Rabbit Peter Singer Says Sexually Assaulting The Mentally Disabled Is Not Bad

Rabbits don’t have true empathy for others:

That last option—the greatest good for the greatest number—is the basic premise behind an ethical theory called “utilitarianism,” whose main champion today is Princeton Professor Peter Singer. In his book, “Practical Ethics,” he presses this logic to chilling, yet consistent, conclusions, arguing, for example, that killing babies who are born disabled is not only acceptable, but may be morally necessary.

Why? Singer believes the happiness of able-bodied persons trumps the rights of those with disabilities. Such beliefs are horrifying enough in the classroom, but they rarely stay there.

Enter Rutgers ethicist Anna Stubblefield, who, in 2015, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Her victim, a thirty-year-old man with cerebral palsy, identified as “D.J.,” has never spoken a word in his life, and is dependent on caregivers for his basic needs.

Using a controversial technique known as “facilitated communication,” Stubblefield claims she helped D.J. break his lifelong silence by supporting his hands as he typed on a keyboard. Eventually, D.J.’s family came to believe he had the mental capacity of an adult, and even enrolled him in college courses.

Then Stubblefield made an announcement to D.J.’s family that changed everything: “We’re in love.” Believing she had received D.J.’s consent via facilitated communication, the married Stubblefield consummated a romantic relationship with this disabled man. A New Jersey jury decided that the act constituted sexual assault.

In response, in a recent op-ed at the New York Times, Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan argue that Stubblefield’s 12-year sentence is too harsh and that D.J. was capable of more communication than the judge or jury give him credit for. But their next argument is truly horrifying.

“If we assume,” they write, “that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent…”

They go on to claim that D.J. probably enjoyed the experience, so it wasn’t that monstrous of a crime. In other words, because those with profound disabilities can’t fully comprehend what’s happening, assaulting them isn’t the same as assaulting a person in possession of full mental faculties.

It is not surprising. If a rabbit in nature can walk around a dead body of a fellow rabbit without feeling bad, is it any surprise that they could imagine sexually assaulting a mentally retarded rabbit and not feel anything? Leftists are rabbits in thought, and literally not human. As singer shows, they are not even aware that their urges are repugnant.

Plus, from a strictly reproductive standpoint, if you impregnated a mentally retarded mate and that produced a child, that is one more child. If that child can survive and reproduce in an r-selected environment of free resources, that will carry your genes forward, and since fitness is not as important as fecundity in the r-environment, there is no detriment. Indeed, r-selected females in r-selection would evolve to want that kind of “moral” reasoning in their mates, because it is what r-selection favors.

r-selection is about quantity over quality. When your species is K-selected, and has spent eons painstakingly evolving massive levels of quality, you can see how the shift to quantity inevitably produces degradation, and does it surprisingly quickly.

Spread r/K Theory, because the human race has got to get back to quality

This entry was posted in Liberals, Morals, Politics, Psychology, r-stimuli, rabbitry, Sexual Deviance. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Rabbit Peter Singer Says Sexually Assaulting The Mentally Disabled Is Not Bad

  1. Pingback: Rabbit Peter Singer Says Sexually Assaulting The Mentally Disabled Is Not Bad | @the_arv

  2. David says:

    Surely this is evidence that we’ve reached Peak Depravity here in 2017.

    It’s obvious that the self-selected elite have embraced sadistic hedonism as their highest ideal.

    As an aside, any “moral philosopher” who embraces utilitarianism is an open fraud or a closet imbecile. By DEFINITION, utilitarianism posits that the future can be known with sufficient certainty to justify essentially any action, up to and including murder of the innocent. Any society attempting to implement this is doomed to become a charnel house writ large.

  3. Carl says:

    In the r-environment, fecundity *is* fitness, isn’t it? But the problem also is that in evolution generally, at least the Darwinian-Spencerian variety, fecundity is fitness as well. There’s no possible Darwinian perspective which judges “fitter” but less-surviving examples “more adaptive” than “less fit” but more-surviving specimens because Darwinian-Spencerian evolution defines “fitness” and “adaptiveness” entirely in terms of mere survival, no matter how low-level and subsistence-oriented. Pointedly, there’s no way to claim that K-selected specimens are “fitter” than r-selected specimens in a Darwinian-Evolutionary context. You must drag in some kind of non-scientific moral judgment which alters the structural conclusions provided by evolutionary theory in order to make claims about “fitness” that don’t rest on mere survivability.

    • sigsawyer says:

      Simple- r-selection makes a given group of humans more likely to be destroyed by a competing group of humans. If we accept the goal of wanting genetic immortality for yourself and those who share your genes, r-selection only makes sense in an environment where the chance of encountering k-strategists is 0. In other words, r-selection introduces an extremely high risk that history has seen play out countless times: Go r, get conquered, lose your culture and dilute your genetic heritage if not suffer outright genocide.

  4. sigsawyer says:

    What do wolves do with deformed offspring? What did the Spartans do? Protecting the weak and unfit from nature is neither a healthy K-instinct nor an R-instinct. (obviously wanting to mate with the deformed is an r-instinct)

  5. Maple Curtain says:

    Anna Stubblefield just another strong independent woman. You go grrrl. “If it feels good, do it” appears to be the extent of her hippy ethics. Oh, and her victim was black. She’s the whole package of depravity. Like Singer, a Jew. Tikkun olam depravity:

  6. Anonymous says:

    “…killing babies who are born disabled is not only acceptable, but may be morally necessary.”
    I’m with this guy and the Spartans on this one.
    There are only X number of Y resources to go around population Z. The larger population Z is, the more we have to divide up Y, meaning each member of Z gets a smaller X. Why waste Y on Z members who are born severely disabled? What is moral, to make them suffer out a “life” like that or to end it early in the Apothetae?

  7. Dave says:

    Mentally retarded people tend to have the same sexual desires as the rest of us, but it’s much more difficult for them to find a healthy, socially acceptable outlet.


    The law is an ass. A mentally retarded person does not need the law to protect him, he needs a guardian — which could be his father, another relative, or someone appointed by the state. If a retarded person commits a crime, punish his guardian for not keeping him under control.

    Until about 1820 it was assumed (correctly IMO) that all females need male guardians, because at all ages they make horrendously bad decisions about sex. You cannot “teach men not to rape”, because female “consent” is extremely vague and fickle, and can even be withdrawn after the fact.

  8. everlastingphelps says:

    It’s not an accident that bike-lock man Eric Clanton is an “ethicist”. They seem to be the ones who have the most problems acting in a moral fashion.

  9. dirkhblog says:

    The job description ethicist attracts psychopaths since it’s been coined.

Leave a Reply