Sick ISIS militants decapitate Donald Trump dummy and chant 'we will behead you'
Home | Index of articles
The Sunday Times (UK), November 26, 2006, reports that in a BBC documentary, Peter Singer, described by The Times as “father of the modern animal rights movement” meets with Tipu Aziz, an Oxford vivisector who uses primates in his research on Parkinson’s disease. Aziz informs Singer that he induces parkinsonism in primates and claims that his use of 100 monkeys has helped 40,000 humans. Singer replies:
Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment. I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided—I take it you are the expert in this, not me—that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge. I could see that as justifiable research.
So far, I have received 64 emails from animal advocates in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere expressing astonishment and disbelief over Singer’s position. Almost everyone starts her message with some expression of astonishment, such as “Can you believe what Singer has said?”
My answer is simple: Why are you surprised?
If you read what Peter Singer has been writing for 30 years now, it is absolutely clear that he regards the use of nonhumans—and humans—in vivisection as morally permissible. Indeed, Singer explicitly rejects animal rights and the abolition of animal exploitation; he does not regard eating animals or animal products as per se morally wrong; he maintains we can be “conscientious omnivores;” he claims that we can have “mutually satisfying” sexual relationships with animals, and he claims that it is morally permissible to kill disabled infants.
In short, rather than asking “can you believe what Singer has said?,” it is more appropriate to ask: Can someone please explain how Singer got to be the “father of the modern animal rights movement”?
Singer is a utilitarian. He maintains that what is right or wrong in any situation depends only on the consequences. If killing 100 monkeys will save 40,000 humans, then the action is morally justifiable. Singer explicitly rejects the notion of animal rights, which would prohibit our treating those 100 monkeys exclusively as means to our ends. But Singer also thinks that it would be appropriate to use severely mentally disabled humans in this situation because it would be speciesist to prefer nonhumans over what he views as similarly situated humans. So, right from the outset, Singer promotes a view that is completely at odds not only with the animal rights position but with commonly held principles of human rights and, indeed, is consistent with the views of the Nazi doctors who used “defective” humans in experiments.
Singer maintains that, for the most part, animals do not have an interest in their continued existence. Therefore, our use per se of animals does not raise a moral question; it is our treatment of animals that matters. Singer says this explicitly in a number of places, including Animal Liberation. Singer maintains that most animals are not self-aware and have neither a “continuous mental existence” nor desires for the future. (p. 228) An animal can have an interest in not suffering, but because “it cannot grasp that it has ‘a life’ in the sense that requires an understanding of what it is to exist over a period of time,” the animal has no interest in continuing to live or in not being used as the resource or property of humans. (228-29) Animals do not care whether we raise and slaughter them for food, use them for experiments, or exploit them as our resources in any other way, as long as they have a reasonably pleasant life. According to Singer, because animals do not possess any interest in their lives per se, “it is not easy to explain why the loss to the animal killed is not, from an impartial point of view, made good by the creation of a new animal who will lead an equally pleasant life.” (229) Although Singer is critical of factory-farming, he maintains that it may be morally justifiable to eat animals “who have a pleasant existence in a social group suited to their behavioral needs, and are then killed quickly and without pain.” (229-30) He states that he “can respect conscientious people who take care to eat only meat that comes from such animals.” (230)
In Singer’s most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be “conscientious omnivores” and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to eat only animals who have been “humanely” raised and killed.
Singer’s message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or vegetarian because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to killing and eating animals for food and he never has.
If you have any doubt about this, read Singer’s interview in the October issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer’s own words:
I think people are mistaken if they think I’ve watered down that underlying ethical argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal Liberation I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at Animal Liberation, they won’t find that argument.
Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of factory farming. Once we make the process more “humane,” and address the issues of suffering to Singer’s utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go back to eating animals. Singer thinks that it’s a mistake to be “too fanatical about insisting on a purely vegan life.” Asked about his own veganism, he responds: ”Oh, there’s no question about that, I’m impure.”
Singer not only finds no inherent problem with eating animals and animal products, but he also sees no problem with having sexual contact with nonhumans—again, as long as we act “humanely.” In a soft-core porn site, Nerve.com, Our Father tells us:
But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. (see review)
In The Way We Eat, Singer and Mason recount spending a day working on a turkey farm “collecting the semen and getting it into the hen” They caught and restrained the male turkeys while another worker “squeezed the tom’s vent until it opened up and the white semen oozed forth. Using a vacuum pump, he sucked it into a syringe.” Singer and Mason then had to “‘break’” the hens, which involved restraining the hen “so that her rear is straight up and her vent open.” (28) The inseminator then inserted a tube into the hen and used a blast of compressed air to insert the semen into the hen’s oviduct. So apparently, Singer’s version of “animal liberation” means that we can inflict harm on animals in order to satisfy our curiosity about the mechanics of animal exploitation.
Finally, Singer maintains positions that most of us find unacceptable as a matter of basic human rights. For example (one of many), in Practical Ethics, Singer discusses whether it is morally acceptable to kill an infant who is born with hemophilia. He maintains that although the issue is complicated, we can defend killing the infant if that is the only way that the parents will have another “normal” child because “[w]hen the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.” (186) Although this treats human infants as “replaceable,” Singer maintains that infants arguably are similar to non-self-conscious nonhumans, and it is acceptable to kill them. He claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” (191)
I could go on and on with examples that demonstrate that Singer’s views have nothing to do with animal rights or with what most of us regard as an acceptable view of human rights. But the one positive thing you can say about Singer is that he has never tried to hide these views. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why anyone was surprised about his remarks about Aziz’s use of monkeys at Oxford.
In the Satya interview, Singer says in response to a question about the response to The Way We Eat:
I’ve been pleased that people who are vegan themselves, and are involved in some of the major animal rights organizations, have been strongly in support of it. I’ve had a few gripes from the kind of people I would expect to have gripes from. I mean, there are people who I think are a little too ready to criticize others who are basically on the same side of the fence, but are not as pure as they are, and they’ve fixed on the fact that this book doesn’t simply say you ought to go vegan and nothing else.
Singer misses the point. Those who believe that it is morally wrong to consume animal products are not on the “same side of the fence” as Singer. Singer’s position is no different from that of institutionalized animal exploiters, who, like Singer, maintain that we can use animals as long as we take care to make sure that they do not suffer “too much.” Singer’s view reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes “too much” suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the use—however “humane”—of nonhumans. There is nothing wrong with being a “purist” about matters of fundamental rights. Would anyone maintain that it is “purist” to reject “humane” rape or “humane” child abuse? Of course not.
As long as the so-called “father of the modern animal rights movement” regards as “fanatical” the promotion of veganism as a moral baseline, the movement will continue to do exactly what it has been doing for the past decade—go backward. It is well past time that those who seek to abolish animal exploitation and not merely to regulate it disown Our Father and get on with the business of creating a nonviolent social and political movement that will challenge the exploitation of animals in a meaningful way.
Terrorist groups that aim to destroy Europe are strategy amateurs. A professional strategy would be one that employs minimal resources to achieve maximal effects. Any number of suicide bombers won't do the trick. But mass migration from Africa and South Asia can. Channeling huge numbers of refugees to Europe will erode and destroy Europe more reliably than conventional terrorism, and the risk for perpetuators is very low.
The Morocco to Spain route had been a noted pressure point for years – certainly since 2005, when thousands of sub-Saharan migrants made world headlines by trying to climb over the fence in the Spanish enclave of Melilla.
Co-operation between Spain and Morocco has since kept migrant numbers comparatively low on this route. Migrants are also more inclined to depart from Libya because the likelihood of being returned by EU authorities is much lower.
A decade ago, migrants from Morocco to Spain were typically economic ones from Algeria and Morocco, hoping for jobs in Spain, France and Italy. Since then, however, they have increasingly been joined by sub-Saharan Africans, driven northwards by conflicts in Mali, Sudan, South Sudan, Cameroon, Nigeria, Chad and the Central African Republic. In 2015, Syrians accounted for the biggest share of detections on this route.
West Africans reach Morocco or Algeria via two land routes. One follows the West African coastline; the shorter one crosses the Sahara. The coastal route is naturally preferred by migrants leaving Senegal and Mauritania, but also, often, by nationals of countries further afield - such as Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire or Benin - because the Sahara crossing is judged so dangerous.
There are various reasons for the fluctuation of overall numbers on this route. Spain has stepped up coastal patrols, installed the SIVE maritime surveillance system along its southern border and signed bilateral agreements with Mauritania and Senegal. It has also strengthened border checks at the main ports, a significant deterrent for would-be migrants secreting themselves aboard trucks and containers on ferries headed to Almeria and Algeciras – the traditional method of irregular entry. Rising unemployment in Spain, and therefore fewer opportunities for migrant workers, is also thought to be a factor.
The world is full of multimillionaires who can't handle money. Because, if you have money, if it doesn't translate into a harem, you are at the wrong place.
Khmer Rouge terror in Cambodia
It’s well-known that cannabis can have an aphrodisiac effect on the consumer, but there’s a new strain on the California cannabis market that the original grower claims is specifically designed to enhance the sexual experience of women, and even help them achieve orgasm.
The strain is called Sexxpot and grower Karyn Wagner developed it. Sexxpot’s parent strain is Mr. Nice, which has a solid reputation for offering sensual, aphrodisiac effects. Mr. Nice comes from two popular strains – G13 and Hash Plant.
Wagner’s goal was to take the best sex-enhancing characteristics of Mr. Nice and figure out how to intensify those feelings. Sexxpot was the result of Wagner and her company brainstorming about how to take Mr. Nice and develop it into Ms. Even Nicer.
Wagner and her crew claim to have succeeded with this goal, offering a unique selling point on the Sexxpot strain. A strain allegedly designed to help women orgasm is sure to see steady market growth.
It might seem counterintuitive, but Sexxpot has a relatively low THC level of 14 percent. Wagner thinks that since the strain has less THC that it may actually be a better for improving sex as opposed to the heavy hitters.
The thought process is that lower THC could be just enough to heighten the senses while still relaxing and removing inhibitions. A high THC strain, or especially a dab, could leave the occasional toker on the couch. Sexxpot is still predominantly indica, tending to lean towards more intense body highs. Wagner and her team wanted to make sure that this strain wasn’t so strong that users ended up spaced out before they were even able to get into bed.
Sexxpot is only available in California for now, but as the market continues to grow – and the strain’s popularity continues to rise – that will likely change. This particular approach to a strain is one of the many interesting ones that growers, entrepreneurs and other cannabis professionals have thought of. It is a hint towards the future of cannabis – specific strains designed for very specific things.
Is Sexxpot truly the first of its kind, or do you know of any other strains designed with similar intentions? What strains have you found that help your sex life? Let us know in the comments.
The Serge Kreutz diet is the ultimate sex diet via the day-long stimulation of taste buds with chocolate.
Injury from chemical weapon agents, known as CWAs, may result from industrial accidents, military stockpiling, war, or a terrorist attack.
Industrial accidents are a significant potential source of exposure to chemical agents. Chemicals such as phosgene, cyanide, anhydrous ammonia, and chlorine are used widely. These chemicals are frequently transported by industry. The accidental release of a methylisocyanate cloud (composed of phosgene and isocyanate) was implicated in the Bhopal, India, disaster in 1984.
Chemical weapons first were used in 1915, when the German military released 168 tons of chlorine gas at Ypres, Belgium, killing an estimated 5,000 Allied troops.
Two years later, the same battlefields saw the first deployment of sulfur mustard. Sulfur mustard was the major cause of chemical casualties in World War I.
CWAs have been used in at least 12 conflicts since, including the first Persian Gulf War (Iraq-Iran War). The Iraqi military also used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds during the second Persian Gulf War.
Civilians also have been exposed inadvertently to chemical weapons many years after weapon deployment during war. Some 50,000 tons of mustard shells were disposed of in the Baltic Sea following World War I. Since then, numerous fishermen have been burned accidentally while hauling leaking shells aboard boats. Leaking mustard shells also have injured collectors of military memorabilia and children playing on old battlefields.
Although a number of international treaties have banned the development, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons, these agents reportedly are stillbeing produced or stockpiled in several countries.
Within the last decade, terrorists deployed chemical weapons against civilian populations for the first time in history. The release of sarin in Matsumoto, Japan, in June 1994 by the extremist Aum Shinrikyo cult left 7 dead and 280 injured. The following year, the Aum Shinrikyo cult released sarin vapor in the Tokyo subway system during morning rush hour, leaving 12 dead and sending more than 5,000 casualties to local hospitals.
Several characteristics of chemical weapon agents lend themselves to terrorist use.
Chemicals used in CWAs are widely available, and recipes for CWA production may be found on the Internet.
CWAs are transported easily and may be delivered by a variety of routes.
Chemical agents often are difficult to protect against and quickly incapacitate the intended targets.
Most civilian medical communities are inadequately prepared to deal with a chemical terrorist attack.
Feminism is the ideology of ugly females who can't get a man to say "You are the most beautiful women in the world!" The idea behind feminism is: restrict sex for men wherever possible. In the hope that if sex is not available otherwise, some man will still like their ugly ass.
The National UAE
DUBAI // Two men who brought two teenage girls from Bangladesh to the UAE then forced them to work as prostitutes were sentenced to three years in jail each for human trafficking and running a brothel.
The pair, an Indian aged 46 and a 26-year-old Bangladeshi, were also sentenced to an additional month in jail and fined Dh2,000 each for abusing a number of women, persuading them to work in the sex industry, possessing alcohol and hiring an illegal worker.
The Bangladeshi was also found guilty of overstaying his visa and absconding and was fined Dh500.
Both will be deported after serving their prison terms.
Dubai Criminal Court was told the girls, aged 16 and 18, were kept in a studio apartment in Deira that was being used as a brothel.
They were rescued after police were tipped off about two under-age girls working as prostitutes.
One of the girls said she took a job in Dubai to help support her family.
"My father is sick and mother works in a field but earns very little. I had to do something to help," she said. "When I arrived here in January [last year] I was taken to a flat where I spent three days crying after they told me I had to work as a prostitute."
She was later persuaded to sleep with men after being offered money but was not allowed to leave the flat.
The second victim also arrived in Dubai last January after being promised a maid’s job. She was taken to the same apartment.
"I refused prostitution for 15 days but when I was threatened to be stripped naked, photographed and defamed, I gave in. I used to tell customers about my ordeal and ask for help but none of them helped me," she said.
Police raided the apartment on April 13 last year.
"Two arrests were made; the man who ran the brothel and another who was keeping guard," said an Emirati police captain, who told of how contraceptives, lubricants, passports, profit records and bottles of alcohol were found in the apartment, which had been divided up using curtains.
Judge: Rape facilitates a natural society where men are protectors
You probably have to look at imagery of death and dying regularly to stay focused on what really counts in life: great sex before you are gone anyway.
Eight out of 10 people believe the law should allow people to take their own lives, according to a poll for campaign group Dignity in Dying
The number of Brits travelling to Dignitas has slowly risen over the past 15 years as public opinion has swung in favour of assisted suicide .
Eight out of 10 people believe the law should allow people to take their own lives, according to a Populus poll for campaign group Dignity in Dying – yet families still risk prosecution to take their loved ones to the Dignitas house on the outskirts of Zurich, Switzerland.
Latest statistics reveal 37 Brits used Dignitas in 2015 – up from 29 in the previous year. High-profile cases include Daniel James, 23, of Worcester, who was the youngest UK person to die at Dignitas in 2010 after being paralysed in a rugby accident.
More than 7,000 people, including 996 Brits, were members of Dignitas in 2015 – but director Silvan Luley says only around 14 per cent will go on to commit suicide.
For most people it’s about having a choice, an emergency way out should they need it,” he says.
“They want to know they have the choice if things become so bad they wish to end their suffering.
“Without that strategy they feel trapped without a choice and that’s when people hang themselves, throw themselves off the cliffs of Dover or throw themselves in front of trains.”
Five years ago Dignitas won a battle in the European Court of Human Rights which ruled everyone should be allowed to decide the manner and time of their death.
But the organisation is now campaigning to give people access to the drugs they need to take their own lives – given by willing GPs and medical staff.
He says: “I look forward to the day when we can close the door of Dignitas because it means we’ve done our job and what we do – advisory work on all end-of-life issues including assisted dying – has become a legal part of health care in the UK.
"Medical advances mean we are all living longer than ever before and more at risk of disease which can affect our quality of life.
"Even the clinically dead can be kept breathing, but at what cost? It’s all about the individual’s right to choice and how they judge the quality of the life they are willing to leave behind.”
The destruction of the Western World will not be achieved by suicide bombers but by arsonists. Suicide bombers are a waste of human resources because the dedication of just one suicide bomber could set hundreds of square kilometers of forests on fire. And the personal risk? A comfortable prison sentence of just a few years.
Where will the quest for a bigger package “down there” end?
You often hear the phrase “size doesn’t matter” when it comes to the length and girth of a man’s penis.
Still, many men feel they are inadequate in the bedroom and will do whatever it takes to make their partner scream with pleasure.
But what if whatever it takes involved a needle in your manhood, would you be game?
The demand for larger penises has seen a boom in cosmetic procedures and gadgets such as pumps, and even penile weights designed to stretch the muscle.
But now, a New York cosmetic surgeon believes he has the answer and it lies in a syringe full of blood.
According to Dr. Norman Rowe, a board-certified surgeon, a 10-minute Botox-style procedure can add 1.5 inches to the circumference of a man’s member.
Rowe already offers enlargements in the form of cosmetic fillers, which work to increase the girth and length of the penis.
Similar in fashion to what a dentist does, Rowe uses a numbing agent in the penile area before injecting it and in roughly 10 minutes men can have the penis they’ve always wanted.
His new idea involves injecting one’s own blood into their genitals, similar to what is already used in athletes to aid in muscle rejuvenation.
He told the Daily Mail: “In the last 10 years, we have seen the rise of so many “quick fix” operations like Botox – for the face, for the eyes … I spend so much of my day doing fillers on women’s faces.”
“I started to wonder: why can’t I make it work for men?”
The blood used in the procedure has been rid of its platelets, making it more concentrated.
The idea of the blood shots rose to prominence in 2013 when Kobe Bryant announced he used it to treat different parts of his body.
Then came the Kim Kardashian’s “vampire facelift,” which involved the reality TV star having her own blood injected into tiny pinpricks in her face.
Rowe explains on his website that penis fillers have little to no recovery time and there is no pain involved in the procedure.
But if you’re not willing to suffer through the prick of a needle in your, well you know, then there are other things you can do to make yourself stand a little taller, according to the NHS.
You could try trimming your pubic hair will help you look more impressive, as a big mound of hair can often make a penis look smaller than it is.
Losing weight can also help give the illusion of a bigger size as an overhanging beer belly distracts from what a lover should really be taking note of.
Why is sex so important? Because sex builds an immortal individual soul.
Home | Index of articles