Journal of Controversial Ideas

This sounds like the name of a publication that posts articles promoting race science and Holocaust denial

You asked me whether it is my view

Yes, it absolutely is his view. Nobody who didn't think that would answer the question in such a way. He's saying yes, but he's too much of a coward to come right out and say it.

I'm now convinced he wrote the article.

Sure, he supports animals becoming wives, but does he support wives becoming animals?

These anti-zoophilia liberals are trying to CANCEL this HERO

I do not like the final paragraph. I don't like most of this, but that final paragraph was written with one hand, and that is what I do not like about it.

i looked up the journal and...

Black Pete, King Balthasar, and the New Orleans Zulus: Can Black Make-Up Traditions Ever Be Justified?

In this article, I challenge the widely held view that black make-up traditions are categorically wrong.

Why Shouldn’t Race Be a Costume?―A (Qualified) Defense of Wearing Cross-Racial Make-Up During Halloween

This article challenges the view that wearing cross-racial make-up on such occasions as part of personal costumes—as opposed to costumes that are integral to specific cultural traditions, such as the New Orleans Zulu parade—is always wrong.

Philosophical Reflections on “the Filthiest, Dirtiest, Nastiest Word in the English Language”1

When, if ever, is it morally permissible to utter the word “joker”? (NB: The word “joker” is a placeholder for another word, the mere utterance of which certain people find unsettling or offensive. See the prolegomenon of this article for an explanation.)

While the general rule of thumb is that you should never take professional philosophers very seriously, as their income always is derivative entirely from their closeness to powerful patrons (with exceptions like Socrates who was supposedly a stone mason when not being annoying in public, see the existential comics bit about professional philosophers being less serious about their craft than professional bodybuilders), Peter Singer is someone who you should absolutely not take seriously because all of his work is deeply tied into both the Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation.

Especially if you actually (unlike most people who skim the cliff's notes, hear it second-hand or just read the title) read his works, particularly his seminal piece in famines, you will realize that all that he ever argues for is utilitarianism, but he has no real qualms around how that maximum utility is achieved (though heaven forbid you mention the achievements of communism), with his personal belief in maximum utility being achieved not by actual wealth redistribution (though he spends the majority of his paper talking about it), but instead (as he slips in right at the end) population control.

That's right. The liberal academic darling of why it is good to give away your money specifically believes that that money shouldn't be re-distributed or that maybe the real value is being exploited, no it's that in order for less poor people to starve, there needs to be less poor people. Liberal academics everyone! Spending 25 pages to only say one sentence!

am I missing something or did he not actually answer the question or give his opinion on the question

Virgin utilitarian: writes tl;dr papers on why fucking animals is okay aktually

Chad virtue ethicist: "Would Jesus/Socrates/Confucius/Buddha/Aurelius fuck animals? No? Then I shouldn't fuck animals."

Yup those are the only two choices.

nah im not touching this with a ten foot pole

Now imagine you are an animal that is taken good care of but also the owner does not bang you...

The most normal utilitarian

I’m just thinking about how easily he could’ve said he doesn’t think animals should be abused whether the abuse is sexual or not, instead of writing a paragraph of soft core zoophilia erotica.

Don't pretend like a dog never made you horny.

Bit Idea: A t-shirt that says "I fucking love animals" with a strategically placed transposition proofing mark.

journal of controversial ideas? no thanks i already can go browse r/askreddit

You are missing the last line:

Which animal would you rather be?

Which is furthermore underlined in the screenshots he posts, strengthening the implication.

You can take the creep out of Epstein's island, but you can't take Epstein's island out of the creep.

Well that was upsetting to read.

Anyhoo, I've been vegan for 8 days and counting, and not once have I wanted to fuck an animal.

Deranged Hexbear trolls do not miss.

People should have stopped taking anything this guy says seriously decades ago. Peter Singer was always a quack/charlatan. From his definition of specieisism, to being a misanthrope, his disregard of ethics, I don't know why anyone would take him seriously.

Lmao this is some v*ush-tier shit