Already got a thread about it.

"Hey guys, let's do away with moral priorities because both sides have done wrong things!"

I'd sooner shoot a serial killer than a second-degree murderer.

Erm... Isn't this literally the first conclusion any hard determinist ever reaches?!

Depends how inclined any determinist is to think about morality.

How anybody, especially of a liberal persuasion, can deny this is absolutely beyond me.

It goes without saying that the Israelis have done some reprehensible things in their tenure of the land, but it pales in comparison to what Hamas and the Islamists have and would do given the opportunity. Let's take a look at Article Eight of Hamas's Charter: "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."

If that isn't enough to cement the idea that Hamas is more undesirable (to put it mildly) than Israel, allow me to present some more, equally enlightened, quotes: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree."

Or: "I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill."

The reason Israel is reacting as though faced with frankly delusional narcissists is because they are faced with that. And let's not forget, Hamas is a democratically elected government, belying intentions of at least some of the Muslims living in Gaza. Don't get me wrong, the conflict in Gaza is horrendous but given the nature of Hamas and, of course, the population density of the Strip, it's not surprising that civilian casualties are so high.

The Charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal, going insofar as to reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and given the world's historical propensity to try and massacre the Jews, I can't say I blame them for their response. Every day you spend reading of an atrocity committed by Israel, you could've read several committed by Islamists.

Indeed, Israeli soldiers have unfortunately used Palestinians as human shields in the conflict, but do you know who else has and institutionally advocates it? Hamas. Could you imagine how morbidly comical it'd be if Israel tried to use its own civilians as human shields, and yet Hamas do it because they know it works.

Obviously, a State based around a religion should be offensive to anybody living in the 21st Century. However, two facts must be recognised. First, the Muslim States are beyond comparison in their evils with Israel. Secondly, the Jews are probably second-most "deserving" of a State based on theology, and first on the basis of security.

unless you're just making a semantical point.

Essentially.

It just so happens that this semantic issue has played upon our perception (as the course of language usually will) in one of the most malicious ways I can imagine.

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 06, 2014, 11:01:34 AM

Are you implying there's something wrong with being critical of Islam?

Not at all. People should be critical of all religions - I'm referring to the people who think all Muslims are terrorists, that no Muslim should wear traditional headcoverings or attire in places like America, etc.

That's not Islamaphobia so much as bigotry. We don't need a word like Judeophobia or Christophobia because we don't need to lend that much credence to intolerance and bigotry.

The problem with "Islamaphobia" is the fact that it is a charge consistently hurled at the New Atheists and people like myself, when I have no problem with Muslims as people.

As a point of digression, couldn't the unresponsiveness to medication from some depressives be indicative of further physical divergence?

The fact that one person responds to a certain kind of treatment while another doesn't merely indicates that there are further neurological differences between those people, doesn't it?

Although, re-reading your answer, you did sort of cover that in the subsequent paragraph >.>

No. Islam represents a unique threat to Civil Society.

Anybody who disagrees is most likely a liberal, severely lacking in threat-detection faculties and unaware of the benefits of parochial loyalty.

Unless you're a substance dualist, it seems to me that the idea of "mental illness" is nothing more than a confusion. A lexical error which has, I think, led to more harm than good.

The idea of the "mind" being higher than the material, and somehow more sacrosanct (due in no small part to the aforementioned dualism, as well as religion) has led to the stigmatisation of diseases and illnesses to do with one's emotional or cognitive well-being.

People, generally, are more apt to take medicine for ills of the body - such as for arthritis, muscle injuries, heart problems, et cetera - yet more shy to take the likes of anti-depressants or anti-psychotics. It is especially bad for illnesses like psychopathy, schizophrenia, borderline, or pretty much any personality disorder or psychosis. If that needs putting in perspective, think of the contempt some people who suffer from just depression have to face.

The point here, fundamentally, however is not that illnesses such as those just mentioned themselves don't exist. The point is that they're the proximate result of some physical affliction. Sociopathy can be caused by damage to the prefrontal cortex and emotional trauma, psychopathy by bad genes, schizophrenia by both genes and environment.

It seems altogether beneficial to view mental illnesses in this way. Not only is stigmatising mental illnesses as some sort of false, or even evil, disease hindering research, it also disrupts treatment. Mental illnesses are, always and everywhere, reducible to physical causes and are, necessarily, physical illnesses.

If somebody can name me a mental illness not caused by physical factors, go ahead. You won't be able to do it, though.

Consider these scenarios:

1: A three-year-old takes his fathers gun, loaded and unsecured, and kills a woman.

2: A twelve-year-old, who has suffered continuous emotional and physical abuse, intentionally takes his father's gun and kills a woman for teasing him.

3: A twenty-five year old, who had suffered continuous emotional and physical abuse, intentionally kills a woman for leaving him for another man.

4: A twenty-five year old, who was raised by wonderful parents, intentionally kills a woman "for the fun of it".

5: A twenty-five year old, who was raised by wonderful parents, intentionally kills a woman "just for the fun of it." A subsequent MRI scan shows a tumour on his prefrontal cortex.

Take a minute to determine the moral responsibility - or immorality - of each individual perpetrator. Yes, there is a correct answer.


Why is this? Moral responsibility rests on the notion of free will - or the idea that we are the author of our own thoughts and desires - which is an increasingly unlikely aspect of human behaviour. If, as seems most probable, free will doesn't exist then the concept of individual moral responsibility must necessarily go out of the window, and with it retributive justice.

In most of those cases, we intuitively understand that they aren't in fact "responsible" for themselves either as a result of their upbringing or some sort of affliction (such as the tumour). That is not to disallow us from making moral claims, or condemning immoral actions, but merely to shift the priority to a more social level.

Imagine being in a cage with a particularly violent bear who had previously mauled three other individuals he had come across. The bear is, obviously, dangerous and unfortunately victim to a moral deficit. The bear, again obviously, should probably be kept separate from other bears. Yet to call the bear, itself, "immoral" is patently ridiculous.

Of course, humans have a better understanding of social consequences than pretty much all other known species. To say that people shouldn't be held accountable is to be facetious with the idea (prisons could still be justified on the basis of deterrence) and its clear that people are capable of choice.

However, we return to the idea that people aren't actually the author of their own desires or thoughts. That isn't to claim all people are equally moral or that all people are equally dangerous/docile. The point here is, merely, that "moral responsibility", as we currently understand it, is potentially harmful.

Quote from: BC1096 on October 06, 2014, 09:03:35 AM

Florida doesn't allow it right? Or do we? I don't remember

Not yet.

Nor should they.

I really feel for those true Americans who feel the sanctity of their love will be violated by two guys porking while wearing rings.

No, because I'm not some neo-Luddite bitch.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 06, 2014, 02:16:01 AM

I got it.

Spoiler

Wow, that is pretty similar to SC.

That doesn't surprise me.

SC sounds like a slightly less psychopathic version of me.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 06, 2014, 02:08:28 AM

I've no idea how to get the link for the picture

screencap

That's just awkward, hang on though.

I've no idea how to get the link for the picture, so I'll just post the results.

Narcissistic: 100%
Antisocial: 100%
Histrionic: 42%
Dependent: 0%
Sadistic: 85%
Compulsive: 42%
Negativistic: 57%
Avoidant: 14%
Depressive: 28%
Masochistic: 14%
Borderline: 28%
Paranoid: 85%
Schizoid: 71%
Schizotypal: 28%
Hypomaniac: 71%

No surprises there.