I agree that the article failed to refute any of Singer's points, but was that really its purpose?
Seems more like a rally around the flag hit piece designed to crustalize outrage then a serious attempt to counter his views. I.E. if you asked the authors of this piece of they thought all the ad hominem attacks here are responsive, I would be shocked (and would then agree with you) if they said yes.
I think that if you're going to write responses to this kind of article, you should address it on its own terms, which seem to be emotion driven anger at Singer (entire justifiable, he's really very annoying), using your excellent writing skills.
I agree that the article failed to refute any of Singer's points, but was that really its purpose?
Seems more like a rally around the flag hit piece designed to crustalize outrage then a serious attempt to counter his views. I.E. if you asked the authors of this piece of they thought all the ad hominem attacks here are responsive, I would be shocked (and would then agree with you) if they said yes.
I think that if you're going to write responses to this kind of article, you should address it on its own terms, which seem to be emotion driven anger at Singer (entire justifiable, he's really very annoying), using your excellent writing skills.