The Kyle and Jackie O radio show has been suspended indefinitely after last week's lie detector stunt, with host Kyle Sandilands declaring he is unable to go on air.

There have been calls for 2Day FM's Kyle and Jackie O breakfast show to be axed by the station's owners, Austereo, since Wednesday when a 14-year-old girl was strapped to a lie-detector and asked on air about her sexual history.

Seems that he's either decided not to do it anymore, out of fear or something, or that 2Day's just pulled the show. I've never listened to it and I don't listen to commercial radio, but for fuck's sake this seems to just keep on happening.

I'm not saying that people should be immune from having the brunt of an angry community foist upon them, what I'm saying is that the station should be able to make the decision based on financial and corporate viability.

Sandilands is a barely-evolved idiotic douchebag, but sometimes you have to save a douchebag to make a point.

I'll leave the other guys to have a go at this.

]]> http://www.ultimatescienceteam.com/2009/08/02/woohooooo-another-free-speech-victim-bites-the-dust/feed/ 3 http://www.ultimatescienceteam.com/2008/06/25/george-carlin/ http://www.ultimatescienceteam.com/2008/06/25/george-carlin/#comments Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:05:12 +0000 doubtingboris http://www.ultimatescienceteam.com/?p=386 It's not news to many that George Carlin died the other day, but it did give me a chance to reflect. Even at my young age (21), the people I admire are dying off. Carlin and Hicks both blended their comedy with thought provoking messages about the state of society.

And despite the internet being a new medium allowing us to reach far more new creations, as well as new types of content flowing out, people like these are rare enough that even expanding the distribution methods won't allow us to reach more like them.

Sorry I don't have a solution, just figured it was worth reflecting on. Just remember that the people you admire are gonna die and that will be the end of them. Make sure to enjoy them while you can.

Anyone interesting in seeing Carlin's material, there is loads on youtube, best example here. Plenty of Hicks on there as well.

1. Racism - what better way to stop your twat-mouth child mouthing off at people of different skin colours, cultural background and clothing than to make them play as an illegal (Russian?) immigrant in America. One that can barely speak English.

2. Hookers - show them what real hookers are all about. The strung-out crack addled, unpleasant smelling, worse looking hookers in GTA IV should scare them away from every wanting to have sex with (or be near) a hooker... ever (their loss).

3. Gambling - in the first 10 minutes debt collectors are after you, fucking shit up and wanting their pound of flesh. Teach your kids to gamble responsibly and never borrow money from the mob.

4. Vehicular Manslaughter - nobody likes to wash their car, and blood is really hard to get off (so i've heard). What better way to display the damage a human corpse does to your precious car than with simulated vehicular manslaughter. I mean there's all the cleaning... and the dents, who wants to do through all that trouble.

5. Stealing - bystanders and cops will never help you. So defend your shit kids.

See? look at all the life lessons your kids can learn just from playing a simple videogame, don't you owe them that much?

In other news the Australian version of GTA IV has been compromised by the invisible pigeon-holing committee who's decided it needed to be childproofed to fit into the MA15+ rating. Why the fuck don't we have an R18+ rating? I'm sick of all these nancy-pants "protect our kids by censoring everything so we don't have to do anything, ever" parents. How fucking hard is it to control what your kids watch, read and play. Anyway there is NO correlation between videogame violence and real violence (as much as unconfirmed internet rumours and unsolicited studies would like you to believe). And if you done brought your young'lings up right then what's there to fear, they should be able to adequately separate fact from fiction. If they couldn't we'd expect and epidemic of kids hunting in the woods, looking for knolls to kill so they can gain XP and level up.

I suggest you either import or pirate GTA IV, at least that way you can get the amount of violence and tits you deserve.

Maldark

I'm well aware that most people, and even probably most fundamentalists don't hold themselves to their views as some people express here. But the fact that these people are able to use our wonderful communication network of the Internet and then use it to damn technology, science, facts, and reality for not agreeing with their holy book... It's mindboggling.

A quick selection

A sun denier:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]

A gravity denier:

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Someone who simply can't put 2 and 2 together

I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!

More counting errors

I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

Someone with undeniable rebuttal of evolutionary theory

[Replying to 'as for not seeing evolution it takes several million years... incase you missed that memo...']

several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years.

And the reality deniers

"Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic."

Jesus is not a Jew. Jesus was Jewish.

And the scary

so you think if no one believed in any religion there would be no wars or fighting? i think it would be worse. i know if i didn't fear god's judgement i would have killed many many times.

And this is just some of them in the top 100.....

For April so far, they're up to 7 pages. We're not even half way through the month yet.

I fear that even the sweet nectar of liquor won't calm my mind having read through so many of these quotes.

Figure 1: Fucking stupidity

EYEBROWS were raised on the University of NSW campus this week when all students received an email from pro-vice-chancellor (students) Joan Cooper, reminding them of the rules of engagement, as it were.

“Whether you are a new or returning student, as you begin your studies at UNSW, you will meet people from different backgrounds and those who have values and ideas which vary from your own,” Professor Cooper wrote.

Continuing carefully, she said: “I want to remind you that while UNSW is a place where we cherish academic and student freedom of expression, vilification of others is both unacceptable and is of course, against the law in NSW.”

What gives? According to a university spokeswoman the reminder was prompted by “hate flyers” being distributed on campus regarding scientology and “an offensive blog”.

I'd just like to personally congratulate the head of the UNSW Atheist Society, and the members of said society. What is life if not a non-stop trolling expedition. I would recommend that you escalate the campaign forthwith.

Particularly the anti-scientology stuff. No one batted an eyelid when UTS was absolutely plastered with anti-scientology flyers in the lead up to the raids on Scientology, and yet UNSW plays the tolerance card all a-crazy with the hatin on the man.

I swear to christ I hope the hate-filled blog was our blog, and if not, someone links me to that blog and I aggregate their content. Anonymous blogs on the internet that completely tear people to shreds on utterly circumstantial and rather anemic evidence are the best form of things.

Say what you want about the democratisation of media, blogs are the cheapest and nastiest way to make vitriol fact.

It's not as if this comedy of errors we call the 'factional response to political change' has been enough, it seems we are to be inundated with faux-intelligent monocultural ignoramuses hell-bent on making joke groups on facebook (or for the more culturally-oriented; in small café's) about the integrity and quality of a Rudd PM. There, I've said it, it's over. If you can't deal with having to learn the name of a New Prime Minister, you have serious issues with rationality, humanity and the underlying concepts of information retention. My course of treatment? A thorough application and analysis of the underlying physics of yourself-ground interactions when compelled from a great height. Excuse me if I've just interrupted a consistent echo-chamber of indulgent miasmic onanism that seems to have been stewed in its own brand of cliquish ignorance for such a period of time that the individual participants are literally ecstatic with joy whilst trying to catch each other's ejaculate in their braying mouths.

You might be snorting with indignation at this point, having just hastily clicked the "Accept" button on a group on Facebook with the title "I won't call Kevin Rudd PM I'll call him Earthen ButtFart to better Convey my level of angst at the current political situation". That's all well and good, but you my friend have a thing known as a 'party line political allegiance'. Were someone higher in the polity/party to say jump you would quickly draft a press release about the height of the jump and how comparatively, your opposition has not even begun to jump and their planned jump is paltry in comparison with your olympian vector.

That said and done I've learned a very important lesson over the last few weeks; political allegiances are about as safe and as useful as Hasbro™'s 'Chokables - The infuriatingly small but unresponsive to natural reflux, plastic doodads' around a group of existential and suicidal three and four year olds. They serve little to no purpose, they often make you hate yourself, and at the end there's a dead kid and a bunch of angry policemen looking for answers.

I try to have some sort of reason for everything that I write, otherwise this whole didactic and one way nonsensical stream of utter gibberish goes to utter shit and ends up with me sitting in the corner with a half-eaten dictionary and a tank of nitrous talking about fake Korans.

If there is any form of message in this poorly-scribed madness, it is this; wake up to yourselves you bunch of self-indulgent priapic, genetic addendums. If you're supposed to be the sane ones that wake up to the insanities of the mindless echo-chamber self-indulgence of the most left wing of the left wing, why are you letting yourselves fall into the same nonsensical trap?

If you want to convince those that aren't party faithful that you are the true and the brave, on the straight and narrow then stop falling into the same idiotic habits as your opposition.

Otherwise we're left with the nonsensical gruntings of idiots on both halves of the political stage, and then we're well and truly fucked.

EDIT: Also, Justin's in Melbourne for a few days, so you know what kids, Fuck David Clarke. He's a moronic Fat Cunt that is trying to enforce his narrowminded idiotic views onto a group of people that are resisting it.

David, you singlehandedly lost the Liberals the State election and the current abysmal state of NSW rests entirely on your head. I hope serving God was worth it; you crackpot fuck. I give it ten or fifteen years until you Religious Right cum-splashes realise the indelible stain you leave on modern politics certainly isn't admirable. You and your kind are the watered down excreta of a baseless, thoughtless class of arbitrarily-bemoraled drones whose only true victory will be the obvious expunging of your genetic dross through the Darwinism you so hopelessly bemoan.

So here's a list of things you should know about Andrew Quah:

1. According to the pictures he's super not well endowed, and this is verifiable
2. His comments that the pictures, particularly the third picture were not him are LIES, filthy filthy lies.
3. The pictures of the 'women' he was talking to on MSN that were sent to him were taken from the Myspaces of underage women. The pictures themselves did not qualify as pornography but it means that Randy Andy sent those pics to people he knew were probably underage. Oh wait a minute he just gave pornography to a minor! Oh snap, that's an offense! Wait isn't that a serious sex crime or something to send sexual material to a minor... alls I'm saying is that this could quite possibly not be the first time that quah has wantonly sent sexual material to a minor... we can't rule that out at all.
4. He's a freaking nutcase who is so disgustingly misogynistic and so afraid of sex that in posts on the BoredOfStudies forum he made comments about hitting his penis with household goods in order to suppress desires!
5. He may or may not drink the blood of puppies.
6. We also have decent (Read: completely fabricated) evidence that he was involved in a sexual encounter with livestock.
7. He may or may not engage in 'bugchasing' behaviour. From what information we have obtained, he allegedly has rough, unprotected, anal intercourse with HIV positive men in order to contract the disease.
8. He did 9/11

So there you have it, Quah's a nutcase horsefucker that sends porn to children and it's statistically likely that he's HIV-positive, as well as he was integrally involved in the greatest act of terror perpetrated against the great nations of the west.

He's also pretty shit.

In the words of El Jobso, SIOOMA, motherfucker.

I'd honestly think very long and hard about that Andrew, not being technically proficient enough to take part in the revolution in information that the web has created, doesn't give you carte blanche to immediately dismiss all of the creativity ability and passion on it.

To me his bilious raspings sound like the church folk who told Gutenberg he was mad to create the printing press, or the president of IBM who said the world would only ever need six computers.

We have the old media, we have the luddites that are struggling so unashamedly to be relevant again, in the face of this wealth of content. Like with anything, you have the brilliant and you have the mawkish and saccharine nonsense, but the greatest thing about this culture revolution.

EVERYONE CAN PARTAKE.

While Keen and the other ivory tower types might scoff at the 'proles with their typewriters', I think the degree of urgency of the intellectual superiority he feels about this situation lends a certain delightful irony to this situation. Quite plainly the fact that his own erudite and ebullient argumentative stance in favour of the intelligentsia-caste, has been made to look utterly-pedestrian in comparison to the sheer force and energy used to expound how utterly, utterly facile his argument is.

The Ron Paul argument, you might ask? They face a similar battle. The individuals on the internet, voting in online polls that they are then told are 'irrelevant', categorised as 'nutters', support 'only in the blogosphere'. The thing is, much like Keen's argument against the internet, the Old Media and the Old Political systems rail against the Ron Paul supporters because they just don't understand them. However, just like Keen, they too have been made to look foolish under the pure brunt of support and energy that the internet and the ideas that Congressman Paul espouses have allowed people to express!

While the Keens of the political world may scoff, they fail to see that, these pedestals they cling to in such a vaunted fashion are made only from their delicate and fractured hubris. All it takes is the right force, and the right level of passion to see these self-absorbed twats come tumbling down.

No such tool exists that can kill an idea, and while set backs may seek to dampen or dull passion, passion is only limited when you seek to let go of your beliefs and your commitment. One thing that we have seen in droves is that Ron Paul has ignited the passion of a dedicated following and brought people to the political arena who would never have once taken an interest. Just as the Internet has allowed those of us who are so very creative, yet could not access traditional avenues, share our passions and loves and creative abilities with the rest of the world.

For while hubris and intellectual arrogance can create for you a glorious empire, all it takes is the passion of those whom you laugh off and disregard, to bring you to your knees and force you to watch your axioms dissolve from underneath you.

We have been doing a little political research ... of the kind we do best: anecdotal. To wit, we have observed a unique phenomena -- the Ron Paul supporter.
Every time we pull up and see one of his bumper stickers it is invariably on some mud-covered early '90s beater, the backseat so jammed with implausible items that it looks like it belongs to one of those cat hoarder people, and/or Fred Sanford.
We like to drive up alongside and look in: and pretty much, the driver is always someone kinda cock-eyed who would be perfect for a bit part on Twin Peaks or perhaps a random Jim Jarmusch movie. What to say, what to say.

This obvious hardworking journalist of the old-media supported superiour types surely has her work cut out for her. "Those people that support Ron Paul, they're all so... well they're a bit odd... and one of them looked at me."

I mean seriously, I'm taking it as a compliment that apparently as a Ron Paul supporter I'm the odd one out. I've got to say it's a lot better than trying to choose between which Democrat hack will just continue destroying the foundations of the USA.

I'll admit this idiotic dill has got such a minute idea about what Patriot Ron stands for that her current state of ignorance makes no child left behind look like a good idea

What's up next week, "Makeup tips from the Constitution?"

Yay Journo-Centric Hactivism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_films#Australia

What with the internet enabling us to share full digital reproductions of content, banning it to 'think of the children!' is beyond moronic. Censorship can never work in today's society so why do we even bother? It's just like the OFLC doesn't have an R Rating for Videogames, yet it has that rating for everything else. Hell, Nintendo and Sony's comment that they won't carry AO titles lead some hero to leak Manhunt 2 The Super Gruesomeinating before it was bowdlerised.

Are there any actual decent arguments for Censorship that aren't white elephants given the nature of the internet?

Censorship is essentially thoughtcrime, when you think of it, and leads to a serious slippery slope. You start with censoring physical copies by not allowing reprinting or importing, but then you have to filter all internet access and monitor all internet access and out people for wanting to read or view something you say they can't?

In fact, here's a list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

Why the hell are we bothering?

Australian customs also actively seeks and seizes books imported by individuals.

Fuck, thanks for protecting us from the naughty written word, guys!

NOTE: The contents of this post do not apply to Child Porn as that is pornography made involving individuals who cannot legally consent.

We can harness the advantages of open source software to run our voting networks. The open source solution will be better than any proprietary solution (Diebold) due to the greater transparency, ability for review and portability, which would allow for greater trust and quality. The trust that lays between a government and its people over its voting system should never be broken, investigated and punished whereever there is doubt.

The open source idea is unlike rainbows and heart-shaped candy in that it can stand up to the hard boot of reality, shown by the many applications that have thrived from the open source model, including importantly the OpenPGP system as well as OpenBSD. It avoids purposefully created exploits and backdoors by constant peer-review by the experts (the developers) before any updates to the program package can be made. Also important in this development cycle is to have strong standards for code and program development that aids review and readability.

The best part is that the system is so simple in concept that the development of the system would be straight-forward and thus fewer chances of vulnerabilities being introduced. Then the vulnerabilities that exist would be found through code-review (which has extensive success with OpenBSD) to ensure a secure and accurate voting system. So what would this development involve? Creating a framework for the software and for the software's environment, then selecting developers (most likely from leading open source developers) to conduct the project, more developers for review. I'm not saying it will be easy, but with enough skittles and beer, we can do anything.

However this simplicity is not without concerns, the system not living in a vacuum (unlike my cat). It would require the complicity of the government to ensure that one person gets one vote, to protect voters from intimidation and from having their information distributed to external agencies.

So once the system is developed and working, what to do with it? This system would allow any person who wishes to build a voting network, whether for a household or for a country, this will speed the process. While this methodology has an obvious advantage for more developed countries, the costs of implementing this system with basic hardware and infrastructure would be potentially less than physical counts. It has the potential to reduce corruption and speed results. The continual controversies, recounts, claims of bribery and wide spread corruption that has impacted in Africa, Russia and even the United States could be removed, leaving only all our other social problems including drugs, incompetent leaders, oppressive security measures and so on.

Furthermore it could allow the people to vote on more matters than just who is representing them for the next 4 years or so. We could even reduce the terms of our leaders to reflect how much faster the world is. An open source voting tool allows so much potential change to our current system, to give democracy and choice back to the people, regardless of whom or where they are. The great power that the developers would have would be overseen by the world, almost guaranteeing their honesty.

This first post, was it belligerent enough? Cognitive dissonance harms your unborn baby.

Remember: Liberty, equity, fraternity

It appears some vodka sodden misnomer from one of the darker recesses of the sewer system has mustered up the intellectual fortitude to attempt to make a connection between their brain and a keyboard and vomited out the following nonsensical jibberish including changing the title of the LDP's protest blog when quoted to:

IGNORANT YOUNG NEOFASCIST AGITATOR ITINERARY

Obviously this Neopaedophile's (Using the same author's specious reasoning appending neo to anything makes the entire definition an intellectually stimulating game of pass the parcel) point is that "Hey I disagree with these LDP guys, they're little Mussolini's in tweed!" The apparently talented TINA quotes noted onanist Naomi Klein to justify his own subscription to an intellectually dishonest drink-sodden thought-experiment-cum-ideology in a fantastically circular way:

These blueprints for another world were crushed and disappeared because they are popular and because, when tried, they work. They’re popular because they have the power to give millions of people lives with dignity, with the basics guaranteed. They are dangerous because they put real limits on the rich, who respond accordingly.

So it seems that Comrade TINA in its own self indulgent hypocritical post-ironic fashion (Typing is not activism but I'm sharing my beliefs through the majesty of the written word! I'm as intellectually decadent as Cottee's Gold Topping!) thought to throw hate at the LDP as they're:

The Liberty and Democracy Party are a bunch of Australian igno-douches halfway between 1st year economics and their first graduate jobs in the p.r./marketing/banking sector. But they’re not all poorly educated assholes.

Whilst I completely accept that TINA has every right to lambast these individuals for their hardline beliefs, I hardly think that TINA has a leg to stand on considering TINA's own economic beliefs appear to have come free in a packet of corn flakes (That TINA was no doubt given by the state).

However, the greatest part of the booklet? The section:

How to tell if your child is using Illegal drugs

Symptoms of which include

• Minimal family contact
• Lack of enthusiasm or motivation
• Aggression
• Lack of interest in sporting activities

That's right, you heard it here first. Every single child is a budding NRL wunderkind until the evil menace drugs take away their... INCLINATION TO ENGAGE IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY!

I'm sorry, but I experience all of these behaviours on a regular basis and the only thing I'm guilty of having high levels of in my body at the moment is contempt.

Maybe that'll warrant a booklet "Justifying specious and facile governmental propaganda to your children through systematic intellectual dishonesty". Nah, too long, how about; "Lying to your kids, through beatings!"

In fact the last serious event of pure political inspiration was a large segment of the young right trying to figure out exactly what commandments Kevin Rudd's trip to the Stripper Store broke as well as adamantly protesting that Howard had never even heard of the concept and could only spell the word 'stripper' if he was pressured very sternly and had Janette holding his hand. Even then, that was about as politically motivating as the aftermath of a barium enema frugally sprinkled with hundreds and thousands.

It seems throughout the last couple of decades the only party that's made a decent strive towards classical liberal tendencies was the Australian Democrats, purely by coincidence in that they self-destructed, moving us one step closer to minarchism.

The only motivations and inspirations for the young on both sides being the utterly nepotistic and ethically unscrupulous rewards spewed upon them for toeing the party line (In the case of Young Labor large endowments from Unions which constitute most of their budget, from the Libs side, nubile women-flesh to be consumed and discarded after crushing their idealism with arse-slapping and cringeworthy sex under the context of being a true 'blueblood' [without undergoing blue-balls, it would seem]). The hackery just seems to continuously extend beyond the confines of human imagination until it erupts in an orgiastic fountain of arrested development.

The fact that the parties are so similar and their policies are so incredibly similar (However the Libs seem determined to continue this drugs war as some kind of moral crusade which will inevitably fail. I feel this is the first time the Libs have ever felt so proud about spending so much money on something so incredibly foolish [if we keep those repugnant workchoices ads out of our vision for just a moment]) just goes to show how much Australian politics have stagnated. The most irritating thing being that the only forms of social and political reforms that seem to be developing are growing like a strangling tendril from the greens and the other loonies. We've had policies on drugs decriminalisation, Environmental responsibility (again a hot button issue, but for the most part one that shouldn't be divided on political grounds, I can argue for energy efficiency and investing into efficient and alternate technologies due to the massive amounts of profit to be made and money to be saved) and international law reforms. Excusing for a moment that most of their concepts are based on closing the borders, printing money and writing hundreds of new laws for 'funsies', it seems as if society is willing to live in a perpetual state of political stagnation brought upon through having this continuous incumbent. Most of the people who have just become able to vote don't know much about any system that ISN'T under Howard. As such the beat rides on and we become completely satisfied with the same rehashed nonsense and political rhetoric that holds no real answers for anyone.

What it comes down to is this, where is the political individual who is going to reform or at least REINVIGORATE the current system we're in? Where is the ardent Austrian who is going to throw the factual smackdown onto the audience of these debates and provide some people with hope about achieving some level of reducing government in general and getting the government out of our lives? Where's the person motivating young people such as myself to get up and get serious about political issues? I understand that my own views aren't that widely represented in Australia in their entirety, but where's the person who argues for free trade AND gay rights? Where's the person who wants to leave the Iraq war but not raid the future's fund? Where is the person who wants to reduce the level of governmental approval and beauracracy so that the development of key infrastructure can begin ASAP from the pockets of industry players and NOT the government?

Where's the person who can really, truly make us believe something more than our ballot being equally useful both as a pile of ash, or with a 1 marked on it?

"Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?" the main points of the article:

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

And he makes a very Cogent point regarding the place of Hate-Crime legislation and the stifling of freedom of speech in order to make sure that the feelings of the few are not hurt. As Salman Rushdie quipped "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Why are the freedoms we so espouse as being the cornerstone of our western democracies being thrown headily out the window in order to soften the violent cries of sects of a populous that wishes us harm? Surely we are mature enough to know that we should, in no situation, put up with bullying or intimidation tactics no matter the political fallout? It seems that as the political sphere has evolved we have conflated the notion of being an Arab with the religion of Islam. While it would be logical to state statistically that a large percentage of Islamic individuals are Arabic, it is imprudent and downright foolish to say that criticism of the Islamic Religion is tantamount to racism. In fact it would be as ludicrous as conflating HIV with Africans, saying that a large amount of African individuals have HIV and thus trying to cure HIV is eugenics and Naziism gone drunk with power!

We are at the moment, hopefully, on the cusp of a dichotomy between the teaching of the old world religions and the development of science and scientific philosophies. It was once said that Religion is just a dried up old Philosophy; "Philosophy with all the questions removed" - again a point of contention as one could say that many answers to the questions of religion are still being sought (c.f the Virgin birth from the point of view of the Catholics versus other religious groups) but they are coming up empty in the face of science that seems to take the less self-involved viewpoint providing a rationalisation rather than a solipsism.

What we must understand that by self-censorship of this type, by stating that we feel our culture has elements of freedom and expression and certain inalienable rights (Inalienable in the sense that it takes 'emergency and temporary legislation' to remove them) do we wish to commit such an hilarious irony in the name of political correctness?

If our society is so strongly based upon these rights then why must we remove them in order to sate a society that feels they are not inalienable? Down this rabbit hole of circular logic and needless guilt only madness lies. One would think it would only take a matter of time for us to come to the realisation that we're being incredibly self-indulgent and moronic in regards to this and only this.