(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) The Western civilization and its higher education system revealed once again how far they have fallen when a professor at Princeton University called zoophilia “thought-provoking” in a tweet on Wednesday.
In his recent tweet, Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, wrote about the article titled “Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible,” which he called “thought-provoking,” adding that it “challenges one of society’s strongest taboos.”
“This piece challenges one of society’s strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals. This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics,” he wrote.
Another thought-provoking article is "Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible" by Fira Bensto (pseudonym), which is just out in the current issue of @JConIdeas.
This piece challenges one of society's strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual… pic.twitter.com/32fIaJEJ1J
— Peter Singer (@PeterSinger) November 9, 2023
The journal tried justifying sexual deviants who want to have sex with animals by arguing that the act is “morally permissible” and that there is “nothing wrong” with having sex with animals. In October of 2023, the journal was written and published under the pseudonym Fira Bensto in the “Journal of Controversial Ideas.”
“As one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos, zoophilia is widely considered to be wrong, and having sex with animals is illegal in many countries. In this article, I would like to go against this de facto consensus and argue that zoophilia is morally permissible,” the article read.
The author then did precisely that.
“Zoophilia is one of the few sexual orientations (along with e.g. necrophilia or pedophilia) that remain off-limits and have been left aside from the sexual liberation movement in the past fifty years. I would like to argue that this is a mistake. There is in fact nothing wrong with having sex with animals: it is not an inherently problematic sexual practice,” the article read.
On Twitter, people pushed back against both Singer and the pro-zoophilia article.
“That’s Cenk Uygur’s presidential platform,” Mark Dice, a famous conservative blogger and author wrote.
That’s Cenk Uygur’s presidential platform.
— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) November 9, 2023
One of the major contemporary pro-life activists in the United States, Lila Rose, also criticized Singer and his recently revealed depravity, while also remembering his pro-infanticide position.
“The pro-infanticide Princeton professor of ‘bioethics,’ Peter Singer, thinks the moral case for humans having sex with animals is ‘thought-provoking.’ Our Ivy Leagues are beyond depraved,” she wrote.
The pro-infanticide Princeton professor of "bioethics," Peter Singer, thinks the moral case for humans having sex with animals is "thought provoking."
Our Ivy Leagues are beyond depraved. https://t.co/GDxnTqYdmU
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) November 9, 2023
Other people on Twitter also pointed out that Singer thinks that it’s acceptable to murder newborn babies.
“Advocating for zoophilia sounds horrible, but Singer also favors infanticide which may be even worse. Modern ethicists, Ladies & Gentlemen,” Frank DeScushin wrote.
Advocating for zoophilia sounds horrible, but Singer also favors infanticide which may be even worse. Modern ethicists, Ladies & Gentlemen. pic.twitter.com/TSOXiJwSDj
— Frank DeScushin (@FrankDeScushin) November 9, 2023
Rapper, author and Andrew Tate sympathizer Zuby also responded to Singer’s tweet.
“Repent,” he wrote.
Repent.
— ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) November 9, 2023
Others remembered how leftists gaslighted them about the slippery slope.
“[But] I was told the slippery slope wasn’t real!,” another person wrote.
but I was told the slippery slope wasn't real!
— Scott Moser (@bawbert2) November 9, 2023
