tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post7571016733293945772..comments2024-02-21T17:30:40.448-05:00Comments on An Objectivist Individualist: USDA Makes Heterosexism UglyCharles R. Anderson, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-32126152134450671512012-02-08T01:27:52.171-05:002012-02-08T01:27:52.171-05:00Let us start by noting that my viewpoint has no or...Let us start by noting that my viewpoint has no origin in the thinking of Ron Paul. I have been expressing the opinion that government only provides a legal contract for domestic partnerships to anyone for a long time. It is an usurpation of the right to declare what constitutes the spiritual content of a marriage when government calls its domestic partnership contracts a marriage. Government has no such legitimate role interfering with the freedom of conscience or religion of individuals.<br /><br />Government also has no right to discriminate in its hiring based upon the employee's sexuality or the nature of his or her domestic partnership.<br /><br />Having said these things, I am still appalled at the USDA attacks on individuals actual freedom of conscience. People must be allowed to have beliefs that Progressive Elitists or I do not agree with. Another example is the case in which government is now trying to force Catholic institutions to act contrary to their beliefs that contraceptives are immoral. Now I think contraceptives are moral, but it is entirely wrong for me to impose my opinion by force upon these Catholic organizations. They have every right not to provide contraceptives. This is an exact parallel to the important saying that I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.<br /><br />Now, I understand that some modern Progressive Elitists have such fragile psyches that they cannot stand the emotional strain of having anyone protect our freedom of speech or our freedom of conscience, but frankly these freedoms are more important to all of mankind than your emotional state is. So, you really should have to strengthen your own internal constitution.<br /><br />I most certainly do not wish any homosexual or bisexual persons harm, but you have no more right to squash the sovereign individual rights of heterosexual persons than they have to squash your rights.Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-20350070593287195672012-02-07T17:08:26.919-05:002012-02-07T17:08:26.919-05:00Ah, the callous attitude of acceptance that has th...Ah, the callous attitude of acceptance that has thus far been the trademark of the Internet has struck again. Mindless, insensitive considerations of a word that anyone who has ever been a victim of the mindset imposed by the institutions that subscribe and validate that word in everyday life is what passes as thoughtful, philosophical conversation to you? I can assure you that it is not only way off the mark (your semantical musings leave much to be desired and commit too many logical fallacies of argumentation to list and discuss here), but you undermine what is a considerably crucial topic for today's more humanitarian society. <br /><br />Regardless of your Petrovian viewpoint (Or Ron Paul-esque, if you haven't read Petro), the detriment of heterosexism is something that needs to be taken serious in the public sphere. The USDA has made a remarkable progression from the insensitive tyrannical musings of old school, religious conservatism toward a future of less discrimination, a dream worthy to aspire to reach. You should a great bit of shame for making such a spectacle of the movement that is trying to make people more equal under the eyes of the law and the State, as well as society in general.<br /><br />I ask that you do not post such views on the Internet unless you can actually bring an intellectual argument that is not a non-sequitor in terms of claims. As someone who champions the cause of equal rights for all, I find you both shallow and insulting, a combination that makes me feel rather cross indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-89326848962071476102011-06-28T17:52:57.179-05:002011-06-28T17:52:57.179-05:00Michael, I was not aware of the exponential increa...Michael, I was not aware of the exponential increase in the number of gay farmers. But, the USDA does seem intent on there being an exponential increase in the number of gay USDA bureaucrats. Now, I have no problem with that, so long as they prove to be efficient and moral bureaucrats!<br /><br />Efficient and moral bureaucrats is a joke of course. The job rarely allows for such a person, but for a few in lower management positions.Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-695804847711582912011-06-28T00:45:12.599-05:002011-06-28T00:45:12.599-05:00The USDA was a pioneer in the creation of a distan...The USDA was a pioneer in the creation of a distance learning certification for indexers. Indexing is a necessary skill and can be done off-site. The USDA thought that farm housewives would appreciate the opportunity to learn a valuable skill which they could sell like butter and eggs. It is still in operation, in fact. But it seems pretty far from the core business of the USDA.<br />http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=MISSION_STATEMENT<br /><br />This is also far from their business. Unless they are afraid that the recent exponential explosion in gay farmers will lead to a decline in farm families. <br /><br />It's an old joke but if vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? Guess it's not so funny....Michael E. Marottahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14402515044482988601noreply@blogger.com