Ram_The_Manparts, Lmao this is some v*ush-tier shit
ikiru, Don’t pretend like a dog never made you horny. smuglord
Nakoichi, That is by far the most unsettling usage of that emoji I have ever seen. Thanks please fuck off lol.
ikiru,
mittens, journal of controversial ideas? no thanks i already can go browse r/askreddit
UlyssesT, You can take the creep out of Epstein’s island, but you can’t take Epstein’s island out of the creep. epsteingelion
Sasuke, i looked up the journal and…
Black Pete, King Balthasar, and the New Orleans Zulus: Can Black Make-Up Traditions Ever Be Justified?
In this article, I challenge the widely held view that black make-up traditions are categorically wrong.
Why Shouldn’t Race Be a Costume?―A (Qualified) Defense of Wearing Cross-Racial Make-Up During Halloween
This article challenges the view that wearing cross-racial make-up on such occasions as part of personal costumes—as opposed to costumes that are integral to specific cultural traditions, such as the New Orleans Zulu parade—is always wrong.
Philosophical Reflections on “the Filthiest, Dirtiest, Nastiest Word in the English Language”1
When, if ever, is it morally permissible to utter the word “joker”? (NB: The word “joker” is a placeholder for another word, the mere utterance of which certain people find unsettling or offensive. See the prolegomenon of this article for an explanation.)
Nakoichi, Journal of Controversial Opinions is just bigotry?
robot_dog_with_gun,
GarbageShoot, You are missing the last line:
Which animal would you rather be?
Which is furthermore underlined in the screenshots he posts, strengthening the implication.
AmarkuntheGatherer, I’d much rather be slaughtered than fucked by Peter Singer, thank you very much.
ikiru, Me protecting the dogs in my home from Peter Singer like
TreadOnMe, While the general rule of thumb is that you should never take professional philosophers very seriously, as their income always is derivative entirely from their closeness to powerful patrons (with exceptions like Socrates who was supposedly a stone mason when not being annoying in public, see the existential comics bit about professional philosophers being less serious about their craft than professional bodybuilders), Peter Singer is someone who you should absolutely not take seriously because all of his work is deeply tied into both the Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation.
Especially if you actually (unlike most people who skim the cliff’s notes, hear it second-hand or just read the title) read his works, particularly his seminal piece in famines, you will realize that all that he ever argues for is utilitarianism, but he has no real qualms around how that maximum utility is achieved (though heaven forbid you mention the achievements of communism), with his personal belief in maximum utility being achieved not by actual wealth redistribution (though he spends the majority of his paper talking about it), but instead (as he slips in right at the end) population control.
That’s right. The liberal academic darling of why it is good to give away your money specifically believes that that money shouldn’t be re-distributed or that maybe the real value is being exploited, no it’s that in order for less poor people to starve, there needs to be less poor people. Liberal academics everyone! Spending 25 pages to only say one sentence!
Fluid, Just because you’re articulate doesn’t mean you’re right, it just makes you a sophist.
PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS, The most normal utilitarian
anticlockwise, Deranged Hexbear trolls do not miss.
moujikman, I’m now convinced he wrote the article.
Maoo, These anti-zoophilia liberals are trying to CANCEL this HERO
Crowtee_Robot, Yup those are the only two choices.
professionalduster, am I missing something or did he not actually answer the question or give his opinion on the question
iridaniotter, He absolutely did, but he did it in a specific way so that when people call him out in the future, he can say he technically never did say he supported it!
Add comment