Bioethics Douchebag of the Week
by chunkdzThis week's Bioethics Douchebag is professor Matthew Liao.
Among his various "cures" for the planet's fever are:
1) A "meat patch" that makes you puke when you eat meat.
2) Hormones that stunt your children's growth.
3) Drugs that make you want to write checks.
4) Genetically engineering humans with "cat eyes" so we don't need light bulbs.
Of course, Matthew assures us that no one will be forced to do any of these things. The government will simply set limits to how much carbon your family can produce or set drastic limits on consumption. Then you get all the freedom you need to decide whether you want to have 2 really small children, or one medium sized child, or perhaps one large child who will be required to wear a "meat patch".
Progressivism! Enhancing your freedom – by limiting your freedom!
March 13th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
I nominate Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini for next week's bioethics douchebag awards. Although do they really deserve it for simply greasing the slippery slope built by the infamous Peter Singer?
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 13, 2012 @ 12:41 pm
March 13th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
The way he sees it, it's your "weak will" that's limiting your freedom, and he can help you with that! I don't think he can even imagine the possibility that someone could disagree with him unless it was because of a flaw such as stupidity of weakness of will.
Happily, these ideas are so entirely off the wall, that I don't think we have to worry about any of them for a while. For example, it would be much easier and more practical to tax the heck out of meat than to invent and force consumption of a meat aversion pill, so that idea doesn't seem likely even before you consider anyone's freedoms.
Comment by don provan — March 13, 2012 @ 12:49 pm
March 14th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
They better NOT!!!
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 14, 2012 @ 7:03 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Provan:
Did everyone notice that Provan doesn't consider arbitrary taxation to be an infringement of freedom?
They really are authoritarians at heart, aren't they? Every last one of them.
Comment by chunkdz — March 15, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Don
First,he never advocated the use of force,in fact just the opposite.
Second, just as with cigarettes ,the better strategy seems to be a combination. Tax policy ,and an attempt to mitigate the withdraw.
Comment by velikovskys — March 15, 2012 @ 11:18 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 12:50 am
Every last one.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2012 @ 12:50 am
March 16th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Are you seriously questioning my libertarian credentials? The point is that we have taxation, and the government has used excessive taxation before to modify behavior, so that's a much easier and politically more likely path to stopping meat consumption than the outrageous approach the OP is concerned about. Naturally, I disapprove of any attempt by the government to make our choices for us.
Eh. I admit, I intentionally ignored that issue and accepted the OP's negative view. But, really, if you read the interview, while it's true he never advocates force, it's hard to imagine how else several of these ideas could be implemented without the government taking money from someone, using it to develop "a solution", and then making people use the results, whether explicitly through mechanisms such as adding conditions for welfare or implicitly through government invented peer pressure. The ideas just couldn't work based solely on the good intentions of individuals.
Right, my point exactly. Although as chunkdz quite rightly points out, that's not really all that much more justifiable.
Comment by don provan — March 16, 2012 @ 2:41 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Provan:
Provan's got credentials?
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2012 @ 4:09 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Victor Stenger smears scientists
Dawkins web site expects us to rely on faith, not evidence
Comment by MikeGene — March 16, 2012 @ 6:09 pm
March 17th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Don
Since I have no libertarian credentials, in the abstract does the government have a legitimate role with regard to public safety?
In the freedom loving State of Texas there are laws against throwing trash on the public highways.Is this an justifiable use of government power? Is the government taking money in fines ,arbitrary? Texas has thousands of miles of roads,one bag of trash is negligible. What happens when the individuals desire,to litter, conflicts with my desire not to dodge trash in the highway?
Comment by velikovskys — March 17, 2012 @ 4:27 pm
March 17th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
People = trash? What?
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 17, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
March 17th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
AOFM,
Rather than debate the merits of anthropomorphic climate change, it was an attempt to see if Don believed any government action is justifiable, and if so where generally the boundary might be. Whether all taxation is arbitary and unjustified infringement on freedom. A credentialed Libertarian view. Sorry for the confusion
Comment by velikovskys — March 17, 2012 @ 10:06 pm
March 17th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
He said he was a libertarian, not an anarchist. Given that government does and always has seethed with corruption, and tends to be populated by control freaks, it's good to keep it as limited as possible. From the government's perspective, we're just numbers on a spreadsheet.
Comment by MikeGene — March 17, 2012 @ 10:20 pm
March 18th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I lean way to the libertarian side of things but I must confess that I don't know whether libertarians support the government as outlined in the Constitution(?).
In my opinion though, laws against littering are OK because littering infringes upon the rights of property owners.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 18, 2012 @ 12:05 pm
March 18th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Mike Gene,
I reason I ask it Don's disapproval of any attempt of the government to make our choices for us. Even a limited government limits choice of action.
Comment by velikovskys — March 18, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
That is the question: Is it justifiable? The point is that Liao is only considering whether it's possible and speaks as if he only needs to show that it's possible, then it will automatically be justified. I'm perfectly willing to hear arguments for justified use of government, but I reject the idea that because Texas fines people for littering, then it's ok to develop a drug to make it unpleasant for people to eat meat, then find a way to get citizens to take it.
The general boundary is this: if you are going to use the government to force someone to do something, then you have to justify it. Unfortunately, we're a long way past that standard: most Americans mistakenly believe that if they think something's a "good idea", that automatically justifies using the government to force it to happen. As a country, we've long forgotten the wisdom of our founding fathers who understood that even benevolent government action has a large price beyond dollars spent which must be considered.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 12:29 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Libertarians support the government as outlined in the Constitution, they just don't think our current government is operating within those boundaries.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 12:35 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Well said. It amazes me that people automatically assume the government power can only be used for good. The fact is, we're lucky when government power is only used for good: there's always someone leveraging some part of any government power for their own gain. And while the corrupt and overly demented are certainly a problem, the even bigger danger are the well intentioned but misguided or mistaken.
Another good point. People often dismiss this kind of thinking because the government is made up of individuals that care about people as much as we do. I actually believe that's largely true, but it doesn't prevent the government as a whole from being an impersonal monster we need to watch carefully.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 12:48 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Then why are they are they always looking to repeal 14th amendment?
Comment by Guts — March 19, 2012 @ 1:22 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Don
One of co-authors." We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it's part of the learning process."
That was not my intention to equate bioengineering with littering.I was merely interested in you statement that "Naturally, I disapprove of any attempt by the government to make our choices for us.". I was curious what that encompassed. Since climate change is such a hot button issue,I tried to use a more neutral example
That was my clumsily made attempt to find out, what is a legitimate justification for government action?
The separation of powers and the Bill of Rights are proof that Americans from the start have distrusted the government.
Which people might those be?
Personally I fear the former more than the latter
Comment by velikovskys — March 19, 2012 @ 1:56 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Provan:
And as an atheist, how exactly do you claim to know what's "misguided" or "mistaken"?
Liao's ideas seem to be very rational solutions to a serious problem.
Comment by chunkdz — March 19, 2012 @ 1:59 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
a link to the Guardian interview with authors
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
Comment by velikovskys — March 19, 2012 @ 2:03 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I imagine an atheist would measure someone's behavior pretty much the same way a theist does.
They are only rational within an unreasonably limited problem domain.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 2:09 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Atheists claim that human liberty is God given?
And you know this how ….?
Comment by chunkdz — March 19, 2012 @ 2:29 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
As I said, I am approaching this topic from the point of view of the OP, so I'm not particularly worried about the hair this co-author is splitting. Sure, it was clear that they couldn't really expect these to be implemented.
But at the same time, really, this is a copout. Even if we believe him that they are carefully explaining detailed solutions which they consider bizarre — If they're covering bizarre solutions, why not discuss wiping out the human race? That would do the trick, too — there's no particular reason to think that no one in power will think that these are perfectly reasonable solutions.
Littering is an easy problem: the government isn't limiting my choice, they're just charging me for the costs of me making a choice that the government has to spend money reacting to.
You can find no end of explanations of libertarian philosophy elsewhere. I'll discuss them with you, but I'm not sure that's on topic here, and I'm not particularly interesting is expousing them myself. In this context, the important point is that government action does have to be justified, something many people seem to have forgotten.
Right, among other things. And the fact that many people think it's reasonable that the founding fathers would put the 2nd Amendment into the Constution simply to make sure people will always be able to shoot dinner is proof that most people have forgotten that wisdom.
How many examples do you want? I'll give you two:
The people that are in favor of a woman's right to choose, yet are gungho to put healthcare under the control of the government.
The people that think that corruption in the financing of political campaigns can be reduced by encouraging politicians to pass laws controlling the financing of political campaigns.
Exactly the problem. One can imagine eliminating the former. You can't really, of course, but you can try really hard and, more to the point, you can think you've succeeded. But the latter are exactly what you'd have left if you did succeed. While you're patting yourself on the back for eliminating corruption, those honest, hardworking politicians and bureaucrats will continuing doing stupid and dangerous things — not everytime, but often enough — and you won't be worried about it because you don't see any demented people doing obviously bad things.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 3:02 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I don't understand. What difference does it make where human liberty came from?
Oh, sorry. I thought we agreed it was an unreasonably limited problem domain. If you think that problem domain is reasonable, then go ahead and make your case and I'll tell you where I disagree.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 3:07 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Despite their protests to the contrary, the clear indication here is that these proposals are not inherently bizarre and that they could make the argument for them if they had the time.
The important observation here is that while they don't envisage coercion, they don't rule it out, either. And, as I said to begin with, you can't really take these proposals seriously if you think they'll be adopted voluntarily.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2012 @ 3:18 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Because if it comes from the state, then the state also has power to take it away.
If you were really a libertarian I wouldn't have to explain this to you.
I challenged you to back up your assertion.
You failed.
Comment by chunkdz — March 19, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
These boys never learn, chunk.
Don didn't understand the argument the last time I hashed it out with him, and he's made no progress in the nearly three years since then. Either that or he's that Oscar-winning impressionist that he claimed to be and it's all a ruse.
I have more hope for velikovskys, but by the looks of it he hasn't learned anything either, even after a couple of rounds with the Marquis.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 19, 2012 @ 8:59 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Comment by chunkdz — March 19, 2012 @ 9:39 pm
March 19th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Nice point. If our healthcare comes under the control of the government, then it comes under the control of lobbyists.
IMO, the only way to minimize corruption in the financing of political campaigns is to minimize the power and extent of government. The more power you have over people’s lives, the more people will try to buy you off. Corruption and big government cannot be separated.
Comment by MikeGene — March 19, 2012 @ 11:45 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Well, the state has the power to take it away, there's no question about that, but that's not because the state gave it to us. (I'm not really sure what you mean by saying liberty comes from somewhere or why you think it's important. Does green come from somewhere? Are only people that think green comes from God allowed to like green?)
Regardless, where liberty comes from and who or what can take it away from us still doesn't change the fact that we consider it valuable on its own.
Well, no, actually you challenged me to come up with and defeat an unstated argument against common sense. But, OK, if it means that much to you: the proposal considers only the limited problem of reducing meat intake without considering much more fundamental issues such as liberty. Since liberty is very important to us — ref: various famous historical documents — this is an unreasonable limitation of the problem set.
Comment by don provan — March 20, 2012 @ 12:17 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Well, that's a little too specific. The point here is that the government would continue to control healthcare even if the country in general turns conservative and, by a clear and decisive majority of votes, unfettered by any shenanigans of lobbyists, decides that government healthcare shouldn't fund abortions. One might excuse someone in the 70's from thinking that could ever happen, but since it did happen in the 90's, it's hard to imagine what these people are thinking.
And, oh by the way, lobbyists and others could also subvert the power in other ways, that's true.
Certainly true and important, but, again, be careful about saying "corruption" because some things that are considered perfectly normal — in fact, are celebrated — function exactly the same way. The basic intended operation of a representative government calls for the person in power to do what the people want in order to convince them to reelect him. This gives him a distinct advantage over any challenger not in power. Although we question some of the more obvious cases, such as bribing the populace by arranging to have the government build an unnecessary road or building, the mechanism itself inherently favors the incumbents.
Mind you, that's not a problem with the system we use, it's just the fundamental problem with government. All the more reason to make sure we ask the government to do as little as possible, exactly as you suggest.
And one last point: although we can, as I've done here, outline the problem even considering only honest, hardworking people on all sides, the fact is that government has emergent properties which make it something that really should be considered an entity with goals and even "desires" independent of the individuals within it in the same way we are entities independent of the current set of cells making up our body. As an easy to see example: almost every individual involved in government — not just politicians, but bureaucrats, military, and, in many case, the voters themselves — has a personal motive for enlarging their role no matter how well meaning and honest they are. Indeed, the more honest and well meaning, the more acceptable we would consider their motives. Yet the sum of all the individuals doing something entirely reasonable is a tendency for the government itself to get larger even as we're all running around saying it's too big and spending too much. Furthermore, when the individual that enlarged a domain leaves, the domain doesn't disappear: it's just taken over by another individual with a motive to maintain and enlarge it.
Comment by don provan — March 20, 2012 @ 12:57 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Don,
Perhaps I am confused by the " power can only be used for good " . Did you mean "assume government power can be used for good" in which case your example does make sense.
Comment by velikovskys — March 20, 2012 @ 4:13 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
AOFM ,
Except for the Marquis part,my wife agrees
Comment by velikovskys — March 20, 2012 @ 4:27 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
don provan wrote:
Permissions = colors? What?
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 20, 2012 @ 10:02 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
velikovskys wrote:
And now these three remain [endure]: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 20, 2012 @ 10:17 pm
March 20th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
I believe she agrees with ( he hasn't learned anything yet)
Comment by velikovskys — March 20, 2012 @ 11:52 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 6:33 am
Sorry, veli, I tried to edit the thing to keep my hope in there and managed to mangle your wife's intention.
My hope stills stands. If you're married, that makes my hope even stronger.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 21, 2012 @ 6:33 am
March 21st, 2012 at 10:43 am
Not in this country.
And, of course, I never said that. Do you learn anything from the fact that you seem to be incapable of putting forth an argument that does not include a strawman? It would certainly give me pause.
Not true. The problem is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The solution is reduced consumption. And Liao et. al. make some very rational efforts to balance personal liberty against the greater good of mankind.
It seems that it is you who is unreasonably limiting the problem domain, not Liao. Another strawman.
It's time to ask yourself why.
Comment by chunkdz — March 21, 2012 @ 10:43 am
March 21st, 2012 at 1:36 pm
OK, I admit that's a confusing turn of phrase, although it made a little more sense in context. What I was refering to is people thinking that if they allow government to do something they think is good, then that good thing is the only thing that will happen. Even ignoring unintended consequences, one thing that always happens when the government does something new is that the government gets more powerful. That effect is almost never considered these days.
Comment by don provan — March 21, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Wow, that seemed like a really simple simile. I can't believe I have to explain it. "green" and "liberty" are concepts we have invented to describe features of the world we see around us. "green" refers to a particular quality of the light which reaches our eyes. "liberty" is a quality of a human which has a wide range of choices that are not excessively limited by some external power. chunkdz keeps saying the source of liberty is important for us to decide whether it's a quality we like to experience, so I asked him if it was also important to know the source of green for us to decide whether it's a quality we like to see. Got it?
Of course, in an odd sense, you've brought out the real issue: I think chunkdz is saying liberty has some kind of fundamental reality, i.e., it's much more than just a concept we've invented. We here, of course, can agree that's true without changing the fact that an atheist might stupidly disagree, yet still think with perfect logic that the quality named by the concept "liberty", however superficial in our view, is worth a lot and should not be squandered on reducing meat consumption.
Comment by don provan — March 21, 2012 @ 1:51 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 2:10 pm
You couldn't have made my point any better. Yes, in this country. There's nothing magic about our form of government that prevents our liberties from being eroded if we are not vigilant.
You never said anything, you just demanded I make my case against any possible objection. Then when I invented objections, you accuse me of making up strawmen.
Now you seem to be making a case in favor of Laio's work after starting the thread by calling him Bioethics Douchebag of the Week, so I guess I'm out of my league.
Comment by don provan — March 21, 2012 @ 2:10 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Where?
Comment by chunkdz — March 21, 2012 @ 2:15 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 2:20 pm
You are confusing liberty with the right to liberty. The state can take away liberties but it cannot take away our right to it.
If you were really a libertarian you would not need this kind of hand holding.
Comment by chunkdz — March 21, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 2:24 pm
You made an assertion. I asked you to back it up. You punted. Period.
The reason you turned tail is that atheists have no logical basis for contesting Liao's assertions. Liao is being rational in trying to balance limited resources with the needs of society as a whole – a perfectly rational stance, especially since all of his solutions are completely voluntary.
You atheists are quick to champion reason, but it seems to bother you when reason is used against you.
Comment by chunkdz — March 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 2:48 pm
don provan wrote:
It's your comparison, I'm simply reducing it to its essentials to show you how it's a non-sequitur.
You don't. I understand your analogy, but the analogy is extremely flawed. Flawed to the point of being a non-sequitur.
None of this is true.
"Green" is not an invention. "Green" is a label for an actual tangible thing – a range of wavelengths of light. These wavelengths exist whether or not we have eyes to see them, brains to interpret them, or languages to label them.
"Liberty" is an invention, but it is not a description of any feature of the world we see. It is completely unobserved. Nothing we have ever observed has liberty, everything observable is limited in its actions, motions, behaviors, etc., by some external force or power.
AS I STATED ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO TO YOU, the closest thing to liberty that we have is a set of "rights", and "rights" are merely permissions to behave certain ways granted by a dominating external authority, i.e. a government.
Logically, the revoking of permissions is done by the same entity that grants them. If government grants permissions, then by that same logic it is government that revokes permissions.
The only logical, truthful, intellectually honest way to escape this conundrum is for our rights – our "liberty" – to be granted by some other entity than a government. What could this entity be? If we believe the author(s) of the first foundational document of the United States, they explicitly tell us that mankind's rights are not determined by any government, but are "endowed by their Creator".
Got it?
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 21, 2012 @ 2:48 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Sorry, acting like you don't understand something completely failed to convey anything about my simile being relevant, so I missed that that's what you were trying to say.
Liberty is very tangible. Ask anyone. I'm in jail, I'm not in jail. There's nothing unobservable about that.
Liberty is the general concept describing how much "permission" we have. Again, arguing about where those permissions come from — even if we accept a simple minded approach to considering it like yours — still has nothing to do with the fact that almost all of us like to have more of them.
Our country was founded by the people living in the English colonies of North America refuting your claim.
Comment by don provan — March 21, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
March 21st, 2012 at 11:13 pm
don provan wrote:
Liberty is not a material thing. It does not have an objective existence. Colors do. I have once again proven your analogy to be weak and stupid. Please keep repeating it so that I can keep ridiculing it.
How do we get more of them/it?
Petition the government? Then the government grants or revokes "rights" as it sees fit. A democratic form of government simply decides what "rights" to grant or revoke by polling its constituents (or in the case of a democratic republic, polling its elected representatives) and doing what the majority says to do.
Make government smaller? We can't do that unless we are allowed. And who does the allowing? Once again, government. We're back at square one. Should government somehow become smaller, "liberty" becomes the area where government cannot reach due to logistical reasons. Your "rights" are then whatever your stronger neighbors allow you to do within the law (i.e., rules laid down by the government). Once again, the final arbiter of "rights" is – wait for it – that's right, government.
All of the above is logically consistent if you are an atheist. This means that to the intellectually honest and consistent atheist, there are no such things as unalienable rights.
Unalienable rights are unalienable because they are endowed by a higher authority than mankind. The higher authority, according to the author(s) of the American Declaration of Independence, is the Creator.
It's not my claim, it is the logical conclusion that stems from thinking that human beings are the highest authority. The Founders refuted that claim like so:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Damn, son, you are thicker than month-old molasses in January.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 21, 2012 @ 11:13 pm
March 22nd, 2012 at 10:42 am
Angryold
It is the most persuasive proof of the miraculous to me.
Comment by velikovskys — March 22, 2012 @ 10:42 am
March 22nd, 2012 at 10:51 am
Don
I figured it made sense, just wanted to understand how. Perhaps stranger still is the belief that this time it will turn out differently, there will be no unintended consequences. Of course this is sauce for the goose as well as the gander
Comment by velikovskys — March 22, 2012 @ 10:51 am
March 23rd, 2012 at 7:40 pm
OK, as long as you agree it had been refuted, I'm not going to worry about why you're arguing with me when I say it's not true.
Comment by don provan — March 23, 2012 @ 7:40 pm
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:18 pm
don provan wrote:
It has been refuted by introducing a higher authority than mankind. A Creator, to be exact.
Without a higher authority, none of what I have put forward as a consistent, intellectually honest atheist argument has been refuted.
This is something you said that you don't understand, and you said it in this very thread. To wit:
Either you now understand and you are a theist, or you still don't understand and you're an inconsistent, intellectually dishonest atheist.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 23, 2012 @ 11:18 pm
June 12th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
chunk,
Are there candidates for other douchebags of the week?
Not that he's a douchebag, but there is a scandal involving Steve Matheson. Matheson's website has a photo of him and a woman. Is that his wife? If so, then this news is really bad:
Steve Matheson Sex Scandal with Student
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 12, 2012 @ 12:33 pm
June 12th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Wow. He was quite the douche even before he got caught doing genetic experiments on his nubile female students.
Well, as a Christian Steve should be well acquainted with Prov. 16:18.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2012 @ 1:12 pm
June 12th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
As well as this one…
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2012 @ 2:43 pm
August 23rd, 2012 at 6:32 am
Just add a little Communism mixed in with a few billion mutants via genetic manipulation/modern eugenics, and you get an Adolph Stalin? No, you get a Matthew Liao.
Now why couldn't he have thought of something that was actually productive concerning over population, like men with bigger penises and women with smaller vaginas…..Now that would change the whole concept of survival of the fittest.
Comment by themayan — August 23, 2012 @ 6:32 am