Herbert Spencer Wrote:The next questions are why any public tax supported university would want to employ a slimy, anti-Christian bigot, and why a quasi-public agency like CHEA would care to have a slimy, anti-Christian bigot on its board of directors?   For that matter, why is the slimy, anti-Christian bigot Alan Contreras still employed by the State of Oregon?   It's about time somebody took a hard look at these two animals.

Quote:Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?
    
And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
    
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.
    
His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.
    
Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
    
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.
    
Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.

Quote:prominent crackpot Peter Singer?

Quote:    To promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy-makers

    To provide secular humanist activities and communities to serve the needs of nonreligious people and foster human enrichment

    To demonstrate the viability of the secular humanist eupraxophy as an alternative naturalistic life-stance

    To engage in research relating to the critical examination of religious and supernatural claims and the humanist outlook

    To conduct educational programs for all age levels

Quote:Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)

Quote:The animal rights/welfare movement paints a chilling picture of helpless creatures
caught in the machinery of agriculture’s industrialization, victims of a relentless economic
revolution that results in ever-worsening confinement conditions in pursuit of the
cheapest production costs. Corporate owners defend against cries for government control
by invoking free market principles and fears of economic disaster due to foreign competition.
The animals themselves, of course, have no voice in the political machinery that
will decide their fate and must rely instead on others to make their case by proxy, reformers
typically motivated by ideology rather than economic self-interest.
We have been down this road before. As the above excerpts starkly remind us,
the last wave of industrialization resulted in the increasing abuse of another powerless
group – children. In mid-1800s Britain, many thousands of pre-teen children worked at
hard labor in factories, mills, and coal mines. Even younger children were not spared. In
1851, census figures showed that 49,000 British children between the ages of 5 and 9
were employed. As historian E.P. Thompson (1968 p. 384) put it, “the exploitation of
little children [during the Industrial Revolution] was one of the most shameful events of
our history.”
While the comparison between child labor during the Industrial Revolution and
animal welfare issues in the Agricultural Revolution is not perfect, there are many similarities,
which makes an examination of the history of child labor reform instructive.
Both groups are powerless, in the sense of having no direct access to the political system.