(August 14, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Nailed it! With an extra helping of equivocation, too!

I'm sorry, are you saying Hitler wasn't a eugenicist?

I also noticed you've provided no evidence to contradict anything I've said... just love talking out the side of your neck as usual.

No, I'm saying that "Margaret Sanger," is a distinct entity from "Planned Parenthood," and that asserting that the views of one necessarily represent the views of the other is both an equivocation, and an example of the genetic fallacy.

It's such an obvious, simple problem with your position that I'm forced to conclude you're simply doing what you always do, which is willfully defend obviously wrong propositions because you want to be right, more than you want to be factually correct.

(August 14, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'm sorry, are you saying Hitler wasn't a eugenicist?

I also noticed you've provided no evidence to contradict anything I've said... just love talking out the side of your neck as usual.

No, I'm saying that "Margaret Sanger," is a distinct entity from "Planned Parenthood," and that asserting that the views of one necessarily represent the views of the other is both an equivocation, and an example of the genetic fallacy.

It's such an obvious, simple problem with your position that I'm forced to conclude you're simply doing what you always do, which is willfully defend obviously wrong propositions because you want to be right, more than you want to be factually correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Quote:In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Quote:From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

In what way do you figure "Margaret Sanger," is a distinct entity from "Planned Parenthood," when she is the founder?

(August 14, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 4:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It seems that you are willfully deluding yourself again, Huggy.  Not an uncommon failing as idiots who believe in fairy tales.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/...cans-shou/



Par for the course with you.

In a December 10, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society, in the context of discussing the Negro Project, which she developed in concert with white birth-control reformers, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” 
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-pau...ger-racist


So what are you going to believe, Sanger's own words, or someones opinion of Sanger? I'm pretty sure you can find people who don't believe Hitler was anti-Semitic...

Besides, what the heck do you think A eugenicist is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Quote:It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both.

Hitler was also a eugenicist dummy.

Are you Flounder?



Read the fucking article asshole.

(August 14, 2016 at 6:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Quote:In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Quote:From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

In what way do you figure "Margaret Sanger," is a distinct entity from "Planned Parenthood," when she is the founder?

Yeah, no, you're totally right: no organization is ever different from each and every belief of its founder, nor do organizations ever change over, say, nearly a century of time.

I just pointed out this idiotic genetic fallacy of yours, and your response is just to repeat it?

(August 14, 2016 at 6:04 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, I'm saying that "Margaret Sanger," is a distinct entity from "Planned Parenthood," and that asserting that the views of one necessarily represent the views of the other is both an equivocation, and an example of the genetic fallacy.

It's such an obvious, simple problem with your position that I'm forced to conclude you're simply doing what you always do, which is willfully defend obviously wrong propositions because you want to be right, more than you want to be factually correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Quote:In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Quote:From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

In what way do you figure "Margaret Sanger," is a distinct entity from "Planned Parenthood," when she is the founder?

1959 was quite a long time ago, Huggy. What Margaret Sanger's views were or were not, eugenics has nothing to do with what Planned Parenthood stands for today.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/...Sanger.pdf

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpoliti...population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Pa...d_eugenics

(August 14, 2016 at 6:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
In a December 10, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society, in the context of discussing the Negro Project, which she developed in concert with white birth-control reformers, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” 
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-pau...ger-racist


So what are you going to believe, Sanger's own words, or someones opinion of Sanger? I'm pretty sure you can find people who don't believe Hitler was anti-Semitic...

Besides, what the heck do you think A eugenicist is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Hitler was also a eugenicist dummy.

Are you Flounder?



Read the fucking article asshole.

quoted from your article:

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/...cans-shou/

Quote:Those who point a finger at Sanger as a racist often cite a particular statement in claiming she harbored ill will toward black people. In a Dec. 10, 1939, letter, she wrote that "We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs."

But PolitFact Georgia debunked those who would read the statement as something sinister.

"Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, she hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears," the article says.

She attracted an impressive roster of supporters, including DuBois; Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of National Council of Negro Women; and the pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church. Eleanor Roosevelt also backed the effort.

*emphasis mine*

Oh so you agree with the article insinuating that she can't be racist because she hired black people? Do you feel the same about Fox news too?

White folks have always been able to find a "Sambo" with enough self hatred willing to coon and shuck & jive for massa.

For the people that don't know what a Sambo is, here is an example of one.

(August 14, 2016 at 8:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

Oh so you agree with the article insinuating that she can't be racist because she hired black people? Do you feel the same about Fox news too?

White folks have always been able to find a "Sambo" with enough self hatred willing to coon and shuck & jive for massa.

For the people that don't know what a Sambo is, here is an example of one.

So, I have to ask: are you an idiot? Or are you deliberately lying by omission, skipping through everything else in the article and then taking one quote in the least charitable light possible? A light that, by the way, the article itself does not share?

Is it moron, or asshole, Huggy? Because here, let me spell it the fuck out for you:

Quote:"Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, she hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears," the article says.

I love, I absolutely love, that you seemed to think that if you just didn't bold the one sentence that proves you wrong, that sentence would cease to exist or something. Contextually, what this is saying, if you don't dishonestly ignore the middle sentence, is that Sanger hired black doctors in order to put a friendly face on an organization that, in a world of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the black community would be predisposed to distrust and may get the misrepresentative idea that they were out to eliminate the black race. She was specifically out to avoid a racist appellation from those with good reason to distrust white-led organizations in this field, not making a fucking mission statement out of it.

You would think that a person so apparently versed in black history to reference Sambos might know a little about the culture of distrust at the time... but then, I guess that would also mean expecting you to tell the truth, and not just stick mindlessly to your original position.

At best though, now you're fucked, because Politifact doesn't agree with you that Sanger was just out to hire "Sambos," so are they a good source or not? If you're saying they're a good source, then you need to bend to the fact that they don't agree with you, and if they're not a good source, why the fuck are you using them at all?

Oh, and by the way, did you just skip over the earlier parts of the article, about how even people critical of Sanger don't hold that she was a racist? The bit that said that she was ahead of her time and progressive when it came to segregation, and that she crusaded for birth control as a human right for all people, not just black people? Or how about the part where Planned Parenthood gave the Margaret Sanger award to MLK Jr in 1966, when she was still alive, and that he accepted that award, writing in his acceptance speech of the "striking kinship" between Sanger's efforts and his own movement? Or how about the other prominent black organizations that chose to work with her?

Amazing, how you can miss out on ninety percent of the article in your rush to be right, instead of factually correct, you monumental liar.

(August 14, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, I have to ask: are you an idiot? Or are you deliberately lying by omission, skipping through everything else in the article and then taking one quote in the least charitable light possible? A light that, by the way, the article itself does not share?

Is it moron, or asshole, Huggy? Because here, let me spell it the fuck out for you:

Quote:"Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, she hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears," the article says.

I love, I absolutely love, that you seemed to think that if you just didn't bold the one sentence that proves you wrong, that sentence would cease to exist or something. Contextually, what this is saying, if you don't dishonestly ignore the middle sentence, is that Sanger hired black doctors in order to put a friendly face on an organization that, in a world of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the black community would be predisposed to distrust and may get the misrepresentative idea that they were out to eliminate the black race. She was specifically out to avoid a racist appellation from those with good reason to distrust white-led organizations in this field, not making a fucking mission statement out of it.

You would think that a person so apparently versed in black history to reference Sambos might know a little about the culture of distrust at the time... but then, I guess that would also mean expecting you to tell the truth, and not just stick mindlessly to your original position.  

At best though, now you're fucked, because Politifact doesn't agree with you that Sanger was just out to hire "Sambos," so are they a good source or not? If you're saying they're a good source, then you need to bend to the fact that they don't agree with you, and if they're not a good source, why the fuck are you using them at all?

Oh, and by the way, did you just skip over the earlier parts of the article, about how even people critical of Sanger don't hold that she was a racist? The bit that said that she was ahead of her time and progressive when it came to segregation, and that she crusaded for birth control as a human right for all people, not just black people? Or how about the part where Planned Parenthood gave the Margaret Sanger award to MLK Jr in 1966, when she was still alive, and that he accepted that award, writing in his acceptance speech of the "striking kinship" between Sanger's efforts and his own movement? Or how about the other prominent black organizations that chose to work with her?

Amazing, how you can miss out on ninety percent of the article in your rush to be right, instead of factually correct, you monumental liar.  

*emphasis mine*

I didn't post the Politifact article genius, Minimalist did, and in case you didn't catch it, I disagree with the opinions expressed in said article...

(August 14, 2016 at 9:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

I didn't post the Politifact article genius, Minimalist did, and in case you didn't catch it, I disagree with the opinions expressed in said article...

I'm aware Min posted it initially. However, you opted to run with it, meaning you either accept them as a credible source, or you do not. If you do not, then why bother using them? Moreover, did you read the article before deciding to misrepresent it, or did you post something you hadn't read?

And which one do you think is more damning for your case?

Also, just saying: your disagreement isn't based on anything, and thus should not be taken seriously.

Oh, so now that you realize that you were wrong about my position, instead of apologizing, you opt to double down...

(August 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 9:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

I didn't post the Politifact article genius, Minimalist did, and in case you didn't catch it, I disagree with the opinions expressed in said article...

I'm aware Min posted it initially. However, you opted to run with it, meaning you either accept them as a credible source, or you do not. If you do not, then why bother using them?

I QUOTED IT TO SHOW MINAMALIST WHERE AND WHY I DISAGREE WITH IT, or do you not get that? Apparently you DON'T understand that it's Minimalists source and not mine, otherwise you'd understand why someone may quote anothers post to clarify what the hell they are responding to.

(August 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Moreover, did you read the article before deciding to misrepresent it, or did you post something you hadn't read?

Quote:Those who point a finger at Sanger as a racist often cite a particular statement in claiming she harbored ill will toward black people. In a Dec. 10, 1939, letter, she wrote that "We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs."

But PolitFact Georgia debunked those who would read the statement as something sinister.

"Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, she hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears," the article says.

She attracted an impressive roster of supporters, including DuBois; Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of National Council of Negro Women; and the pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church. Eleanor Roosevelt also backed the effort.

How did I misrepresent the above paragraph? The parts I bolded were in reference to Sanger hiring black people, which means nothing as I pointed out. The quote "Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore." is purely conjecture. Furthermore if one was attempting to exterminate the black population and realized that blacks were wary of white doctors, then it'd be smart to hire black doctors and staff now wouldn't it?

After all a duck hunter doesn't use decoys that look like foxes, he attracts duck with decoys that look like ducks...

(August 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And which one do you think is more damning for your case?

How about none of the above.

(August 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Also, just saying: your disagreement isn't based on anything, and thus should not be taken seriously.

My disagreement is based off of Sanger's own comments.

Besides that entire article was an opinion piece, and since when did an opinion of someone else's opinion have to be based on anything?