At 11:03 AM 6/6/02 -0700, Marta Russell wrote:
>I did not claim this was a "leftist" site -- only a place to find
>Peter Singer references and perhaps the quotes with page numbers
>Michael wanted.
>Actually most of them are already in LBO archive files.
There's not much there that's useful. Mostly broken links, particularly for items that Singer has written himself or links to interviews.
>>Budge wrote:
>>every time this topic comes up, you are asked to provide
>>quotes of what singer actually said, prefereably in context,
>>and time and again the activist literature turns out to not
>>faithfully represent his views; sometime actually
>>fabricating 'quotes'. and time and again, it turns out your
>>allies in this movement are a bunch of reactionary
>>anti-abortion nuts.
>
>
>Name one time I have cited a Peter Singer quote incorrrectly.
The charge was that the _activist literature_ misrepresented Singer's views, taking him out of context. A specific time would be the time you forwarded a Press Release about disability activists' rejections of Singer's views in a piece on bestiality for an online 'zine called, Nerve. What Singer actually said and what the Press Release claimed he said were completely at odds.
so, try this link from the archives to see first rate <cough><gag><spit> press release reportage:
PRESS RELEASE: MARCH 28, 2001 ========================== Professor Gary Francione today called for Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer to stand down as President of The Great Ape Project International. Francione, who is Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law and author of several books on animal rights, called for Singer's resignation in the wake of Singer's essay on bestiality, available in the March/April edition of Nerve Magazine, <http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/>.
now, here are my comments and your acknowledgement that you never read what the PR said, but forwarded it anyway:
> > At 02:27 PM 4/3/01 -0800, Marta Russell wrote:
> >
> > >No joke. The press release was an announcement of the de-throning of
> > >Singer from his position at that particular animal group organization.
> > >Sheep, afterall, can't and don't give consent to humans to use them
> > >for sexual pleasure --
> > >so are you saying you condone having sex with animals? That would
> > >certainly give a new slant on farming.
> > >Marta
> >
> > peter singer certainly isn't condoning it either.
>
>I don't really know whether he is or not. This announcement says
>Singer thinks people and animals can have satisfying sexual
>relationships - for utilitarian logic it sounds pretty much like going
>along with the act to me. But I would need to read more.
>
>
>Marta well, there's an article to read. it does not, in fact, condone sex with animals. rather, he uses the issue to criticize something peculiar to the western tradition: imagining ourselves as somewhere between gods and animals. furthermore, he points out that it all depends on what you call sex. if you aren't of the mind that sex is strictly procreative and, further, you aren't of the mind that only some kinds of sex are sex (unlike former PenisOne and teens who think having anal sex doesn't affect your status as a virgin), then riding a horse is a form of sex, as is allowing a dog to hump your leg! then he mentions the ape that approached a woman for sex. he also points out that men have sex with chickens, which is usually deadly for the chickens and definitely so when they chop off their heads to increase the strength of the anal spasms in the chicken. he then compares that practice to penning the chicken so that it cannot move and keeping it their til butcher time. both,he says are cruel. the sex/head chopping act is no more cruel that penning it up. his point is not to condone sex with animals. he says that noting that we do it and that it appears that apes and perhaps other animals give consent or exercise some form of agency does not mean that it is right or natural. rather, he says that it means that we can no longer justify the view that it (sex with animals) ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. iow, maybe there are other ways to speak of human dignity without entailing that it be built on the ways we've done so thus far. i really don't give a bat's eyelash about the issue. but i do find it annoying that the press release is a lie. and a big one. kelley http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0104/0164.html
>>Budge wrote:
>>it's damned unfortunate that you make common cause with
>>these people.
>
>Make common cause with what people?
>
>Frankly this has become a bore and I have better things to do with my time.
>Don't be so lazy. The quotes are in the archives and they are accurate.
Since this comes up as frequently as it does, then I think it behooves you to look up those posts and save references to the links so you can repost them.
The list archives are not as searchable through google as they once were. Why should someone else be called lazy, and not you for refusing to defend your own claims?
kelley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPP+zhLj/k4M/OpU9EQI8pACfYAeNKKdOdtcYMPaY9V8ZYJ7Cfy0AoINN Fafjt0tl4ac0DlZHZLKN3ofi =EFRY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----