THE PSYCHOLOGIST : THE DISGUSTING CONCLUSIONS OF A MAN WHO THINKS HE KNOWS IT ALL

THE DISGUSTING CONCLUSIONS OF A MAN WHO THINKS HE KNOWS IT ALL

A Leftist, of course

"While I have never considered myself a Peter Singer fan, I now consider myself a not-fan." When did I become a Peter Singer not-fan? Or, rather, when should anyone? On any of the following occassions.

When you discover he is a determined defender of abortion and infanticide at the whim of the mother.

When you read him insist that, if faced with a choice, you should save the drowning chimp rather than the drowning infant.

When you read him insist upon vegetarianism and utterly leveling and economy destroying wealth transfers from rich to poor, globally.

When you read him expressing the most complete moral skepticism, the fashionable doctrine of an "invented" morality, and then using the language of morals to urge personal whims (remember that on his own view they cannot be moral convictions), knowing and because his doing so will deceive most readers.

[My respect for moral skeptics will skyrocket to the level I normally afford total strangers when, having "discovered" morality is folderol, they stop using the language of morals to bedazzle fools who don't get it, much as particularly wicked atheists might use God to cow the unwashed into acceptable behavior - perhaps after giving us all lessons in the "emotive meaning" of theological discourse. There must be some who are too honest for "revisionism." But I don't know any. Or of any.]

When you read any of his coarse and stupid and low propaganda efforts (he has written whole books like this), undertaken in the spirit of the very bright and mannerly George Bush pere looking for boob votes with his "Read my lips. No new taxes," and his absurdities about atheists and citizenship, Americanism, or voting, or whatever low drivel it was.

Mr. Thurley expresses some displeasure at the blank Professor Singer so clearly draws when required to understand or sympathize with the intellectual bases and legitimacy of a commitment to the RC Church by a number of very high-profile and famously bright contemporary philosophers (Nick Rescher is still at Pitt). No doubt the Professor would have at least as much trouble with a star philosopher's commitment to orthodox, or even conservative, Judaism, but that is also something we have seen in living memory.

As for me, while I am always curious about the religious commitments of people whose minds I respect (I begin by being pleasantly surprised that they have any), I confess that the baffled and incredulous displeasure of a Singer confronted with religious faith is my very own reaction when confronted with any version of naturalism.

Especially, I must say, in connection with discussions of the mind-body problem, or of various key issues in ontology related intimately to epistemology. It always astonishes me when otherwise sensible and obviously bright folks look me straight in the face and insist there are no appearances, and there are not even any minds for things to appear to; there are no beliefs or desires, there are certainly no propositions, nor are there numbers, sets, or possible worlds. And so on, actually, through a sometimes (to me) shockingly long and often surprising list of things that aren't, according to them.

Follow PT's link to the World Magazine article on the "Blue State Philosopher" from Australia.

Nice quote, this. If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

While we slide down slippery slopes, people like this are jumping off cliffs.

More here

No comments:

Background

The essence of conservatism is caution. The essence of Leftism is anger

This blog is written solely by John Ray, who has a Ph.D. degree in psychology and 200+ papers published in the academic journals of the social sciences. It does occasionally comment on issues in psychology but is mainly aimed at giving a conservative psychologist's view on a broad range of topics. There are very few conservative psychologists.

The blog originated in Australia and many (but not most) posts discuss Australian matters. Australians have an unusually good awareness of events outside their own country. Australian newspapers feature news from Britain and the USA not as an afterthought but as a major part of their coverage. So Australians do tend to have a truly Western heart, which is the reason behind the old name for this blog. So events in Australia, Britain and the USA all feature frequently here, plus occasional coverage of other places, particularly Israel.

A primer in American politics for non-Americans:

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land

The "GOP" stands for "Grand Old Party" and refers to the Republican party. The GOP is at present center/Right, while the Democrats have been undergoing a steady drift Leftwards and now have policies similar to mainstream European Leftist parties.

The ideological identity of both parties has however been very fluid -- almost reversing itself over time. In the mid 19th century, the GOP was the party of big government and concern for minorities while the Democrats advertised themselves as "The party of the white man" -- an orientation that lasted into the mid 20th century in the South. The Democrats are still obsessed with race but have now flipped into support for discrimination AGAINST whites.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Global warming

Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here

Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

The term "Fascism" is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. But when they do make a serious attempt to define it, they produce very complex and elaborate definitions -- e.g. here and here. In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism. But great gyrations are needed to avoid mentioning the first part of that recipe, of course.

Two examples of Leftist racism below (much more here and here):

Beatrice Webb, a founder of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society, and married to a Labour MP, mused in 1922 on whether when English children were "dying from lack of milk", one should extend "the charitable impulse" to Russian and Chinese children who, if saved this year, might anyway die next. Besides, she continued, there was "the larger question of whether those races are desirable inhabitants" and "obviously" one wouldn't "spend one's available income" on "a Central African negro".

Hugh Dalton, offered the Colonial Office during Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government, turned it down because "I had a horrid vision of pullulating, poverty stricken, diseased nigger communities, for whom one can do nothing in the short run and who, the more one tries to help them, are querulous and ungrateful."

Defensible and indefensible usages of the term "racism"

The book, The authoritarian personality, authored by T.W. Adorno et al. in 1950, has been massively popular among psychologists. It claims that a set of ideas that were popular in the "Progressive"-dominated America of the prewar era were "authoritarian". Leftist regimes always are authoritarian so that claim was not a big problem. What was quite amazing however is that Adorno et al. identified such ideas as "conservative". They were in fact simply popular ideas of the day but ones that had been most heavily promoted by the Left right up until the then-recent WWII. See here for details of prewar "Progressive" thinking.

R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. He pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a war criminal. Both British and American codebreakers had cracked the Japanese naval code so FDR knew what was coming at Pearl Harbor. But for his own political reasons he warned no-one there. So responsibility for the civilian and military deaths at Pearl Harbor lies with FDR as well as with the Japanese. The huge firepower available at Pearl Harbor, both aboard ship and on land, could have largely neutered the attack. Can you imagine 8 battleships and various lesser craft firing all their AA batteries as the Japanese came in? The Japanese naval airforce would have been annihilated and the war would have been over before it began.

FDR prolonged the Depression. He certainly didn't cure it.

WWII did NOT end the Great Depression. It just concealed it. It in fact made living standards worse

Joe McCarthy was eventually proved right after the fall of the Soviet Union. To accuse anyone of McCarthyism is to accuse them of accuracy!

The KKK was intimately associated with the Democratic party. They ATTACKED Republicans!

People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter:

The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.

America's uncivil war was caused by trade protectionism. The slavery issue was just camouflage, as Abraham Lincoln himself admitted. See also here

Did William Zantzinger kill poor Hattie Carroll?

Did Bismarck predict where WWI would start or was it just a "free" translation by Churchill?

Leftist psychologists have an amusingly simplistic conception of military organizations and military men. They seem to base it on occasions they have seen troops marching together on parade rather than any real knowledge of military men and the military life. They think that military men are "rigid" -- automatons who are unable to adjust to new challenges or think for themselves. What is incomprehensible to them is that being kadaver gehorsam (to use the extreme Prussian term for following orders) actually requires great flexibility -- enough flexibility to put your own ideas and wishes aside and do something very difficult. Ask any soldier if all commands are easy to obey.

A good article on Leftist hate

The real history of social Darwinism

Some personal memoirs

Memoir highlights

THE PSYCHOLOGIST

THE DISGUSTING CONCLUSIONS OF A MAN WHO THINKS HE KNOWS IT ALL

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive