I, as most of you, was compelled by the Making a Murderer series on Netflix. The validity of the claims aside for a moment, it was certainly compelling TV, and Netflix deserves all credit for the entertainment value of it.
Also, like you, after watching it, I felt as though Avery and his nephew were wrongly convicted in both instances, not just the initial conviction of Avery we know was wrong.
Steven Avery: Making a Murderer on Netflix
But I’d ask you all to apply come critical thinking for a second.
Most of you who watched the documentary feel he’s innocent. I’d say a fair estimate is at least 11 out of 12 of you anyway.
Yet, in a court of law, where all the evidence was presented, 12 out of 12 people all came to the opposite conclusion and agreed Avery and his nephew were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the majority of them, but every single one of them. Such a large disparity cannot be explained away by a simple anomaly.
Clearly, they heard a different story than us Netflix viewers did. This story would be one where the prosecution and the defense presented their cases with equal opportunity.
I’m not saying a jury never gets it wrong, surely they do, and did in fact for his initial conviction. But let’s understand that the jury is made of people just like you and I. So if the majority of us think he’s innocent, yet all of them found him guilty, clearly we’re missing some info that the jury heard.
Here’s a link to some evidence that was left out of the documentary, in my opinion, somewhat shamefully if they intended to be fair. It paints a very different picture of Avery.
Let’s also remember that the car was found on Avery’s property. If Avery is entirely innocent as he claims, and was framed by the police, when they found Halbach’s vehicle, instead of investigating her murder in earnest, they immediately opted instead to use the opportunity to plant the evidence at Avery’s place, hoping that someone would find it. It’s pretty far-fetched.
Either way, let’s explore another possibility that fits with all the evidence, not just the evidence supporting Avery’s innocence.
It is entirely possible that Avery is guilty, but prosecutors and police didn’t have enough evidence to convict him, and thus planted evidence to get that conviction they needed.
If this is true, this means both Avery and Manitowac county are villains.
By all means, it was an entertaining series which in my opinion shows that the Manitowac county government has some serious ethics issues. When libertarians like me try to convince the populace to stop growing government, it’s because government has corruption issues like this throughout. We understand that the only way to lessen government corruption is to lessen the size and scope of government itself.
But let’s not assume Avery is innocent based on a documentary with a clearly biased agenda. While I don’t argue they presented false information, it is obvious they ignored presenting information that paints Avery out in a bad light; specifically all the evidence that led to his ultimate conviction. As well as the evidence that shows he exhibited psychopathic and violent behavior.
Avery being guilty, and Manitowac County being corrupt are not mutually exclusive hypotheses. Keep in the back of your mind that it is entirely possible both are true. Watch the series, find it interesting. Look at other sources and find them interesting as well. But no one should be asserting that they know one or the other is true. Question everything, and enjoy the journey.
I found myself in a debate on Twitter with writer Sarah Benincasa. After the GOP debate, she had referred to all Republicans as “Shitheads.”
Your humble correspondent is a libertarian-republican. (Small L and small R). The small letters indicate I’m not beholden to either party, but just the principles of liberty and a constitution, the defining factors of being a libertarian and a republican.
Feeling somewhat insulted by someone I typically felt was fair and tolerant of other people’s opinions, I decided to respond by pointing out that some of the people on that stage had indeed shown that they were not your stereotypical Republican, and that ultimately the type of bigotry one uses to paint all people of a group with one brush, isn’t really fair. Below was my response followed by Sarah’s passionate counter-response.
This got me thinking about the issue a little deeper. I won’t point out more of the discussions that followed. They were mostly followers of Sarah attacking me or the candidates with contempt, instead of showing any interest in respectful debate. So I explained my position as respectfully as I could, and exited stage left.
But this exchange brings a couple of issues to light.
The first of which is the concept of being a one-issue person. I believe many of the pro-choice people are often pro-legalization of marijuana as well. Senator Rand Paul has worked with Democrat Corey Booker to accomplish exactly that. If that had been the one issue Sarah (if she is pro-legalization) opted to key on instead of abortion as an important issue to her, she might have painted him in a different light.
Senator Rand Paul (R)
The point being that no candidate will ever agree with you 100%; It’s that simple. As a voter, the best you can do is find common ground with candidates where you’re able, support them when you do, and dissent when you don’t.
You should certainly side with the person who most commonly aligns with your beliefs, but it’s silly to assume someone is all bad and treat them as if they’re evil “shitheads.”
As much as I dislike Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, I don’t paint either one to be evil, or call them names. I just think they’re wrong, more often than not, and challenge their positions or their integrity when they are found to be disingenuous, a trait common in politicians of all parties.
But delving into the abortion issue, I first want to point out the flaws with the basic pro-life/pro-choice argument.
The converse of pro-life is not pro-choice, it’s anti-life. And thus the converse of pro-choice is not pro-life, it’s anti-choice. The two are slightly separate issues. So I’ll first explain my position and why.
As it is typically understood, I am pro-choice. I believe there are many understandable instances where a woman would choose to abort, that I compassionately cannot condone throwing her in jail on a 1st degree murder charge for, where I absolutely would if she killed the child the same child after birth. So I’ve always argued that viability is a fair cut-off in my opinion—emphasis on opinion.
But that being said, I’m also pro-life in an untraditional sense. I would encourage anyone who is pregnant and healthy, to bring the child to term and either raise it, or put it up for adoption if so desired. But that’s an issue between her and the father, not her and the government, also in my opinion.
Yet in my debate, despite being pro-choice myself, I ended up arguing the pro-life point. I suspect mostly because I believe in fairness over ideology.
Human Zygote development directly after fertilization. (Click Image for more information)
Being atheist, I don’t lend much credence to religion, so I won’t point out the religious component to all of this, it doesn’t matter. Whether you believe it’s a human life because God says so, or because science says so, you believe it’s a human life.
So then the question becomes when is it a life that deserves protection under the law?
I cannot say this with enough emphasis; that question can never be a matter of fact. It is pure opinion, and no one person’s opinion is any more valid than another’s, because with opinions, there is no scientific truth you can apply to make one argument better than the other, otherwise it would be fact. I believe in such situations, you can either respectfully agree to disagree, or you can behave intolerantly and attack your dissenter for having a differing opinion.
But the issue I take with many of my fellow pro-choice advocates, is that they call this a woman’s right issue, then argue that pro-life advocates are against women’s rights. This is where the pro-life/anti-life and pro-choice/anti-choice argument I made earlier becomes rather important.
If you are concerned about the woman’s rights, you will either be pro-choice or anti-choice. If you are viewing this argument from the embryo’s point of view, you are either pro-life or anti-life. The two are not interchangeable.
So when pro-choice people attack pro-life people for being against women’s rights, that’s a straw man argument.
The pro-life people believe it is a human life, with rights under the law. They believe that it’s not part of the woman’s body, but instead a separate body inside the woman’s body. As such, not believing it a woman’s rights issue whatsoever, or even framing it that way.
Logical Fallacies (Click to enlarge)
Pro-choice people however, believe that as long as the embryo resides in the mother, it is part of the mother, and therefore not a separate life, and not worthy of protection under the law, but instead, something a woman should have the right to remove, similar to a breast reduction to remove unwanted tissue to increase her quality of life.
I am not saying such people equate a fetus to a breast, so please no outraged response, understand I’m only saying they paint the procedures in a similar light, from an ethics perspective.
In either instance, again these positions as to whether it’s part of the woman’s body, or its own separate body within a body are matters of opinion, not fact, and can be argued either way. Tolerance dictates you must respect the converse opinion.
I have to point out that from a science perspective, the DNA of the embryo is unique from the mother’s, something that wouldn’t be true of any other organic substance inside the mother, she might opt to remove from her body; aside from a disease or another foreign invader of some sort anyway. So it’s hard to argue with science that the embryo is part of the mother’s body when it doesn’t share her exact DNA, but instead, a mix of her’s and the father’s.
Actual Image of Human DNA through an Electron Microscope. (Click image for more information)
I have a long history on this site of being all about science, so in theory, I probably should be what is traditionally thought of as pro-life and equate abortion to murder.
But I frankly know that if I had a daughter, and she had an abortion a month after fertilization versus a year after the birth, I cannot conflate the two as equally heinous. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, I remain pro-choice from a legal standpoint, and pro-life from a personal one.
As for Sarah and her followers, they are passionate about women’s rights, and that’s a good thing—I wish them well even if they think I’m a jerk.
I just wish they would embrace a little more empathy for those with differing opinions, and not conflate opinion with fact, because arguing someone is wrong, must revolve around facts, never opinions.
Donald Trump has recently announced that as president, he would use executive order to ban Muslims from entering the country temporarily.
As an atheist, I feel all religion can be dangerous if taken to extremes. But that being said, there can be no doubt that around the world, in the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of atrocities committed in the name of religion are committed by people of the Muslim faith.
Any time a tragedy happens, we as a people tend to believe we should try to analyze the problem that caused the tragedy and fix it. If the problem is too big for any one of us to fix, the non-libertarian population often feel government should fix it for them.
But let’s apply a little critical thinking to Trump’s idea of banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States.
How exactly do we go about banning all Muslims? If a Muslim applies to come to America, do the authorities ask that Muslim if they’re Muslim?
While an honest Muslim might answer truthfully, knowing it would preclude them from coming, wouldn’t a radical Muslim intending to kill Americans, or a desperate but peaceful Muslim hoping to flee a war-zone, just lie to get into the United States?
Quite similarly to the “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them” argument, if Muslims are banned from entering the United States, only deceitful Muslims will enter.
There is no DNA test that tells you what religion someone is—religion isn’t genetic. There is nothing science has to offer to detect one’s religion.
The 1st amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
By the letter of the Constitution, the president could in-fact pass such an order, because it isn’t Congress passing a law, it’s the president passing an executive order.
So while some have put forth the constitutionality argument, I would have to argue it is a non sequitur.
U.S. Constitution: 1st Amendment
But, the Supreme Court continues to allow Blue Laws which are clearly an establishment of religion, proving the letter of the Constitution isn’t always their ultimate guide.
So it’s quite possible that the Supreme Court would strike such an executive order down based on the “principles” of the first amendment, versus the letter of it, as they tend to err on the side of secularism these days—something I typically appreciate.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
So now we understand that if Trump wrote such an order, there’s no way to know who is and isn’t a Muslim. Even if the Supreme Court didn’t strike it down as an executive order, if Congress tried to pass it as law, it would most assuredly get struck down then.
But also, it is important to consider that even if such a law did somehow evade the Supreme Court’s wrath, and scientists invented a Muslim detector that really worked; when exactly is “temporary” over?
We’ve been fighting the war on terror since 2001, and it’s not like there are any fewer radical Muslims killing people. While the radicals may be a small minority at best, if he’s passing such an order to eliminate the threat, the threat won’t be eliminated until all Muslims are dead—an idea I assume most people would not support.
Because much like it’s impossible to identify a Muslim with any certainty if they choose to hide it, it’s equally impossible to identify a radical Muslim hell-bent on killing innocent civilians they deem to be infidels deserving of death.
Hopefully, Trump and his supporters will come to their senses and realize this isn’t a workable plan, and instead look for ways to better screen all people coming into the United States. But they should also understand that with freedom comes danger, as illustrated by our gun laws—something most Trump supporters do support, and anyone else who is serious about liberty.
So if we’re OK with one danger, we should be OK with the other, lest we be hypocrites.
While I don’t claim to have the answer; if we’re seeking one, I’d at least like to know there’s a bit of logic and reason behind the ideas being proposed, because this one has very little.
“If you see something, say something,” is a much simpler notion, it’s something we can all do to help government officials find these people. Exercising our 2nd amendment rights to arm ourselves so we can take down any would-be killers in our midst if we encounter one is pretty simple too.
Both are far more likely to be effective and far more doable than Trump’s entirely unworkable notion.
Have you ever heard the expression that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result? Rest assured, you probably didn’t hear it from a psychiatrist, because it’s utter nonsense.
As it turns out, insanity is a rather generic term used in the legal realm for many disorders that would in fact be listed in the DSM, that would render a suspect unable to distinguish right from wrong, and therefore unable to assist in their defense.
Any numbers of diseases could be cause for finding someone legally insane, but the APA calling you insane, would be akin to the American Medical Association (AMA) giving you an official diagnosis of “Having a cold.” It’s simply a very broad and generic term that isn’t really used in the clinical world in any official capacity.
However, all that being said, there are many conditions and behaviors insanity could be attributed to. Certainly one of them might be someone who bangs their head up against a wall and thinks, “Ouch, that hurt.” Then, does it again nonetheless.
So while someone who does the same thing and expects a different result might in fact have a condition that would qualify them for an insanity defense in a court of law, it is in no way the definition of insanity.
So I’d like to quash this silly anecdote by not using it, and explaining to those who do, that it’s incorrect. Why, you might ask?
In January of 2013, an Oregonian bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple who were soon to wed. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakery’s owners, are Christian, and felt that baking such a cake would violate their religious beliefs. As such, they refused the lesbian couple’s business.
As reported here by Fox, the couple faced a $150,000 fine, based on a January 29th, 2015 ruling, for discrimination as a result of such action.
Being an atheist and a libertarian, I find Aaron and Missy’s actions egregious and disgusting. I suspect many people who champion gay rights are happy to see them in trouble. But, as much as libertarians are indeed for gay rights, we are supposed to champion rights for all people, qualifiers be damned.
While the courts are doing a good job protecting the rights of the lesbian couple, they are taking away rights from the Kleins in doing so, and this is no better.
If the Constitution’s 1st amendment guarantees free speech under the law so people can say hateful things, shouldn’t the 1st amendment’s freedom of religion clause protect those who practice religion-based hate just the same?
U.S. Constitution: 1st Amendment
If I were the gay couple looking to get the aforementioned cake, I’d be rather insulted by the Klein’s actions, but if I believe in liberty, I’d fight vehemently for them to engage in such hate, so long as their hate isn’t harming me in some way. Let the free market deal with the Kleins in the court of public opinion.
I could do so by taking my story to local media, which happened as a result of this case, but I could also go on social media like Facebook and Twitter and spread the fact that the Kleins are not gay-friendly, hoping reasonable people opt not to frequent their store, harming their business accordingly.
The free market appears to have done exactly that since the aforementioned article by Fox indicates they have since moved to doing business out of their home, because the loss of business cost them the ability to continue leasing their store. They opted to start a GoFundMe campaign to help them with their cause, but that later was shut down, again due to the free market flexing its muscle as gay rights groups got GoFundMe to pull the Klein’s campaign.
Religious groups on the right are calling for religious liberty, but in my opinion, they are equally bad in all of this, since I doubt many of them support the lesbian couple’s right to marry. If they do, good on them for not being hypocrites.
If America is indeed a free-market capitalist system, government has no right to impose its will on private enterprise in this way. Yet we Americans tolerate it because we ignore the fundamental basis of the Constitution—that we all have equal rights under the law, including business owners like the Kleins.
Equal rights under the law has to mean that any business should have the right to engage in, or refuse, business with anyone else for any reason imaginable, no matter how hateful and disgusting those reasons may be.
Why? Because it’s their business. Despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, they built it, and they own it. They should have the right to build it up or burn it down however they see fit.
But we so often call for such laws, because there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction that every time someone is wronged, instead of trusting in the free market to sort it out, we feel we must ask government to pass a law to prevent this from happening in the future instead. But that is not, nor ever should be, the purpose of government.
Government’s duty is only to protect your rights, not your feelings. In a free country, you are going to be exposed to people who offend you, but that also means you are free to walk away and not listen to them or deal with them.
The lesbian couple certainly could have found another bakery, or simply baked their own cake. Why would they want to do business with people they know don’t like them in the first place?
It’s certainly their right to ask the Kleins to bake them a cake, but how could anyone say they have a right to demand the Kleins bake them one? Don’t the Kleins have rights?
So as much as gay rights groups were up in arms until the January 29th decision was handed down, and now religious groups are up in arms instead, I’d call for both of them to stop being hypocrites. If you say you’re for freedom and rights, then you have to champion the rights for those who hate you too.
I recently stated among friends, that I’ve vehemently despised Hillary Clinton since she was first lady; she has not done anything to change my opinion of her since.
My friend, attempting to challenge me on this, poignantly asked me what she could have possibly done as first lady to raise my ire. He was assuming I was just being a political ideologue with a hatred for anyone who is a Democrat, or at least Democratic in nature.
Hillary Rodham ClintonLittle did he know, I actually do have a reason, and it’s called The Health Security Act of 1993, affectionately known as Hillary Care. Despite neither being an elected official of Congress or the Senate, Hillary Clinton, at the pleasure of her husband Bill, drafted a legislative proposal for a government mandated single-payer health care system—a socialized medicine scheme. It was similar to what Obama really wanted when he ultimately settled for the Affordable Care Act, a quasi-free market system.
This wasn’t “Just say no” or Michelle Obama’s campaign to get people to eat healthy, this was an attempt at a massive overhaul of the American way of life (free-market capitalism) that would have cost taxpayers more than any other subsidy before it—by far. Yet she didn’t have a single taxpayer vote for her, thus giving her any legitimate reason to do such a thing. Not to mention, it was equally disturbing her husband appointed her to do so.
If Hillary had an ounce of medical training, or a history of leadership in the insurance industry, she would have some qualifications to point to in proposing such a scheme, but she’s a lawyer, nothing more, and thus unilaterally unqualified to run a taxpayer-funded, trillion-dollar (likely) system.
In my opinion, this showed a monumental amount of arrogance, and an unprecedented lack of respect for the Constitution and the American people. As the years have passed, she has never shown herself to be anything other than arrogant, disrespectful to our nation’s framework. Since then, she has also demonstrated a massive amount of untrustworthiness, with her various lies and legal indiscretions.
The United States Constitution
While I would never vote for a Democrat due to their current largely non-libertarian ideology, there are many Democrats I at least find respectful and trustworthy, just possessing a different ideology than my own, and I can respect that, to some extent.
Nonetheless, it would appear that the rest of the Democratic machine wants to have a baby with her, and unless she executes a bunny on national TV, she’s likely to be their nominee.
So with that in mind, I want to address Senator Rand Paul’s reaction to her, along with others from the GOP, and potentially the LP.
FORGET ABOUT HER, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UNTIL THE DEBATES.
Rand, Rubio, Cruz, and others are on full attack mode against Hillary, and it’s a horrible strategy. People already hate attack ads, but for better or worse, a trait instilled within all of us is that a man attacking a woman, even if only verbally, is unbecoming and in poor taste. Just close your eyes for a minute, and imagine a bunch of guys angrily ganging up on a woman, and tell me who comes off looking like the villain—I assure you, it isn’t Hillary.
Senator Rand Paul (R)
There is no metric where any GOP or LP candidate will win votes from people who weren’t going to already vote for them by attacking Hillary.
Instead, they should focus on why they will be a great president as they see it, then if asked about Hillary in general, simply respond that they assume she’s a patriot, but simply has a different idea for America than they do, and more importantly, than our forefathers did when they drafted the Constitution.
The news media, led by Fox News, but also some main stream outlets, print media, and internet agencies have challenged Hillary’s shortcomings, let them be the ones pointing out the flaws in her character, they aren’t running for anything.
Her ideas are atrocious, socialism always is. So attacking her character as a campaign opponent is unnecessary when you can simply point out the flaws in the ideas she’s promoting with logic and reason, letting her and her ideology die on their merits, without ever even mentioning her name.
But every time a candidate mentions her, she is effectively getting press. If you mention her in an attack, she’s now getting press as the woman being attacked by those mean men (since no other woman has indicated she is looking to enter the fray). This will only bolster her likability as she milks playing the victim.
Former Governer Gary Johnson – Libertarian nominee for President
I’ve made it clear on numerous occasions that while I like Gary Johnson first and foremost, Senator Paul is the one GOP candidate who would likely wrestle my vote from Governor Johnson. But I would still consider Rubio or Cruz a severe improvement over Obama a monumentally better choice than Hillary, even if they don’t get my vote.
So Senators Paul, Rubio, and Cruz, and anyone else yet to enter the presidential arena who happens to be a champion of liberty, please heed my advice, and consider Hillary “she who should not be named.”
Focus on the issues, and attack Democratic issues, but do whatever you came to not let the name Hillary Clinton leave your mouth unless you have to.
As someone who loves science, with more than just a passing interest, I tend to trust scientists in general far more than politicians, Hollywood stars, CEO’s or the general public.
Sometimes scientists get things wrong, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that any group of people are more right about how the world works; my trust is placed in the most capable hands.
One of the more controversial subjects these days is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many people consume them without knowing it, some actively avoid them, and some are like me—trustful of the people who know more than me that the product that they are bringing to market has been well-researched, and has provided no evidence of any harmful effects to the consumer.
McDonald’s have not elaborated on their reasons to my knowledge, but assuming they’re aware of the science behind them, and the rigorous testing these potatoes must have passed by their manufacturer, J.R. Simplot, and then the FDA, I feel it’s safer to assume McDonald’s is simply making a smart marketing decision.
People who are OK with GMOs will still buy from McDonald’s if they already were a customer, and people who are afraid of GMOs will too. The only people McDonald’s might lose are people making a principled stand to avoid them because they’re being anti-science, and I suspect such people are pretty small in numbers.
One group of people are unwitting hypocrites however, and that’s the high number of marijuana users who say they only consume organic, non-GMO foods.
Go to any pot dispensary, and you will find a myriad of choices available to the consumer so vast, that no other consumable crop likely exceeds it in variance. There are certainly more marijuana choices available than there are varieties of apples and potatoes.
The reason for this is that marijuana is one of the most heavily genetically modified organisms on the planet. People have been combining varieties of seeds for centuries to come up with crops that are either heartier to produce a greater yield of usable plant, or more often than not to yield a higher THC content for better highs.
The bottom line is that it’s nearly impossible to procure marijuana in its natural state these days.
Marijuana Harvest
So these users are either supremely ignorant as to how that pot came to be, or somehow have decided that the “scientist” who lives next door working out of their basement, and may or may not have taken a few biology classes, knows more than the multitude of PhD holders at Monsanto, Simplot, and/or the FDA as to what is safe for human consumption. If there’s logic in that, I don’t see it.
The argument is that marijuana is genetically modified by cross-pollination, or cross-breeding, a process where the pollen of one plant is introduced into the stigma of another. Essentially, it’s the plant version of crossing a horse with a donkey to create a mule.
By doing this, you’re coupling two plants with DNA which is nearly identical, but specifically that share a common trait you hope to enhance by combining them. This will usually work to some extent, because that’s how procreation works in general.
This is oversimplifying it a bit, but basically, when any two organisms procreate, the commonalities they share have a high chance of being part of the offspring, the traits they don’t share have a 50:50 shot at becoming part of the offspring, and of course, if neither have a particular trait, they are all but guaranteed not to produce offspring with that trait.
Think of shooting a shotgun at a target 100 feet away. Most of the shot may centralize around the bulls-eye, assuming your aim was true, but there will be scattered buckshot all around your aiming point that’s rather indiscriminate. This is cross breeding. You’ll get pretty close, and you’ll often have something close to the desired result (a bulls-eye), but you’ll likely have a lot of other stuff you didn’t necessarily want as well (shot outside the bulls-eye).
What people like Monsato and Simplot are doing however, is specifically activating or deactivating a particular and singular gene they know will give the offspring they create the desired result, without changing anything else. If cross-breeding is a shotgun at 100 feet, GMOs are a marine sniper on his best day from just 5 feet.
While I know this can be a soft spot for creationists, evolution is a very natural process. Traits that are most common in surviving species carry on, traits that aren’t usually die off before procreation, and go extinct. It’s an incredibly slow process that can take up to hundreds, if not thousands of generations. Cross-breeding and GMOs simply speed it up to one generation, and often obtains something pretty close to the desired result of the breeder, GMOs are simply the significantly more precise of the two.
It may not seem natural, and by definition it isn’t, but it’s effectively just an infinitely faster version of evolution, something that is indeed entirely natural.
Science, somewhat justifiably so, isn’t always considered trustworthy. There is a long history of scientific discovery that has been at the expense of human lives. Whether it be malicious Nazi scientists doing experiments on their Jewish captors, or well-intentioned experiments that have simply gone wrong, scientific endeavors have occasionally killed humans.
However, when you think of all the diseases that have been eradicated, all the organ transplants and medical procedures that have given people new leases on life, or all of the wonderful technology that simply makes our lives easier, clearly science has had an overwhelmingly positive influence on the human race.
GMO producers are simply either trying to being a better product to market, or often save lives by creating crops that can grow in places around the world who are starving because the produced GMO’s natural cousin won’t grow there, saving many lives. So if you’re against that, you’re unwittingly asking people to starve to death because you think it’s wrong for mankind to “play god” with food.
Either way, I love science, and I love the idea of using science to provide the world a better organism. Now pass me the GMO french fries.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
![visa_application_rejection[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/visa_application_rejection1.jpg?w=300&h=195)
![americanpsychoass[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/americanpsychoass1.jpg?w=300&h=300)
![gay-marriage1[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gay-marriage11.jpg?w=300&h=223)
![lesbian_wedding_cake[1]](http://media.salon.com/2013/02/lesbian_wedding_cake.jpg)
![Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/hillary_clinton_official_secretary_of_state_portrait_crop1.jpg?w=240&h=300)
![fda_sign_web_14_0_0[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/fda_sign_web_14_0_01.jpg?w=300&h=168)
![Simplot logo[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/logo1.jpg?w=474){kind=logo}
This is cross breeding. You’ll get pretty close, and you’ll often have something close to the desired result (a bulls-eye), but you’ll likely have a lot of other stuff you didn’t necessarily want as well (shot outside the bulls-eye).
The Logical Libertarian™ 