Seems almost every day we read a story about how looney college students are. But maybe they're picking up these nutty world views from their professors. For every sane college professor there seem to be seven more crackpot professors (see NEW LOW: Liberal College Professor Now says Dogs are Racist… and RIDICULOUS: Professor Says Tall People Are Killing the Planet, Suggests we Stunt Children’s Growth). But this Princeton Professor, Peter Singer, pushing for infanticide may be the one that finally goes too far. Okay, probably not. It's "higher education after all." But I did some digging into Mr. Singer, and to say that his past is disturbing would be an understatement. Watch below for starters.

On his faculty page, Mr. Singer argues: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

“Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies,” Mr. Singer continued. “My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”

If you're feeling a cold shudder descend from the base of your neck to your toes, congratulations: you have a soul. As for Mr Singer? Jury's still out on that one. Methinks he has trouble finding his reflection in mirrors. Advocating eugenics, advocating for infanticide, be it "humane" or slow starvation is evil. Pure evil. But somehow Singer takes he's views several steps farther.

Upon further digging, I found Peter Singer argued that beastiality is not inherently, morally wrong. Read this article that came juuuuuust short of supporting it. At the very least, he opened the door for normalizing getting it on with animals, just as Salon.com recently attempted with pedophilia (read This Pedophile Wrote a Sympathy Article at Salon. But We Dug into his Past here). Read Singer's full article here if you dare, but I've included some excerpts below. Graphic material included.

On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex...

...But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.

This man teaches at Princeton.

...but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

This is also a man who teaches radical, "Animal Liberation" theology. Again, he is teaching at one of the world's most respected schools. This guy has been doing to for a long time. How have red flags not been going up left and right? Why is this kind of behavior so normal in the land of "higher education" that nobody even bats an eye? If someone discussed these ideas at a dinner party, you'd probably have the fuzz haul him away.

If this guy is still there, what constitutes "extreme" enough on the left to fire somebody? What in the hell does it take for a professor at Princeton to be considered worthy of firing?

The ultimate kicker? This man's rhetoric on beastiality and infanticide is accepted as more normal on campus than the mere concept of the First Amendment. Because "free speech" is dangerous. See the video below, and weep for our future.