Like I said at the time of the FO memo debacle....

[fpb]

...the Pope ought to have cancelled his visit to Britain and said why. Now we are having a growing number of problems, most of which can be traced back to that ludicrous abomination that is the British ruling class:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7797988/Popes-visit-to-Britain-in-disarray-as-costs-spiral-to-14m.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6051093/the-papal-visit-is-in-jeopardy.thtml
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060816.html
Part of this disaster is self-induced: the English episcopate has been suffering for decades with a lust to get the approval, not only of the world - and Our Lord had already warned us about that - but of that particularly odious, corrupt, ridiculous and grotesque part of the world which is the English establishment. They are all Blairites now; and the results may be seen in the day to day management of the Church. Add to that the growing hatred felt for the Church by the gang of liberticides and libertines that misrules this country - a hatred which has been growing since they witnessed the phenomenon of John Paul II's funeral, which proved to their faces, in a way even they could not ignore, that the Church was strong and growing - and you have a real recipe for disaster. I repeat: the Pope should cancel this visit and say why. As for the great John Henry Newman, he should be beatified in Rome; a more suitable place for it, and one where the publicity-seekers and the BBC are not apt to make trouble.

OT, but not really: this is what happens at the end of the road of Political Correctness: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060810.html

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the answer is in the rest of his suggestion - party into extinction! Emphasis on the partying, of course,

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

We should probably draw a distinction between Singer's position and Benatar's. Singer is playing (dangerously) with the question. It's Benatar who flat-out denies that existence is good.

The party into extinction line was indeed Singer's, but in the same article (the one the Lifesite article was quoting) he subsequently asserts that choosing extinction would be wrong (even though the only justification he can bring himself to offer for it is relatively weak).

Both philosophers do seem to display the sort of thinking I've observed in suicidal depression, but I think Lifesite is misrepresenting what Singer actually wrote.

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

'I've observed in suicidal depression'
*is curious* work? if you don't mind me asking?

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Alas, no. Despite the clinical phrasing, it's a bit more personal than that: I've had a number of suicidally-depressed friends, and been suicidal in the past myself.

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

'alas, no'
do you want to work in the mental health field?

thanks for your reply.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Singer and Benatar are both, I think, eupocrites in a sense. If they really took their thinking seriously, they would still be around to write these articles. On the other hand, they persist in writing things which certainly do lead others to suicide.

I suppose the less charitable explanation is that they really do take their own thinking seriously, and remain here as diabolical bodhisattva.

(Though if I understand correctly, Singer at least spent a great deal of time caring for his aged mother in her final illness, rather than encouraging her to seek suicide herself.)

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

ummm after spending a good ten minutes or more sniffing around dictionaries, philosophy books and eventually finding the putative meaning of the non - existent term eupocrite on some journal, i have to disagree. hypocrite is quite sufficient. if they do indeed lead others to suicide then they're vermin. i'd love to see evidence that this is the case though before i made any such judgement. i do think you were right about playing a dangerous game though, one of their students/readers may take it upon themselves to consider their life is indeed worthless and do them suitable harm.