Going down the rabbit hole of anti-intellectualism.

(You can see why I haven't posted anything in over a week. This was a bitch to write. Glad I did, though)

I don't know when/how/why it started, but I was thinking of anti-intellectualism-the dislike, distrust or even hatred of those who actively seek to expand their knowledge in aspects of life. From Wikipedia:

Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, art, or literature.

Anti-intellectuals often perceive themselves as champions of the ordinary people and populism against elitism, especially academic elitism. These critics argue that highly educated people from an isolated social group tend to dominate political discourse and higher education (academia).

Anti-intellectualism can also be used as a term to criticize an educational system if it seems to place minimal emphasis on academic and intellectual accomplishment, or if a government has a tendency to formulate policies without consulting academic and scholarly study.

[my emphasis]

This highlighted paragraph shows instantly the perceived correlation between intellectuals and 'elites.' That is, elitism and intellectualism are almost interchangeable, at least in anti-intellectual circles. This is probably because both intellectuals and elitists are seen as 'out of touch' with the 'ordinary' folk, if for different reasons. Elitists are out of touch because of their wealth; they're the ones with the multiple houses, their BMWs and hummers, their monthly trips around the world and so on. Elitists are unable to connect with the ordinary citizens because their lifestyles are so different to the common peoples'. Intellectuals, on the other hand, are out of touch because their philosophies and interests don't resonate with the majority of other people. Why would an intellectual go to the footy, to the pub, throw a bbq when they're concerned with Renaissance art or studying some useless science? Hence, both elitists and intellectuals are enemies of the common man. The reason why the 'intellectual elite' exists (rather then intellectuals and elitist, asides from the obvious reduction in the number of syllables) is because of the idea that due to their wealth, elitists can pursue intellectual interests above the lowly commoners. Thus, according to anti-intellectuals, intellectualism and elitism go together. They are one and the same.

I checked to see who sees who as the 'elites.' What happens when you Google 'liberal elite'?


Wow. 1,220,000 hits. And 'conservative elite'?


You may notice that 'liberal elite' gets its own wikipedia entry.

In the United States the term liberal elite is a political buzzword used by conservatives to describe affluent, politically left-leaning people. It is commonly used with the pejorative implication that the people who support the rights of the working class are themselves members of the upper class, or upper middle class, and are therefore out of touch with the real needs of the people they claim to support and protect. In other English speaking societies, where the term "liberal" has a different meaning, the terms "elite" or "elitist" may still be used (sometimes in formations such as "left-wing elite" or "progressive elite") with similar implications

...

It is considered a political disadvantage for a campaigning American politician to be associated in the minds of the electorate with the "liberal elite" because they would then seem to be not only out of step with mainstream opinion, but also privileged, and therefore unfamiliar with the concerns of the typical American voter. The liberal elite are often stereotyped as being snooty and condescending toward others, particularly those living in Middle America. Thus it is often used by many politicians to apply to their left-leaning opponents if they also live an affluent or upscale lifestyle.

[again, my emphasis]

The notion of a liberal elite is entirely false; liberals are the ones who advocate social equality and, President Obama put, "spreading the wealth." That hardly sounds elitist to me. Equally, the idea of a conservative elite is preposterous. What conservatives have in common are usually social ideals, not economic ones (most conservatives are neoliberals; however, neoliberalism isn't a prerequisite for social conservatism). If there is an 'elite' group of people, it exists amongst those politicians who work to 'spread' the wealth in favour of the already filthy rich, at the expense of the rest of the country. The Republican Party of America comes to mind; their tax cuts are always directed towards the richest 2%, which is surely a definition of elitism.

There is, however, a pretty obvious reason for the conservatives to build up a 'liberal elite' (whilst simultaneously acting on the behalf 0f big business): electoral gain. There is little more devastating for an aspiring politician then to be branded as being "elitist" and "out of touch." Once that brand sticks, it sticks hard. Popular and influential talk show hosts, such as Limbaugh and O'Reilly, ramp up the notion of liberals (and, by extension, Democrats) being "elitist" (usually for having IQs high than their ages, which is far higher then the average red-meat conservative), Republicans ramp up their attacks on their opponents as elitist and before liberals can collectively say "WTF?" 'Liberal elite' has its own wikipedia entry.

(I've also inadvertently gone off on a tangent with little relation to the original subject. Don't worry. Back on track)

Moving on, we can establish that anti-intellectualism resides in both the political left and right. The two most infamous examples of anti-intellectualism come courtesy of the left, albeit the authoritarian left. They are the Chinese cultural revolution, and the Khmer Rouge's rule of Cambodia. However, in in the West, anti-intellectualism has a stronger grounding in amongst conservatives. In America, anti-intellectualism and a total disdain for economic principles has pushed the Republican Party to adopt an economic philosophy that fundamentally ignores what qualified economists say on the issue. The notion of 'tax cuts generates a net increase in revenue' is anti-intellectual because it appeals to people's basest instincts (more money) whilst promising all public funding problems to be solved. This process refuses any intellectual and economic explanation (anti-intellectualism in the Republican Party in general is brilliantly examined in this journal article). A part of Sarah Palin's appeal to lifelong Republicans is her clear distain for science and education, and her regular Joan Sixpack folksiness.

In Australia, Lucy and Mickler summed up right-wing anti-intellectualism in their critique of Andrew Bolt. In essence, anti-intellectuals are collectively "an independent, straight-talking, bare-fisted brawler who can dish it out, week by week, to the grant-fed, latte-sipping, ABC-loving parasites who are the class enemies of the ordinary, hard-working Aussie battlers." A search of Newsbank and Bolt's articles mentioning 'intellectual' or 'academic' shows such people in entirely negative lights. The same results come for other Aussie battler columnists such as Akerman, Blair and Devine. You name an Australian righty columnist, chances are very likely that they will have a strong dislike to those well-educated. This, of course, appeals to their readership, which reflects the columnists' support for the Liberal Party. Iain Lygo, citing pollster Ross Cameron, writes that the Aussie battlers, in their support for Howard, were/are "less well educated, insular, conservative, and narrow minded, anti-elites in a big way...(and they) have a strong sense of discontent, of being ignored." This sums up the columnists readership (which, collectively, is highly influential) in just about every way.

On a different note, there is the question: are authoritarian regimes, by their nature, inherently anti-intellectual? My concise answer: absolutely. All communist and fascist regimes (if there's even a differences between the two) have, to varying extents all promoted a strong dislike of intellectuals. Mao and Pot have already been mentioned, however all authoritarian regimes have suppressed intellectuals, as they are more willing to question absolute rule. Ironically, the Nazis, despite their twisted social Darwinism, did a great deal of research into the human anatomy. Nazi scientists were the first in the world to discover the health effects of smoking. In this way, the Nazis promoted a narrow form of scientific pursuit.

Another, more controversial question can be raised; does religion promote anti-intellectualism? I would say "religion is not inherently anti-intellectual, but it an extremely powerful voice and justification for it." Religion's main crime against intellectualism is science; from house-imprisoning Galileo to teaching creationism in science classrooms, to banning stem cell research, religion has consistently undermined scientific pursuit. However, it is difficult to know how religion affects other forms of intellectualism (such as writing, arts, philosophy, etc)-whether it impedes these intellectual outlets, or actually enhances them.

This blogger raises the excellent point that educated, thinking minds are more likely to question authority figures, whether they be God or the Dear Leader. Hence, it is in the interest of organised religion and totalitarian countries to suppress all forms of intellectualism. SEB exposes that the Vatican (surprise, surprise) has a strong dislike of education, as it breeds skepticism of authority.

The results of anti-intellectualism are truly frightening. Extreme examples, such as the Cultural Revolution or the Rouge do exist, but anti-intellectualism affects us in far more subtle ways. From Wikipedia:

In the US 2000 Presidential Election, the media (particularly late night comics) portrayed Candidate Al Gore as a boring "brainiac" who spoke in a monotonous voice and jabbered on about numbers and figures that no one could understand. His supposed "claim to have invented the Internet" was widely ridiculed. It was the classic stereotype of a pompous, out-of-touch intellectual, and this perception arguably hurt Gore in the election. In the years since, debate between the left and right in America has often centered on the relation of the intellectual class to the public as a whole.

[my emphasis]

Anti-intellectualism helped Bush Jr. win* the 2000 election. Anti-intellectualism brought us the Iraq War, generated trillions of dollars in debt, wrecked havoc with the US' human rights policies, wasted almost a decade of action on climate change and brought about genocide of African women through the global gag rule.

Sue Blue, regular commenter at Bay of Fundie, brilliantly summarises the threat of anti-intellectualism:

"If there’s one thing Bush accomplished, it was the empowerment of stupid people. Hey, if a moron can make it to the top Office in the country, it must be GOOD to be ignorant! It seems these people have made it a point of pride to proclaim their complete cluelessness at every opportunity. The logical extension of this is their suspicion of the educated and intelligent..."

The eternal irony, of course, is that intellectuals are disproportionally the ones who founded our modern society. Scientists and inventors, from Galileo, to Newton to Edison to Baird, to were all intellectuals by default (although to varying degrees, obviously). Intellectuals were the ones who questioned the monarchy and the idea of divine rule, which paved the way for Westen democracy. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions-they were all propelled by intellectuals who specialised in countless various fields-whether it be arts, philosophy, science, or something more obscure but still vital.

The above paragraph is perhaps the best way to counter anti-intellectualism. If somebody is attacking the intellectual elite for undermining our values or for wasting taxpayers' money on frivolous pet projects, tell them "it is wasn't for intellectuals, we wouldn't have electricity or democracy, the life expectancy would be in the 30s..." and so on and so fourth. In America, it's easier because some of America's heroes were clear intellectuals. Ben Franklin rivaled Da Vinci in his repertoire of intellectual fields, whilst Martin Luther King had a doctorate in philosophy.

Coming to a conclusion, it is inevitable that anti-intellectualism will always survive, and in many cultures it will bloom into a grotesque way of life. The best we can to is limit its influence.

Also see here, here, here, here and here.

*I use 'win' in the loosest sense possible.

Random philosophical question of the day

If you are pure good, does that mean

a) you feel no temptation to do any act of evil-no matter how minor?

or

b) you feel all human temptation, but you possess an indomitable will power to resist such temptations?


Thinking about it, this could be applied to evil as well. If you are pure evil, then does that mean:

a) you recognise the pain you are causing to others, but simply don't care?

or

b) you fundamentally cannot comprehend how you are hurting others?

I honestly don't know.

Random thoughts on religion and evil.

(Private's note: I'm aware that after the picture, the font randomly changes. Blogger is currently being a shithead).

It's pretty well-established that religion is a common justification for evil. It's the classic "my God says it's true, therefore I must do it and I am absolved of all blame for my beliefs and actions." From the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, to the KKK, the IRA and Real IRA, to the Army of God, from the Taliban to al Qaeda...for some true comedy gold, check out the site 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things!,' where you get the feel for how religion can justify acts of horror. One of the most horrific recent examples is this:

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

“We arrested Samira Jassim, known as ‘Um al-Mumenin’, the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women’‘, Major General Qassim Atta said.
“She confessed her responsibility for these actions, and she confirmed that 28 attempts had been made in one of the terrorists’ strongholds,’’ he said

Stupid Evil Bastard states:

Got that? This Muslim woman is so convinced that Allah is real instead of just a figment of her imagination that she ordered 80 of her fellow women to be raped specifically so they would be vulnerable to being pressured into becoming suicide bombers. She not only was convinced that suicide bombing was justified by her religion, but she felt justified in having her fellow Muslim women raped to further the cause she believed in. She is so convinced of the rightness of what she’s done in the name of Allah that she’s confessed to the crimes on video. She sees nothing wrong with it. It was a necessary thing to do because women are less likely to be searched at checkpoints making them more likely to get through with explosives under their robes.

It’s hard to imagine how anyone could consider this even remotely conscionable, yet here’s someone who’s convinced it was perfectly reasonable because she believes in an invisible sky fairy who will reward the women in the afterlife even if their sacrifice was coerced through rape and manipulation. What’s a little rape and exploitation when Allah will reward them for eternity once they blow themselves up? Only a True Believer™ could think like that.

This is one of the problems of atheism: that the line between atheism and antitheism is quite blurred, and easily cross into each other. Atheists tend to get caught up in their dislike of religion that they forget that if it weren't for religion, humanity would find other excuses such acts. Take, for example, the Rwandan Genocide. The genocide was the finality of the war, which itself was the fruit of European colonization (Germany and later Belgium 'racialised' the ethnic groups (with the Tutsis considered 'superior' to the Hutus), fostering a hatred between the ethnicities that accumunated in the genocide).

From TIME:

We step inside Nyamata church and my guide, Josh Ruxin, points out the wall where babies were smashed up against the brick.

...

A holocaust colors everything that follows, alters the essence of a nation. And it fosters a lasting mystery — an incomprehension over how man could behave so inhumanly to man. At his offices in Kigali, President Paul Kagame says: "Hutu fathers killed their own children because some of them resembled their wives, who were Tutsi. How do you explain that?"

This was an act of evil that stemmed from a raw, racist-nationalist hatred of another ethnic group. Religion played no part in its justification. If religion had been the justification for the Hutu genocide atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would cite it as further proof of the raw evil that is religion.

Lt. Ville makes his point clear in this post:

And this my main gripe with dogma and religion: if people follow it so devoutly and if it is so contradictory, conflated and confused then, then there can be untold consequences. The Taliban, for example (an extreme one too), distort the message of the Koran to brainwash their militia. The question, then, is would they be able to do it as successfully or as passionately without the Koran? Could they be an irreligious militia and be just as effective? If so, then what’s the point in following (and subsequently misreading) the Koran anyway? And how might one vote differently if they were religious? They would have a different slant on things perhaps.

To conclude, I think it’s ridiculous to follow dogma as a way to guide one’s life. But I think you all know that already.

(my emphasis)

My answer is "Yes, you can be a sociopathic terrorist organisaton lacking in religion.” The Nazis and current neo-Nazis are mostly irreligious. Some neo-Nazis even believe that Christianity is a tool of Jews, because the New Testament continues from the Old. Neo-Nazis justify their evil by the belief that they are in a 'race war' and if they don't kill all the non-whites, then the non-whites (the footsoldiers of the Jews) will kill them.

Now, how different is that from the Taliban? The Taliban believe almost the same thing, only replacing 'whites' with 'ultraconservative hardline Muslims' and 'non-whites' with 'West.' What we have is almost identical beliefs, merely with differing justifications.

And if you don’t have nationalism, good ol’ vengeance works pretty well.

Atheists should also keep in mind that science has been used to justify evil. After the enlightenment, ‘God’ was no longer an acceptable answer for unanswered questions. People began examining and studying the world for answers, thus helping fuel the growth of the scientific method. However, during this time, slavery was still in existence, and “the good book says so” was no longer an appropriate answer (not on its own, anyway). So people turned to science to justify this evil-and scientific racism was born. Take, for example, this photo from Gliddon and Nott’s Indiginous Races of the Earth (1857).

This is a perfect example how science overtook religion as a justification for evil. Today, we can see a similar parallel with gay rights. Before, religion was the sole justification for the oppression of gays. Although religion still plays a part, homophobes are aware of the influence and power of science. This is where pseudo-scientists such as Paul Cameron come in. Cameron is a ‘scientist’ whose theories and methods have been debunked by various psychological organisations, such as the ASA and CPA. However, despite being discredited, Cameron still peddles his hatred disguised as science-that gays molest children, they're a public health hazard, they're diseased (I feel like I'm describing The Eternal Jew here)...you get the idea.

If Cameron is proof of anything, it is that science is as easily twisted and abused for evil as religion is.

Perhaps atheists should loosen their hang-ups on religion-if history has taught us anything (asides from the fact that we never learn from it), it's that people will use any excuse to justify evil. Religion is simply the most common.

Fun stuff can be read here, here and here.

Rights. Robot Rights.

AKA, the sequal to Robot Rock.

[Note: I'm aware that there's a weird gap after that bracket. I can't get rid of it.)

Lt. Ville brings up an excellent philosophical point-should robots, if they are smart enough, possess human rights? I'm not talking about the crappy machines which do nothing but take people's jobs; I'm talking about the sentient, almost living robots such as 3PO, R2-D2, or Sonny. although they are machines, these (

admittedly fictional) beings are as human as their biological counterparts. They think, learn, use instinct, possess individual and evolving personalities, and Sonny even dreams. So, should hypothetical intelligent robots be deserving of human rights, if their only difference is what produces the mind?

First, I wikied 'human rights.'

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."^[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

“	All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

With this in mind, I would say no.

The problem for human rights lies in robots' inherent lack of free will. Free will is what enables humans to partake in elections, pursue their concept of happiness, and makes us individuals. Free will also keeps society in balance, as it is very difficult for large numbers of people to engage in uncivil behaviour (it happens, but rarely anything revolutionary).

Robots, however, tend to not possess free will. Take, for example, the Terminator in T1. In T1, the Terminator demonstrated a high level of intelligence by using Sarah's mother to find out where Sarah's living. However, the terminator possesses no free will, and is always bound by its programming and parameters. In T2, the Terminator shows that he must follow John's orders without fail. The Terminator is aware of this, yet due to its lack of free will, it can do nothing but follow its programming.

However, several robots have shown that they can break free of all programming and adopt true free will. The Terminator demonstrates in T2 this when he directly disobeys John's orders, and destroys the final CPU chip. In i, robot, Sonny demonstrates his humanity by weighing moral options, and placing his trust in anti-robot bigot Spooner.

Which raises another question: are robots capable of morality? In my cynical opinion, a large part of what keeps society together is the consequences of bad actions (such as murder or thievery). Logically speaking, a robot wouldn't commit crimes solely because of the consequences; this entails that if a robot could steal without being caught, then it would do so unfailingly. This in turn leads to another problem; if robots were to increase in numbers to the point that they began to outnumber humans, then it is entirely probable that robots would launch a coup to acquire power. Power is, after all, a rational desire, and why wouldn't robots want it? If unbound by morality, any large group of sentients with a single common goal would unite to assume power.

The only exception to this rule* (and I am really annoyed with only being able to use fictional examples; extrapolating fiction to reality only works if you ignore reality, which I have no desire in doing) is Sonny from i, robot. Although he would almost certainly benefit from robots governing the planet, he states that it is too "heartless." However, I am unwilling to believe that all robots can be imbued with a human level of morality.

Despite these exceptions, AI can still be reprogrammed, and because of this I don't think that robots will ever be capable of free will, as their views are never truly their own.

*It is established that Sonny can renege on his 'moral programming', which is what gives free will. I can't tell if the droids from the Star Wars universe possess absolute free will, or if they do possess parameters that prevent them from, say, turning against the Rebellion and defecting to the Empire. Given the risks, it is unlikely that the rebels wouldn't add such restrictions.

PS: Does anybody else think this post is totally ridiculous?

This debate ends NOW.

For long, conservatives have labelled homosexuality as being 'unnatural'. The arguments are:
- there is no evidence of any 'gay' genes.
- there are many cases of gays 'turning' from gayness.
- therefore, it is, like most sexual behaviours, a preference and only a choice.

On the surface, those arguments may seem compelling (especially the first one). However, conservatives have ignored (and liberals have never mentioned) one truth: that homosexuality has been extensively documented in hundreds of animals.

From wikipedia:

Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.^[2][3] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.^[4]

The naturalness of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements because these findings seem to point to the naturalness of homosexuality in humans.^[1] Whether this has logical or ethical implications is also a source of debate, with some arguing that it is illogical to use animal behavior to justify what is or is not moral (see appeal to nature).

(my emphasis)

Of course, in this case, progressives aren't arguing that homosexuality is necessarily moral-merely that it is natural.

The only counter-argument against this is that in the animal kingdom, homosexual behaviour can be learned from the parents (if they are also gay). Certainly, there is evidence for this; Roy and Silo, two gay penguins, raised a chick that was bisexual herself. Also, bonobos (a species of chimpanzee) are a bisexual species, as all bonobos have been documented engaging in sex with males and females. These accounts lend to the theory that homosexuality in animals in more learned from observing the parents (which is how almost all animals learn) rather then it being innate.

However, this fails to take into account the long-term affects of a nurture-only behaviour in an environment governed by evolution. If animal homosexuality was merely a sexual behaviour that animals mimicked from their parents, then over time these animals would reproduce less then their heterosexual counterparts. For example, bonobos practicing heterosexual sex more often would reproduce more and their children would be more likely to mimic the heterosexuality of their parents. Thus, the behaviour (still being passed down from parent to child) would pass down less times until it would become an extinct.

Can this argument be extended to nature? No. It is true that by evolutionary standards, 'useless' biological components that make up homosexuality wouldn't be able to compete on a mating level with hetrosexualism. Therefore, the 'gay gene' would eventually in members of a species would decrease over time, until it would disappear altogether. However...

...this ignores the reality of mutation-the basis of genetic diversity. In the most blunt layman's terms, a mutation is when a gene of our genetic code changes, causing changes in the cell. If the mutation occurs early enough in the womb, the mutation can affect the entire organism. Mutations can range from being relitively minor, such as syndactyly ('webbed' digits) to being quite major, such as growing extra limbs. Naturally, not all mutations are as probable as one another. A common (and infamous) mutation is cancer. In cancer the gene that regulated when a cell will reproduce no longer functions, and the cell's reproduction becomes uncontrollable. At the other end of frequency, the aforementioned 'extra limb' mutation is extremely rare and is considered newsworthy.

If such genetic diversity can exist to create whole new limbs, then it is no a stretch for this same genetic diversity-based on mutations of the genetic code-to cause a range of sexual orientations.

Hypothetically, it is possible for some animals (especially the more intelligent ones, most famously bonobos) to indulge in homosexual activities for pleasure or experimentation, without any influence from parenting. However, this cannot account for the extraordinary number of gay animals-at the absolute least 500, and almost certainly over 1,000. In particular, insects have been identified as being gay (or at least, engaging in gay behaviour). Due to the extremely primitive design of insects' brains, is is extraordinarily unlikely that these animals would be seeking out more pleasurable behaviour.

If then, homosexuality is natural, then there is some discussion as to why some people can become 'ex-gays.' Unfortunately, a lack of neuropsychological studies on the impact of sexuality on brains means that it is difficult to assess the extent to which some ex-gays have genuinely changed their sexuality, and how much of it is internal denial. However, the argument for internal deniel is strong, according to this.

Exodus describes change as "attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender."^[21] Some ex-gays advocate entering (or remaining) in a heterosexual marriage as part of the process. Some in opposite-sex marriages acknowledge that their sexual attractions remain primarily homosexual, but seek to make their marriages work anyway.^[22] The president of Exodus said he agrees that people can't necessarily change their sexual orientation, but he said they can "live in accord with their beliefs and faith" by renouncing homosexuality and not engaging in same-sex relationships.

(my emphasis)

This is, by the president's own admittance, a very low bar being set for the term 'ex-gay.' It also means that 'ex-gay' is a misnomer. Change and ex-gay imply that you were formally gay, now straight-not still gay and simply repressing your sexuality. The APA has also stated that despite the "considerable fluidity in...women's attractions," "human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight." This means that any percentage of the ex-gay movement-from 1% to 97%-could still be gay, and effectively living a lie.

Conclusively (in my opinion, anyway), this post has demonstrated that homosexuality occurs naturally within the animal kingdom, and across a tremendous range of animals-from bonobos, who possess a spectacular genetic similarity to humans, to birds, to insects. Exodus' open admittance that some gays cannot change their sexuality leads to the 'nature' conclusion.

Also, see here, here and here.

Stuff we should read.

Alas, fellow culture soldiers, but I have been terribly busy at the moment. Rather then fight alongside my fellows in the front trenches, I have been spirited away to the home front, to nurse elder statesmen and women in their final years.*

Unable to properly contribute my ideas to the blogosphere, I will (for today at least) direct readers (if only Reuben and Luli) to miscellaneous articles of interest.

- Ongoing racism against young Sudanese-Australians. Take a bow, Mr. Andrews.
- A scientist calls for ethics guidelines to be developed in relation to the use of robots. Good idea.
- The National Geographic examines intelligence in everyday animals, whilst Iceland debates whether to use its rivers for power, or to keep them as they are. (My opinion: keep them natural. We have other resources.)
- TIME magazine looks at Nelson Mandela, American Libertarianism, Obama's rise, global warming, capitalism, Somalia, the case for climate change, the abortion war in America, European multiculturalism, and Fiji.

That oughta keep the soldiers occupied.

*Working at a nursing home.

The Hitler-Wallace Test.

Godwin's Law. The longer an internet conversation develops, the more likely somebody's going to be compared to Hitler.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. The logical fallacy that if Hitler supported something, then that something is inherently bad. An example is vegetarianisn; Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore it's bad.

Loosely based on these ideas, I've created the Hitler test. It's simple. If you think a person's beliefs genuinely emulate elements of Nazism, replace the subject of the said person's controversial beliefs with Judaism. Then, you will see what their beliefs are like.

Naturally, there are exceptions to these cases-in which you supply proper evidence. For example, I would state that Hitler and Phelps (leader of the Westboro Baptist Church) are extremely similar, in part because Phelps advocates the genocide of gays. Therefore, the two are genuinely similar. The same applies for cultures. I would argue that the Taliban and al Qaeda, and neo-Nazism share a number of common characteristics; a love of violence, extreme misogyny and an unwavering belief in their own supremacism (whether religious or racial). Hence, the Hitler test doesn't need to be applied to these groups.

But in other cases, the Hitler test is required. Take, for example, the Victorian CDP

Arch Bevis says the Coalition is confused over national security, where Muslims are concerned. Labor is as confused – and as naïve. Terrorism is not always violent. Often it is quite ‘soft’ and politically subtle.

While most Muslims are peaceful and decent people, they are still Muslims. Their culture is alien to ours. It is totalitarian and imperialistic. For that reason they will agitate for sharia-compliant laws to be introduced and condoned, as British Labor has done in the UK.

This is ‘soft’ terrorism. It seeks a dual law system, permitting them to ‘do their own thing.’ The situation in Europe is similar, if not worse.

Western society is profoundly challenged, not by hard, violent terrorism, but soft, political terrorism. This demands that host countries must adapt to Islamic ways, not Islam to Western culture. It’s about time Australia recognised that the clash of civilisations has reached our shores. Australia needs a moratorium on Muslim immigration, rather than African, in order to evaluate where Australia is going.

And to Hitlerise the text:

Arch Bevis says the Coalition is confused over national security, where Jews are concerned. Labor is as confused – and as naïve. Terrorism is not always violent. Often it is quite ‘soft’ and politically subtle.

While most Jews are peaceful and decent people, they are still Jews. Their culture is alien to ours. It is totalitarian and imperialistic. For that reason they will agitate for Torah-compliant laws to be introduced and condoned, as British Labor has done in the UK.

This is ‘soft’ terrorism. It seeks a dual law system, permitting them to ‘do their own thing.’ The situation in Europe is similar, if not worse.

Western society is profoundly challenged, not by hard, violent terrorism, but soft, political terrorism. This demands that host countries must adapt to Jewish ways, not Judaism to Western culture. It’s about time Australia recognised that the clash of civilisations has reached our shores. Australia needs a moratorium on Jewish immigration, rather than Middle-Eastern, in order to evaluate where Australia is going.

Sounds eerily familiar, no? If you don't like that, I've also created the Wallace test, named after one of America's most infamous segregationists (to be fair though, he did recant his racist views). Instead of replacing certain minority words with "Jew", the Wallace test uses the terms 'Negro', 'Communist' and 'race-mixer.' This is because Lefties, African-Americans and interracial couples were strongest in campaigning against segregation and Jim Crow laws. The Wallace test is more complex, as you have to correctly use the aforementioned words properly. I used the Wallace test in a previous post to compare FOTF's hatred of gays to past views on racial integration.

So there we have it. Next time you see something that sound just a little harsh against a particular group (most commonly Muslims or gays), try using the Hitler or Wallace tests, and see how they sound. Because as much as people try to justify their bigotry*-if it looks like hate and it sounds like hate, then chances are, it's hate.

*Usually by the justifications of "it's traditional," "my religion says I can do it" or "I'm being persecuted otherwise."