Oh for fuck's sake.

I made a thread about this in Serious, but I figured I might as well shift it here too and remove all the political fluff.

Essentially, this teacher is very shouty and in your face naturally (she also teaches drama) and we got into quite a heated discussion today. She essentially advocated the idea that people who intend to offend others should be prosecuted. I found this deeply offensive (intellectually, not emotionally) and called her out on it.

She accused me of shouting at her and then said she wouldn't ever change her mind on the issue because she'd thought about it and decided it, and kept re-asserting her right to it. After we left the lesson, I saw her go into the faculty room and heard her say to my other philosophy teacher "I could've punched Ashton in the face during that lesson".

I'm fuc­king pissed off now.

Talk about shitty teachers.

1. We could increase global GDP by 67pc to 147pc. This means we could more than double global wealth.

2. Immigrants create jobs, they don't steal them, because there is not a fixed pool of employment.

3. They contribute more in taxes than they cost in services or welfare. In the U.K., they contribute more than natives.

4. They'll also be vital to the future, as immigration has massive potential to help offset government debt.

5. Immigrants are incredibly entrepreneurial, with more than half of the silicon valley tech businesses having an immigrant as a key founder, and in the U.K. 17pc of immigrants set up their own businesses.

6. Immigrants send home more money to the developing world than we do in aid. (About 3x as much).

7. A seasonal migration programme in New Zealand was more effective at alleviating poverty in developing countries - by giving entrepreneurs experience - than any other method.

8. Since the year 2000, 40,000 people have died trying to migrate in unsafe conditions due to criminalisation.

9. The public wildly underestimates, at least in the U.K., the extent of immigration we already have. The public thinks immigrants make up 31pc of the population, when it is really 13pc. They also think Muslims make up 25pc, but the reality is that Muslims comprise about 5pc.

I'm sorry, brothers. I have failed. The Metanation will never be as one in this great land. The Promised Land won't be ours. But do not despair, the march of progress will continue on. Remove the Meta from your name; let us continue as one people.



I also compiled an album for all the propaganda which came out of that, if anybody feels like taking a gander. If anybody wants to contribute to it, too, post the posters and I'll add them for the sake of art.

Well, that was more fun than it should've been. It's over now, though. Return to your families.

Given the recent uptick in talk of psychopaths (personality tests and questions between psycho- vs. sociopath), I figured these might interest some people. The first is just a random test I found, and the results kind of correlate between psycho- and sociopathy. The second one is based on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, and is slightly longer.

Neither of these are diagnostic tools. Internet tests are ridiculously easy to manipulate.

So, do one or the other, or both and post your results.
 

Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 4.4. Primary psychopathy is the affective aspects of psychopathy; a lack of empathy for other people and tolerance for antisocial orientations.

Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 4.3. Secondary psychopathy is the antisocial aspects of psychopathy; rule breaking and a lack of effort towards socially rewarded behavior.

Spoiler

You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 94.37% of people who have taken this test.

You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 97.46% of people who have taken this test.

PCL:

You reached 93.75% of Factor 1 which captures the core personality traits of psychopathy that define the interpersonal and affective deficits of this personality disorder (e.g. shallow affect, superficial charm, manipulativeness, lack of empathy) and that are correlated with narcissistic personality disorder, low anxiety, low empathy, low stress reaction and low suicide risk. But Factor 1 is also associated with extraversion and positive affect - affected persons usually score high on scales of achievement and well-being, so some aspects of the personality disorder may even be beneficial for the psychopath (in terms of nondeviant social functioning or if it comes to profit from manipulation or lies).

You reached 61.11% of Factor 2 which captures the traits of antisocial behavior (e.g. criminal versatility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, poor behaviour controls, juvenile delinquency) and is associated with reactive anger, social deviance, sensation seeking, anxiety, increased risk of suicide, low socio-economic status, criminality, and impulsive violence.

You reached 100.00% in other relevant traits that can indicate this personality disorder.

Fun, fun, fun.

Prepare for friction burns.

He's my best mate and Meta Knowledge's man whore.

Welcome, prick.

NO TROUBLE

My philosophy teacher recently gave me back an essay I'd done last week, it was fairly good considering it was the first of the year. However, there is an incredibly disturbing comment she's left next to one of the passages. This is what I wrote, practically verbatim:

It seems that small bastions of extreme fundamentalism remain loyal to a literal reading [of scripture], for example the evangelical protestants of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Wahhabi Muslims of extreme Sunni groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS.

She circled the names al-Qaeda and ISIS and wrote "Be careful" next to it. I asked her what she meant, and she said I need to be mindful of what I say, because I never know who could be marking my work.

Seriously, frack this shit.

And why do they get a pink titlebar?

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.

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.

Yes, we know that these kids will get their candy back in the end. But the kids themselves don’t know it, and the betrayal they feel is heartbreakingly genuine. This is no way to treat children.

All of these traits are simply indicative of a sort of "immoral" personality from the passively antisocial to the actively sadistic.

You could add a number of things to this list, but I think it's safe to say that these are some of the most particularly nasty personality traits. Although, I'd add cruelty to children to it.

I've been reading and watching some Sam Harris stuff recently, specifically on the science of morality. Basically, he shares the view of many religious people that moral relativism is a piece of philosophical casuistry and, at worst, dangerous.

His general proposition is that as soon as you admit the moral value that an ethical system should be reducible to the foundation of the well-being of people then you can make a judgement call on whether or not an ethical system is better or worse than another one.

Thoughts?