As 33, HCN, C17H21NO4, C3H5N3O9

September 13, 2017 § 57 Comments

In America, everyone has the right to free chemistry.  Chemical acts express ideas, and the expression of ideas is protected under the first amendment.

Free chemistry obviously doesn’t mean absolutely free chemistry.  Absolutely free chemistry is clearly a straw man, positing no middle ground between manifestly insane absolute rights and nice tame rights within due limits. Everyone who is committed to free chemistry agrees that there should be some limits on chemistry. We just don’t want to live under an inquisitional chemistry-restricting tyranny.

Free chemistry means that permissible chemistry should be permitted, while impermissible chemistry should be suppressed and punished.  It means we should take a live and let live approach to regulating chemistry.

So free chemistry, at least as understood by reasonable liberals, is restricted chemistry: chemistry circumscribed within limits.  The terms “free” and “restricted” are interchangeable.  For reasonable non-ideological liberals, free means the same thing as restricted.

There have been critical times when the right to free chemistry has prevented tyranny and protected the innocent.  Bad regimes, which have restricted chemistry and even imprisoned or killed people for their chemical acts, have produced incalculable horror due to those restrictions.

So every reasonable person should acknowledge the public goods produced and protected by the right to free chemistry.

§ 57 Responses to As 33, HCN, C17H21NO4, C3H5N3O9

  • LarryDickson says:

    Please, Zippy, stop this “restricted” evasion. The right use of the word “free” is “free within the Law of God,” which obviously involves some restrictions. BUT NONE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE HUMAN AUTHORITY. You are conflating this with “restricted” as in “restricted whenever and in whatever way the human authority wishes to restrict it” – like OSHA. It’s not right to confuse God with OSHA.

  • Zippy says:

    LarryDickson:

    BUT NONE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF [any?] HUMAN AUTHORITY.

    That is just obvious nonsense on its face.

    You are conflating this with “restricted” as in “restricted whenever and in whatever way the human authority wishes to restrict it”.

    There is nontrivial conceptual space between the idea that there is no such thing as human authority (when it comes to speech) and the idea that authority can create any arbitrary obligations/restrictions whatsoever.

    But liberalism feeds on false dichotomies.

  • As long as we only allow cocaine to be used in non-addictive quantities, cocaine usage should be free. It’s unimportant what qualifies as “non-addictive quantities” so don’t ask me. We can have free cocaine usage without allowing addictive quantities to be used.

  • Rhetocrates says:

    We can have ‘reasonably restricted cocaine usage’ for whatever value of ‘reasonably restricted’ you like, but calling that ‘free cocaine usage’ is a rhetorical dodge most commonly used to smuggle in assumptions that are intended to be under discussion.

  • donnie says:

    I don’t get this post. I like the idea of treating “freedom of [fill in the blank]” as if it were a Mad Libs game, but who ever picks the word “chemistry” when they play Mad Libs?

  • Zippy says:

    North Korea restricts the use of nitroglycerin. Who would want to live there?

  • Zippy says:

    donnie:

    Chemistry and speech are similarly pervasive in every society.

  • Everyone is entitled to the correct and proper free chemistry, as evidenced by legalized marijuana. If you cannot understand how “nitro” and “cocaine” are precisely the same thing, just like “free” and “restricted” are precisely the same thing, than obviously you have failed to avail yourself of the proper chemistry and you need to put your 3D glasses on.Try to remember to inhale this time and watch out for rabbit holes.

  • “free within the Law of God,”

    This is also interesting in light of the fact that God’s law forbids many speech acts which we would find to be tyrannical for the government to punish us for. Should a teenager who violates God’s law by lying about where he was the night before be brought to the courthouse? Should the office Gossip for spilling the beans on her coworker’s having a bit too much to drink last Friday night? If the government enforced God’s law to the fullest extent, most of us would be in quite serious trouble.

  • rociomatamoros says:

    “The indiscriminate sacredness of bombs”, “Why the Columbine massacre was necessary” and now arsenic, cyanide, cocaine and nitro-glycerine. ¡Vaya, vaya! I worry for you, Zippy. Triggering right liberals makes for great entertainment, but triggering the NSA, not so much. For a few weeks, maybe you could go back to your old-style titles like “Cartesian sex in Legoland”. That should throw them off the scent.

  • Triggering right liberals makes for great entertainment, but triggering the NSA, not so much

    Hilarious comment; two thumbs up.

  • rociomatamoros says:

    Hi Tim, an amusing reaction, you might say: NH4NO3 -> 2H2O + N2O, although without reasonable restrictions, it could, in principle, lead to an explosion.

  • rociomatamoros says:

    I mean, sometimes you have to let off some steam and laughing goes with it.

  • Zippy says:

    “Trolling the NSA” is a good name for a rock band.

  • I’m just imagining a parody of The Beach Boys “surfing USA”

  • Rhetocrates says:

    …an amusing reaction, you might say: NH4NO3 -> 2H2O + N2O, although without reasonable restrictions, it could, in principle, lead to an explosion.

    I mean, sometimes you have to let off some steam and laughing goes with it.

    10/10 top comments would read again

    Personally, I think any regime which restricts in any way use of ((CH3)2NNH2 or N204 is obviously tyrannical; all reasonable chemists recognize that these reactants, or at least their precursors, should be freely available to all citizens to use in their turbopumps (after all, our constitution protects ‘right of assembly’ as well as ‘freedom of the press’).

    Contrary-wise, all reasonable chemists recognize that O2F2 is highly dangerous and should be restricted, for the safety of us all, to only those who have properly vetted pressurizing apparata and certifications from the government that they can show upon request (usually called ‘press passes’ for short).

  • Zippy says:

    We obviously need more reactant and fewer free radicals.

  • Step2 says:

    TimFinnegan,
    Don’t waste your money on a new set of speakers, You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers. Next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, It’s still chemistry to me

  • Paul J Cella says:

    Even in this analogy, only by unnecessary literalism is the functional contrast between free and unfree lost.

    A society may be fairly said to have “free chemistry,” which permits the private procurement of chemicals, restricting only the most dangerous; while another society said to have “unfree chemistry,” which requires, say, bribing the local imam just to acquire some epsom salt.

    If we properly situation the phrase Free Speech in the context of American political history, where we will find an enormous body of scholarly work alongside an even richer fund of practical tradition, the phrase is useful, not dishonest.

  • Zippy says:

    Paul:

    If we properly situation the phrase Free Speech in the context of American political history, where we will find an enormous body of scholarly work alongside an even richer fund of practical tradition, the phrase is useful, not dishonest.

    That is a comfortable sounding myth, the practical function of which is to keep people of a conservative disposition blind and asleep while progressives have their way. Again I’ll simply note conservatism’s centuries-long unbroken losing streak.

    You are free to say anything you want to whomever you want, as long as it doesn’t credibly threaten Current Year liberalism. That is the “rich tradition” of “free speech”.

  • Rocío Matamoros says:

    @ Rhetocrates:
    Plutonium nitride is the fuel of choice here, with unrestricted access.

    @Paul J Cella:
    So the solvent of tradition, which looses all natural bonds, is itself a rich tradition. Who could reasonably disagree?

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    You’ll probably find this very interesting if you haven’t already seen it. Judge Posner inadvertently makes a case for completely ending the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and executive.

  • Paul,

    Who is deciding what or why some chemicals are dangerous and others aren’t?

  • Paul J Cella says:

    You are free to say anything you want to whomever you want, as long as it doesn’t credibly threaten Current Year liberalism.

    An interesting claim the very day after Ben Shapiro used free speech arguments to shame Berkeley into letting him speak.

    Who is deciding what or why some chemicals are dangerous and others aren’t?

    A hodgepodge of city, county, state and federal officials, but I’d guess the chief source of chemical regulations is state legislatures.

    Here, I have an analogy of my own. Since liberals constantly encourage exercise and nutrition, exuding sanctimony as they meddle in private lives, even including heavy taxation and prohibitions on various offensive drinks, we should all reject exercise and nutrition wholesale, and proudly grow fat and sedentary.

  • Zippy says:

    Paul:

    An interesting claim the very day after Ben Shapiro used free speech arguments to shame Berkeley into letting him speak.

    Ben Shapiro?

    Ben Shapiro is no credible threat to Current Year liberalism. Quite the contrary. As is typical of most conservatives in liberal societies, he is firmly committed to liberal principles himself and acts as a rear guard of liberalism’s long march through history.

  • Paul J Cella says:

    I don’t know all that much about him except that he’s done the Lord’s work exposing Trump-backer vileness and stupidity during the election and since.

    Berkeley’s local Antifa thugs certainly thought him a threat.

    Who would be a credible threat, in your mind?

  • Zippy says:

    Berkeley’s local Antifa thugs certainly thought him a threat.

    That’s all part of the endless uniparty sideshow.

  • Here, I have an analogy of my own. Since liberals constantly encourage exercise and nutrition, exuding sanctimony as they meddle in private lives, even including heavy taxation and prohibitions on various offensive drinks, we should all reject exercise and nutrition wholesale, and proudly grow fat and sedentary.

    Paul, I’ve seen you around for a long time, and I know you’re smart, so let me assure you that when I say that I have no idea why this is relevant, I really mean it and am not just trying to dismiss you.

  • Rocío Matamoros says:

    Paul J Cella said: Here, I have an analogy of my own. Since liberals constantly encourage exercise and nutrition etc.

    As Malcolm asks, could you please say, Paul, how you see this as relevant to Zippy’s post?

    Pending a reply that reveals some hidden dimension, your “analogy” as it stands would only work if rejection of the notion of free-speech was just an idle ruse to annoy liberals. If that’s all you meant, then your analogy fails to address the basic point: namely, the obfuscatory function of “free” in “free speech”. Advocates of free speech, wherever they stand on the liberal spectrum, do, in fact, want various restrictions on speech, and effectively use “free” as a smokescreen to conceal their (tacit) discriminations on the basis of their (tacit) conception of the good. “Free” is used by each faction of liberalism to attack the speech restrictions of the others, while deflecting any scrutiny of the basis for their own restrictions, which they brush under the carpet as merely the restrictions that any “reasonable” person would take for granted.

    Neither exercise and nutritious food, nor their advocacy, nor their advocacy on pain of legal sanctions, nor even their hypocritical advocacy (like manufacturers of unhealthy drinks sponsoring sports events) would provide your “analogy” with any parallel to this – in other words, it’s not an analogy. Exercise and nutritious food can be assessed independently of the obfuscations of some advocates. The supposed concept of “free speech” can’t be assessed independently, because it is, in itself, an obfuscation.

    Any “conservative” contrarian who rejects exercise and nutritious food in order to spite liberal advocates, will indeed, as you say, become “fat and sedentary”. For your analogy to work, there’d need to be a parallel opposition, like “free speech” vs “shut up everybody, or we’ll arrest you”. But Zippy’s criticisms of the term “free speech” address the incoherence of its advocates. The alternative to incoherent “free speech” is to drop the dishonest epithet “free”, and make an open defence of restrictions. “Free speech” actually forecloses debate while pretending to do the opposite.

  • Paul J Cella says:

    Advocates of free speech, wherever they stand on the liberal spectrum, do, in fact, want various restrictions on speech, and effectively use “free” as a smokescreen to conceal their (tacit) discriminations on the basis of their (tacit) conception of the good.

    I conceded that point several times in the prior thread. The common evasiveness and manipulation has been ably criticized here.

    What I do not concede is that these circumstances compel us to join with liberals in abandoning the First Amendment, denouncing free speech as an instrument of tyranny, and falsifying the American political tradition of which it is part.

    As to my analogy, which is imperfect and limited, the point is that both exercise and the liberty of men to speak their minds are positive goods — not absolute or in violation of other goods, but still appreciably oriented toward human flourishing.

    In the particular circumstances of our times, the disposition to let men speak should be defended, because all around us is a fearsome contrary disposition to suppress and punish dissent from various regnant orthodoxies. I see no wisdom or utility in the joining the latter disposition, to “make an open defence of restrictions,” on the dubious grounds that Free Speech is an ambiguous phrase that a lot of people use tendentiously.

  • Mike T says:

    Paul,

    I don’t know all that much about him except that he’s done the Lord’s work exposing Trump-backer vileness and stupidity during the election and since.

    W4 is filled with comments that provide citations to things he’s said and done that are hardly “the Lord’s work.” One example would be his view that “genuine racists” should be hunted down, deplatformed and have their lives upended. So, far from embracing “free speech principles,” he is actually in agreement with the very radicals you worry about in his belief that people who say things that offend his sensibilities should be subjected to ruinous consequences.

    And that is precisely much of the point that Zippy has been getting across. Even people Shapiro not only don’t embrace “free speech,” but are quite militant in their application of the restrictions they would impose to a point that reduces them to the status of the low man.

  • Mike T says:

    “Of course there are legitimate racists and we should target them, We should find them and we should hurt their careers because racism is unacceptable.” – Ben Shapiro

    Source.

    Also, Shapiro thinks you are racist if you make any connection between Western Civilization, Europe and white people because dontcha know, our civilization is universal and thus Israeli Jews, North Koreans and Amazon tribes have equal potential to share in it as the literal descendants of those who built it.

  • Zippy says:

    Paul:

    As to my analogy, which is imperfect and limited, the point is that both exercise and the liberty of men to speak their minds are positive goods — not absolute or in violation of other goods, but still appreciably oriented toward human flourishing.

    Same with chemical acts. Both abstract kinds (speech and chemistry) are pervasive; positing a right of free speech makes no more sense than positing a right of free chemistry. Every society authoritatively regulates and orders the goods to which these abstractions refer. Framing it as a question of “liberty” or “freedom” achieves nothing except to beg the question in favor of progressive destruction of the authoritative ordering of goods.

    “Free speech” is and has always been a liberal weapon use to equivocally attack tradition, nature, and established orthodoxy. Attempting to use it as a defense against itself, through a claim that “we are the real defenders of liberty”, is self defeating.

    Again if you don’t follow this as a matter of reason – of situating the doctrine in concrete reality and grasping its implications in context – you should at least be able to see it as empirical fact.

  • It may be idiosyncratic of me, but I don’t think the idea of an “ordering of goods” in the sense that it is implied by Paul’s version of “free speech” is a good one. If something is good, how can it violate other things which are actually good? Marriage is good, but we wouldn’t say that it violates the good of Consecrated life; the two are mutually exclusive, but do not violate each other.

    So the way it’s used with regards to “freedoms” is either a) it is always a good, but should sometimes be suppressed when it violates other goods or b) it is not always a good; it is only good when it is in keeping with other goods. The first seems to be a contradiction, that “exercise” or “speaking one’s mind” can both be ordered towards the good and violate some other thing which we know to be good at the same time. The second is just a tautology.

    So “speaking one’s mind is a positive good” only makes sense for certain instantiations of “speaking one’s mind.” It’s not even something we can substantively talk about until we know what is actually being said, how it is being said, and by whom.

  • Zippy says:

    Another way to think about liberalism is as a kind of weaponized abstraction which prescinds from concrete particulars as a way to beg the question. When I attack all that is dear to you, that is free speech; when you defend yourself, well, of course free speech has limits you racist tyrant.

  • Rhetocrates says:

    Paul:
    … the liberty of men to speak their minds are positive goods …

    Zippy:
    Same with chemical acts.

    Zippy, in your rush to complete the analogy, I think you give too much away. I’m not at all convinced that the liberty of men to speak their minds, whole and entire, at least in ideal, is a positive good. In fact, it seems a positive evil. Rather, ‘free’ speech should mean, much like the word ‘freedom’ itself in the true tradition, not some absolute freedom without reference to anything but the self-founded and radically individual interiority of the speaker, but rather that the State should in ideal do all in its power to make following goodness in speech as well as action as easy as possible.

  • Rhetocrates says:

    As a keen example of what is meant by the claim that calling free speech free is begging the question, when this is internalized any speech that the authority believes should be restricted becomes not speech but rather violent action – whether hate crimes, conspiracy, being class enemies of the proletariat, white supremacy, etc.

    The analogy between Low Speech and Low Men is precise, and both are to be scrubbed from the face of the Earth so that the promised apotheosis can take place.

  • Zippy says:

    Rhetocrates:

    Good clarification, though I expect Paul would agree that empowerment to speak one’s mind is good in some cases, not in general.

    Political empowerment (freedom) is not good in general, it is only (tautologically) good when, as a matter of the concrete particulars, it is actually good.

    This gets back to the “what/whether” equivocation at the foundation of liberalism, where it equivocally frames the question of what authoritative restrictions there ought to be as if it were a question of whether there ought to be authoritative restrictions. Liberalism frames the question of what authority ought to do as if it were a question of whether authority ought to act (ought to be actual) at all, as if it were possible for authority to be actual without act.

    Progressive immoral freaks ought to be politically disempowered because they are progressive immoral freaks. The good ought to be politically empowered because it is good. The nonsensical notion that political empowerment (freedom) is in any sense good per se, independent of what precisely is being empowered (and what is correspondingly disempowered) has the practical effect of empowering evil and castrating the good.

  • Zippy says:

    Here is the issue with Paul’s analogy.

    Paul compares healthy eating and exercise to chemistry and men speaking their minds. This begs the question by framing the abstract category of acts in question as healthy.

    But chemical acts and speaking your mind do not define categories of healthy (good) acts.

    Instead of healthy exercise, a more accurate analogy at a properly correspondent level of abstraction would be choosing bodily motion.

    A right to free bodily motion makes no sense. Is the concrete particular a jogging-for-health-in-the-neighborhood motion, a running-in-traffic motion, or a plunging-the-knife-in-your-victim motion? (Examples can be infinitely multiplied).

    A right to free bodily motion frames the question of what restrictions there ought to be on bodily motion as if it were a question of whether there ought to be restrictions on bodily motion.

  • Step2 says:

    Zippy,
    It depends upon intent or hazard related to context. If you prohibit plunging a knife into a person it would make most surgeries impossible. If highway traffic is stopped cold there isn’t any real danger to yourself or others if you run through it.

  • Zippy says:

    Step2:

    Yes, the goodness or badness of the action – and therefore whether it deserves empowerment or disempowerment – depends entirely on the particulars, not the abstract category as stated. That is pretty much exactly the point.

  • Rocío Matamoros says:

    Tim said (10.21am, 16ix): I don’t think the idea of an “ordering of goods” in the sense that it is implied by Paul’s version of “free speech” is a good one. If something is good, how can it violate other things which are actually good? etc.

    Yes, that brings up the problem (for any Catholic) of meta-ethical “value pluralism”, as set out by Isaiah Berlin. In general, Berlin held conflicting goods to be incommensurable, but this didn’t mean that they couldn’t all be comprehended and communicated by their respective advocates (contra relativism). In the weakest form of incommensurability (compatible with Catholicism), goods cannot be measured against each other in any quantitative fashion (contra utilitarianism), but may nevertheless be ordered qualitatively on the basis of a single, overarching standard. In its moderate form (Berlin’s own, I think), the conflict between goods is fundamental, but on the everyday, concrete leve, individual, social, legal and political ethics is the art of arriving at orderings or prioritisation on an ad hoc basis (unamenable to a fully rational account). The extreme form, for practical purposes, can easily collapse into relativism, even if, theoretically speaking, it manages to avoid the contradictions of the latter. Berlin’s anti-positivism certainly counts in his favour, but it is clear that neither moderate nor extreme value pluralism is available to us, since the Church holds that ethics is fundamentally rational, being rooted in the goodness of the one God.

    You refer back to Zippy saying: Framing it as a question of “liberty” or “freedom” achieves nothing except to beg the question in favor of progressive destruction of the authoritative ordering of goods, which I think prompted you to worry (in effect) that this carried value-pluralistic implications of some un-Catholic variety. Since Zippy will be perfectly familiar with this issue, I think he could only have meant what I called the weak form. We might, for example, engage in an act whose object is morally good or, at worst, neutral, such as reading Zippy’s blog, when in some circumstances we should be doing something else, for prudential or charitable reasons (which reminds me that I should draw this to a close).

    But as you say, Tim, where Paul Cella is concerned, there does indeed seem to be an intractable case of (stronger) value pluralism, where a supposed good – the right to unrestricted speech – can conflict, not just in concrete circumstances but even in the abstract, with other goods. The reason for restricting free speech (on the basis of what Paul says) arises, by implication, from a fundamental value pluralism (that is presumably not merely tacit, but also unwanted).

  • Step2 says:

    Zippy,
    Except unlike you I don’t consider allowing bad speech in terms of nonintervention by the state to be necessarily the same thing as empowering it or promoting it. If you find an official government document that consists mostly of profanity and/or blasphemy I will reconsider my position.

  • Zippy says:

    Step2:

    I don’t consider allowing bad speech in terms of nonintervention by the state to be necessarily the same thing as empowering it or promoting it.

    Yes, by abstracting authority into a single monolithic “state” you get to pretend that one authoritative body actively suppressing another is “nonintervention”. That wall of State Troopers around Terri Schiavo was just the authority-monolith “allowing” her to die of dehydration.

  • Zippy says:

    No choice by authority which is enforceable by courts, police, fines, jails, or other positive enforcement actions, or which is subject to a positive decision to deny remedies, is “nonintervention”.

    Which is to say, no choice by authority is nonintervention.

  • Paul J Cella says:

    Both abstract kinds (speech and chemistry) are pervasive; positing a right of free speech makes no more sense than positing a right of free chemistry.

    I don’t believe I’ve used the term “right” in any of these discussions. I’ve generally referred to the American tradition of free speech. In that sense, I see nothing nonsensical about talking about a regime or tradition of free chemistry, which indicates not some absolute abstract right to procure any chemical for any reason, but rather a long established practice of letting men decide, in most cases, what chemicals they want to buy and sell, without interference from regulators or officials.

    Not long ago we had a horribly clogged drain which only eventually succumbed to some concentrated sulfuric acid. Nasty stuff. I only applied it with goggles and thick gloves up to my elbows after clearing the children from that entire wing of the house. It’s potential for wrongful uses was pretty obvious.

    A similar point could be made about the freedom to purchase firearms, or drive at 70 mph on interstates. The liberties, while far from absolute, may still be fairly spoken of as such.

  • Zippy says:

    Paul:

    I don’t believe I’ve used the term “right” in any of these discussions. I’ve generally referred to the American tradition of free speech.

    If you aren’t talking about a right to free speech then I don’t really know what you are talking about.

  • Paul J Cella says:

    I’m talking about the American tradition of free speech — the “let them speak” tradition — which I took you, in the earlier thread, to be rejecting without qualification, on the grounds that to even speak of free speech is to implicate oneself in dishonesty. Thus my first comment that the criticism, thought trenchant, sinks under an excessive literalism.

  • Zippy says:

    I’m talking about the American tradition of free speech

    There is no such thing. There isn’t even a consistent version of that, more honestly phrased — a consistent American tradition of what speech is and isn’t punishable, formally and informally.

  • Paul J Cella says:

    Sure there is. It’s kind of like the Catholic tradition on usury: discernible with careful study, but obscured by a superstructure of error, misunderstanding, and confusion.

  • “….discernible with careful study, but obscured by a superstructure of error, misunderstanding, and confusion…”

    Also fluid, flexible,and ever changing. So as Zippy says, pretty much inconsistent.

  • Zippy says:

    It’s kind of like the Catholic tradition on usury

    Aside from the part about having a definite stable meaning, sure. Unless the definite stable meaning is just “we’ll only tar and feather you if we don’t like what you say”.

  • Mike T says:

    The evolution of “freedom of speech” into “freedom of expression” within the culture at large makes Paul’s position untenable. Once artistic expressions and other such things became “protected speech,” that opened the door to the legalization of pornography, among other things. The door is now open to allowing plenty of things which aren’t “speech” to be outside the bounds of proper regulation.

  • Hrodgar says:

    Re: MikeT

    I doubt that it was tenable to begin with. Free Speech, so far as I can tell, has never had a stable definition. Keep in mind that less than a month ago a post on this blog led off with the following: “In 1689, during the lifetime of John Locke, free speech meant that a member of parliament formally charged with a speech crime committed during a session of parliament had to be tried by parliament, not some other judicial body.”

    If correct, only three and a half centuries ago it had a fairly specific and benign meaning. But that the tumor is no longer benign does not mean it was ever not a tumor.

  • Anymouse says:

    “Who would be a credible threat, in your mind?”
    I will answer for Zippy; I would firstly nominate Zippy himself.

    After that, James Kalb, and probably Kev_JG, of Twitter and Tradinista fame.

  • Zippy says:

    Anymouse:

    I’m just a not-especially-popular crank on the Internet. The presence of marginalized cranks is part of how liberalism reassures itself that its commitment to freedom and equality is authentic.

    But if I were a baker refusing to bake a cake with obscene symbols on it (e.g. two men pretending to marry) for out and proud sodomites, I’d be enough of a threat to liberalism for it to be worth destroying my livelihood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading As 33, HCN, C17H21NO4, C3H5N3O9 at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: