REALLY that boring</p>
<p>princeton hired peter singer about five years ago. he is only "making news" now to the extent that one excitable pre-frosh here has expressed his offense at an old article of singer's.</p>
<p>haha</p>
<p>"excitable pre-frosh"</p>
<p>Excuse me for being a little excited when a man who plays an important role at MY university has such outrageous opinions. Beastiality is just gross. I mean the animals don't even know whats going on. It is a form of animal abuse in its self. Singer believes that it is only abuse if you physically hurt the animal. So according to him: don't eat animals, sex ok.</p>
<p>Next thing you know humans and dogs will be getting married because they "love" each other. Its just a big cess pool.</p>
<p>Did you even read the full article, or the quote I posted? He explicitly stated that it is not "normal or natural" (his words). He wasn't supporting the concept, only noting the fact that it exists.</p>
<p>By the way, "it's just gross" is never an acceptable argument. People have said the same about homosexuality or interracial relationships. It's a subjective opinion, not a valid point in a debate.</p>
<p>I most emphatically do not support bestiality, but some of you seem to need to get your panties (boxers, tighty whities, whatever) untwisted regarding the actual content of the article.</p>
<p>"Excuse me for being a little excited when a man who plays an important role at MY university has such outrageous opinions."</p>
<p>last i checked, universities like princeton were committed to intellectual pluralism and a healthy diversity of ideas. naturally, you're not going to agree with the ideas of EVERY princeton professor (it's impossible, where they clash), but you're free, like trustee steve forbes and everyone else, to take your money elsewhere (forbes huffed that he would no longer give to the university after singer's hire). so, i WILL excuse you your excitability. but i think you'd do right not to call a reputable professor "sick" and then grossly oversimplify, if not outright mischaracterize, his ideas, before at least having read and reasoned through his body of work. in fact, i'd encourage you to take his freshman seminar or his course while at princeton.</p>