(August 15, 2016 at 1:19 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Oh, so now that you realize that you were wrong about my position, instead of apologizing, you opt to double down...

Quote: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.

Quote: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...

Quote:How about none of the above.

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

(August 15, 2016 at 11:24 am)Esquilax Wrote:

---

(August 15, 2016 at 1:19 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Oh, so now that you realize that you were wrong about my position, instead of apologizing, you opt to double down...

Who's wrong about your position? I've had you pegged from the moment you came in here blathering about the first thing you thought, without bothering to research first.  :rolleyes:

Quote: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.

And apparently you don't understand why quoting a source you don't agree with doesn't demonstrate anything that you actually believe is true, nor do you understand that ignoring parts of a statement and the surrounding context in order to make a source say something opposite to what the writer meant is fundamentally dishonest.

Quote: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...

The paragraph- and the broader context both of the source itself and Sanger's history, neither of which you evidently thought worthy of consideration before making up your mind- make it clear that Sanger was speaking of hiring black doctors in the context of making her efforts more obviously friendly to the black community at the time, to avoid incipient misconceptions and distrust, and in fact, to specifically focus on serving the reproductive needs of the black community, since many birth control outfits of the time were segregated. You, based on apparently nothing but the fact that you'd previously opted to adopt the opposite position, decided that that paragraph really meant that she was hiring "Sambos" in order to operate some kind of shady eugenics plot, something that is not evidenced anywhere, and something that both the black community at the time, and the people who've actually studied Sanger's life, do not agree with you on.

When the utter dearth of evidence for your position is pointed out to you, you simply dismiss the parts that disagree with you as "conjecture," as though your opinion is anything more established than that, and as if there wasn't demonstrable history linked within to show it as better founded than your wild, dishonest claims.

Quote:How about none of the above.

No, it turned out to be one of the options: you didn't read it, but you decided it was wrong anyway.

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

Your disagreement is based on a misrepresentation of a quote mine of Sanger's own comments, that you're clinging desperately to despite this being roundly shown to be false. Or are you really saying that you know better than the people who've actually studied her, and the black advocates for her cause that knew her when she was alive? If so, how do you intend to justify that ludicrous position?

I do fear we've gotten off track, though: you came in here to assert that Planned Parenthood was against the black community, and in support of this you've opted to focus on Margaret Sanger. Do you understand that this is the genetic fallacy, that modern Planned Parenthood is a different beast than the one in the thirties, and that organizations can exist without being a carbon copy advocacy group for the beliefs of their founders?

---

(August 14, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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?

Quote:Even authors who treat Sanger critically don’t believe she held negative views about African-Americans. Edwin Black wrote a comprehensive history of the eugenics movement, War Against the Weak, and is no fan of the activist’s beliefs. Ultimately, though, he writes, "Sanger was no racist. Nor was she anti-Semitic."

Quote:Margaret Sanger was a famous eugenicist. You have to understand this was not just a movement of a of a couple weird guys this was entrenched national policy, and this was embraced and advocated by the by the power structure in the United States.

All the presidents of the of the United States; Theodore, Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, FDR, Harding and in the case of Margaret Sanger there is of course a huge controversy as to whether she is a racist or not a racist or anything of that nature, and the documentation shows that Margaret Sanger was not a racist but she was a bigot.

She was not a nazi or any kind of a Jew hater but she surrounded herself with the greatest Nazis and Jews haters in the United States, people so virulent they got to fan mail from Adolf Hitler and she did want to save humanity but only the top 30 percent, and so terms like human waste and human weeds populated her speeches and her publications as she tried to relieve the teeming masses by ensuring that they stop teaming.

(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?

Quote:GENOCIDE


The United Nations adopted a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. Under this Convention, genocide consists of certain enumerated act that, when committed, have the intent of destroying a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, in whole or in part. Of the enumerated acts that appear under Article II, (a) Killing members of the group can include the committal of murder or its equivalent; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group can include mutilation, torture or other forms of violence which might lead to death, as well as the intentional causing of mental suffering by methods that do not impair physical health, whether through narcotics or other means; © Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group, in whole or in part; prohibits the imposition of conditions which are likely to result in death; (d) Imposing measures to prevent births within the group encompasses castration, compulsory abortion, sterilization and the segregation of sexes; and (e) Forcibly transferring children from one group to another where they might be instilled with alien customs, languages, religions and values is considered the corollary to the prevention of births, and is tantamount to the eradication of the next generation. To carry out practices that fall under one or all of these enumerated acts can constitute genocide under international law.

Quote:Claims of genocide have been made by other groups who have been described as racially inferior and subject to violence and/or coercive interventions because of their group membership. However, because these instances are not always accompanied by the killing of large numbers of civilians, or because the intent to destroy the group as such is sometimes difficult to prove, they are not necessarily acknowledged as instances of genocide. For example, an element of the Black population in the United States has alleged genocide in response to state and other attempts at regulating the reproduction of African American women (see Weisborg 1975), attempts which were legitimized by the eugenics movement. For instance, out of approximately 7000 sterilizations performed under the eugenic sterilization policies enacted in North Carolina between the 1930s to the 1970s, about 5000 of these were performed on Black women. Other initiatives, like the Negro Project, which sought specifically to distribute birth control in African American communities, are often said to have been motivated by eugenic concerns or efforts to control the population of those considered a burden to the state. Policies like these are viewed as attempts to impose measures to prevent births within the group.

(August 18, 2016 at 1:59 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Black people just need to get over themselves.  I went there.

(August 18, 2016 at 1:59 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Black people just need to get over themselves.  I went there.

(August 18, 2016 at 1:59 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Black people just need to get over themselves.  I went there.

(August 18, 2016 at 1:59 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Black people just need to get over themselves.  I went there.

(August 18, 2016 at 7:23 am)LastPoet Wrote: You know, as it stands for Kit, any attention is good, even negative attention.

He wasn't always like this, I reckon.