Princeton professor sparks outrage by calling journal article about sex with animals ‘thought provoking’: ‘Someone check his hard drive’

thtrangdaien

Princeton professor sparks outrage by calling journal article about sex with animals ‘thought provoking’: ‘Someone check his hard drive’

A Princeton professor accused of “arguing for decades that we need to rethink animalism” has again come under fire for urging his social media followers to “read and ponder” a “thought-provoking” journal article titled “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible.”

Dr Peter Singer, a bioethics teacher at the Ivy League school’s Center for Human Values ​​since 1999, posted a link to the article on his X account — where the reaction starts almost immediately.

“This piece challenges one of society’s strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some form of sexual intercourse between humans and animals,” the 77-year-old prof wrote in the journal article, written under a pseudonym and published by the Journal of Controversial Ideas.

“This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion about animal ethics and sex ethics,” Singer continued. “Read and ponder.”

The work, which is available online, points out that animals can consent to have sex with humans and that it may not always be a dangerous experience for them.

“The case for allowing zoophilia is fairly strong, and the objections commonly raised are flat or insufficiently substantiated,” said the piece’s anonymous author.

The professor was criticized for sharing the article “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible” on his X account. Peter Singer/Twitter The work, available online, points out that animals can consent to have sex with humans and that it may not always be a dangerous experience. for them. Peter Singer/Twitter

“Critics of zoophilia need more than outrage, they need better arguments,” it concluded. “I suggest that the plausibility of zoophilia should now be taken as the default position, with the burden of proof resting on its detractors.”

See also  Britney Spears Got A New Tattoo In Her Hotel Room In Maui?!

The singer, who is a vegetarian, is best known for his 1975 work “Animal Liberation,” which famously opposed most animal experiments.

An X user points out what they consider to be the difference in a scathing review, wrote: “Can’t eat them. Can f–k them.”

“Someone might need to check your hard drive,” a second critic sneered.

“Not every obstacle needs to be broken. Not all norms need to be questioned,” other detractors declared.

Gary Francione, a professor at Rutgers University chime inreminds users that Singer has “argued for decades that we need to rethink animality.”

Singer has taught at Princeton since 1999. He is associated with the Ivy League school’s Center for Human Values ​​Alamy Stock Photo

Francione posted a link to a 2001 essay by Singer, in which he argued: “Sex with animals is not necessarily cruel. Who hasn’t attended a party that was interrupted by a house dog that grabbed the legs of the visitors and rubbed its penis vigorously against them? The host usually does not encourage such activities, but personally not everyone objects to being used by him or his dog in this way, and sometimes mutually satisfying activities may develop.

A disgusted Rutgers prof said of the essay: “I thought it was sick at the time. I think it hurts now. But I appreciate that anything that gets you in the public eye is what works.

The singer’s tweets were still online as of Saturday afternoon. The Post has reached out to the nimble professor for comment.

Meanwhile, in a follow-up post on Facebook, the no-nonsense academic insisted that he had never explicitly stated that he agreed with the premise of the “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible” essay.

See also  Holiday travelers get a Christmas gift of normalcy — except for Southwest fliers marred by delays

“I did not write an article about the reliability of zoophilia. It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that rejects “cancelling culture” by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under pseudonyms,” he wrote, before stating that he was a co-founding editor of the journal.

“The fact that we judged an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editor agree with the views contained therein. We send submitted articles to us for peer review, and if the reviewers think the article contains controversial ideas defended by arguments of a high enough standard to warrant publication, we publish the article,” he said.

Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/