Ah yes, Peter “I didn’t say we should kill all disabled people… just many of them. It’s for their own good you know” Singer.
But he’s a vegetarian, so that balances it out. /s
Seriously, people keep talking about how Singer’s arguments are “mathematically precise”, but it doesn’t matter half a god damn when that mathematical precision is based around an implicit “assume 1=2”.
As I’ve said before, Singer is a philosophical troll. Every one of his major arguments follows the same deceitful pattern:
Step 1- make a bland, uncontroversial statement that people will agree with without thinking about it.
Step 2- demonstrate the consequences of rigorously enforcing that vaguely defined principle
Step 3- don’t re-examine your initial assumptions. Imply that everyone is evil and hypocritical if they don’t follow the most extreme version of the principle outlined in step 1
Step 4- profit from the controversy that this produces.
Not surprisingly, this is similar to Jordaddy’s M.O.
Of course, none of these charlatans get where they are without sympathetic coverage from the corporate media. Today’s case in point about Studiously Schlubby Sam, another wealthy proponent of “effective altruism”:
It reads like if the Times had conducted an interview with Bernie Madoff after his ponzi scheme collapsed and ultimately suggested he just made some bad investments.
David Yaffe-Bellany’s editorial on Sam Bankman-Fried. Ahhh. The world of the hyphenated ones. 
the times has run 40 articles on FTX in the past week. Some of them merely add color.
The NYT has spent the last year buying into and bolstering Bankman-Fried phony-baloney image as the genius philosopher front-man for a pyramid scheme industry. After all that investment they’re finding it hard to let go, despite the fact that he’s been exposed as a Ponzi schemer.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
