Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
November 10, 2023
Progressive Author Promotes "Moral Permissibility" Of "Sexual Contact" With "Animals"
Modernity and morality don’t tend to go hand in hand. The responses to the biggest questions in life are often answered with mostly shallow, wrong, and weak beliefs. And subsequently, when something is morally wrong, that makes that thing evil.
Many progressives are not capable of handing on moral convictions to the next generation, although they definitely think otherwise. In fact, one of the main components of progressivism is that those who disagree with them do not simply have a different perspective or opinion but anyone with a dissenting view is inherently evil.
One of the major problems with progressive morality is that you can never be woke enough. And the tide for what is acceptable just keeps moving further and further to the left. Basically, it's a slippery slope.
One of the leaders in the leftist morality movement is Peter Singer. He is an abhorrent man who “teaches ‘practical ethics,’ which he defines as the application of morality to practical problems based on philosophical thinking rather than religious beliefs.”
Let me be blunt, pretty much anyone who believes anything this man says is a monster. His views are so incoherent and evil that you cannot wrap your head around them.
Singer tends to focus on justifying the unjustifiable and is basically considered the father of the vegan movement, although he is not a vegan himself because even he knows his views are a load of crap.
He believes it is morally justifiable to kill the elderly when they have dementia or other diseases, newborns up to two years of age, and necrophilia as long as it is consensual (what????), and his newest X post is in favor of bestiality. But only assuming it's also consensual, of course.
In other words, Singer believes rape and murder are justifiable but eating meat is wrong.
“This piece challenges one of society's strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals. This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics,” Singer wrote in an X post on Wednesday.
He also said the article was “thought-provoking” but it is probably safe to say it was more than thoughts that provoked him.
What is even more creepy about the post is that he attached a piece of “art” he had AI create to promote dog rape.
I am lost here. So eating meat is bad, but raping animals is good? Does anyone else understand the logic here?
Is this why he wants to keep the animals alive so badly? So he can rape them?
And people really wonder why conservatives hate higher education.
The article promoted by Singer argues that “zoophilia is morally permissible” and this has “major implications for how we legally and socially deal with zoophilia.”
“Zoophilia ought to be made legally permissible. This entails decriminalizing it where it is currently outlawed and fighting against the current wave of decriminalization. Going beyond mere legalization, we could argue further that zoophilia ought to be socially normalized too,” the article concludes.
Pretty ironic how the father of animal rights is also advocation for animal rape. What a coincidence.
Singer pretends he is a philosopher concerned with ethics but he clearly has no respect for moral philosophy. In fact, he is better off calling himself a philosophical psychopath.
Singer has argued that disabled people and animals are the same when it comes to ethical analysis. And that if someone is intellectually disabled, then rape is permissible, so long as they don’t resist because that justifies an assumption that someone enjoys being raped. This is the argument he uses for bestiality. Subsequently, this form of reasoning would justify pedophilia as long as the child is incapable of understanding the notion of consent.
Singer has based his career on dehumanizing people and justifying sexual abuse. All his work should be totally condemned. Yet, he holds a bioethics position at Princeton. But I guess it is no surprise that such a “prestigious” university has no problem with bestiality, necrophilia, or infanticide.All that said, I think the answer to this “debate” should be left up to the man who created both humans and animals. “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.” There you have it. Case closed.