RE: Planned Parenthood against the black population
August 15, 2016 at 1:19 am
(This post was last modified: August 15, 2016 at 1:36 am by Huggy Bear.)
Oh, so now that you realize that you were wrong about my position, instead of apologizing, you opt to double down...
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.
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...
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?
(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?