Where are the stirrups, Walgreens? by Niki2

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
To solve this problem Planned Parenthood could just contract out with someone for abortions and not do them there.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Who, exactly would they contract out to? They'd basically have to build a different facility and call it by a different name to make sure it was affordable for everyone who might need it. And how would they afford that? They're non-profit and don't tend to have a lot of income to spare, and a place that was exclusively for abortion would actually very likely not be able to sustain itself, because they are such a small percent of services rendered. And I'm just going to go ahead and mention that it's illegal to use federal money to fund abortion anyway, so all the crap about cutting federal funding because of abortion is complete misdirectional bullshit. They must use privately donated funds for that particular service, by law.
I've gotten birth control from Planned Parenthood starting when I was nineteen, so I know some of these people. Their primary purpose is the avoidance of unwanted pregnancy. Hence, you know, the name of the organization. Their secondary purpose is health, specifically STI screening, prevention, and treatment. They can also handle the regular pelvic exams for women, and prenatal exams for pregnant women. Yes, really. They have counciling services for birth control options, as well as options for unwanted pregnancy. As a last resort, they offer abortions. They actually do try to avoid them more than anything. In my case, they've succeeded in that for seven years, because I bothered to take advantage of the birth control options they offer. Not every woman does, but it isn't fair to blame the organization for that. It isn't fair to blame them for the occasional failures and crimes that lead to unwanted pregnancy, either. Planned Parenthood is not the problem. Far from it, they offer a myriad of solutions. They should be lauded for that, but everyone gets so focused on the question of abortion that they can't see past the ends of their noses.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 12:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

FOX n Friends isn't the 'news'. They're a trio of yapping couch toy poodles, one more annoying than the next.

Actually, the poodle on the right tends to be the most annoying.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 12:59 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
"Dumb people are too trusting, they don't ask the right questions. We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else. There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don't need it."
-Dr. Richard Day MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood paid $1-billion by the U.S. Govt to successfully genocide 100-million U.S. citizens, 1969
http://100777.com/nwo/barbarians

Your New World Order Religion:

To balance the books of Social Security, insurance companies and pension funds, They have to kill an equal number of children and adults to offset the loss of taxslaves killed by abortion....

Quote:
"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, "Death by Medicine", March 2004 (plus 1-Million annual aborticides in USA)
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

Since 50-million illegal aliens have been imported (including Obama and his family), the genocide must be accellerated in USA.

Merck brags Vioxx killed more people than Americans killed in the Vietnam War
http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/11/25/vioxx-scandal-news/
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40946

Quote:
“The birth-rate of the Non-Jews has to be suppressed massively.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Zohar II, 4b

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
—His Nazi Royal Highness Prince Philip, husband of German Queen Elizabeth Sax Coberg Gotha Windsor of Britain (aka Queen of Babylon (Iraq) at Bohemian Grove), father-in-law of Princess Diana (on trial in October 2007 for murdering her), from autobiography, Down to Earth: Speeches and Writings of His Royal Highness Prince Philip (current King of the British Empire), Duke of Edinburgh, on the Relationship of Man With His Environment, in chapter titled, "His Royal Virus"

"If we do a great job on vaccines, we can lower global population."
-Billionaire Bill Gates, T.E.D. Con
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42117&m=762472

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 6:54 PM

I'm with the crazy man. The evils of Planned Parenthood cannot be underestimated. It's hard to think of an institution that is actually this purely evil. It was founded quite intentionally on the goal of exterminating what Sanger called "the undesirables" and principle among them were the Slavs, whom she considers inferior, and like Galton, whose work hers was based on, was concerned that "whites" might be attracted to slavs, interbreed with them, and intelligence of the (western) european races would suffer, and we would devolve. Blacks she thought of as little more than monkeys and the results of their reproduction as apocalyptic.

As long as leaders of any political faction uphold Planned Parenthood as part of their base, they will lack any credibility on racial issues. It is not just a white supremacist organization, statistically, numerically, it puts both Nazi Germany and the KKK to shame in that regard, though they all share their definitions of "Superior" and "Inferior."

Ultimately, though, it hardly matters who you target for extermination as "inferiors," "undesireables," or "threats" it's still genocide.

It's not some distant past in which planned parenthood massacred millions. They are doing it right now, illegally, in Africa, and thousands here in the US with irresponsible administration and promotion of "EC" so called emergency contraception.

To register exactly how low planned parenthood falls on my ranking of political entities, if a solid conservative libertarian candidate supported it, and a socialist opposed it, as long as the positions were completely consistent with those candidates views on the issue, I'd probably vote for the socialist. Since y'all already know how I feel about socialism, I think that makes my position on Sanger and co. pretty clear.

If you're sketchy on it yourself, I suggest picking up some of the stuff written by her, or Day, or a number of other "population control" advocates of our modern political scene, or any scene prior.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 7:16 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Um, no. Take a step back, DT. If there was any validity to them being some kind of eugenics center, I think my experience there would be different. Namely, being white as the driven snow, they'd be encouraging me to have kids or inseminating me with some kind of Arian baby instead of giving me pills to avoid pregnancy. And I'm pretty sure all those dark skinned people wouldn't be working there. If it was actually founded on such things, I haven't seen any evidence of it in the years I've been going.
BTW, I've used the EC pill twice. Funny enough, one time I got it at Wallgreens. It's not an extermination plot, it's just a pill. No one even told me I needed it, I just thought it might be a good plan when I thought something might have gone wrong with my regular birth control. No one shoved it down my throat in an attempt to destroy my womb or something, and no one discouraged me in an effort to preserve it. Still white as the driven snow, here, pale enough to be mistaken for fullblooded Irish (which I am so not) so presumably I would be infinitely desirable stock to a place dead set on destroying... whoever they're supposed to be intent on destroying, who have more melanin than me.
You're failing your logic check, roll again.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 7:22 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

I've gone to Planned Parenthood in the past, and I'm a lesbian. I'll let you all work out the odds of whether I was there to get an abortion or a pap smear.

Oh, here's a hint: I've never been pregnant.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 25, 2011 9:25 PM

TRAVELER

I get the feeling that Sanger is misunderstood and misquoted. She took her fight for women's health to the black community because they were kept in such ignorance. Sanger was attempting to educate the black race at a time when segregation was rampant. She was not against ignorant people, she was against keeping people ignorant.
She did have views about mentally handicaped that I find disturbing, but it had nothing to do with race.
I guess it depends who you read and choose to believe. I go with what is written below.

"Birth Control or Race Control? Sanger and the Negro Project," #28, Fall 2001.

The Negro Project, instigated in 1939 by Margaret Sanger, was one of the first major undertakings of the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA), the product of a merger between the American Birth Control League and Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, and one of the more controversial campaigns of the birth control movement. Developed by white birth control reformers, who consulted with African-Americans for help in promoting the project only well after its inception, the Negro Project and associated campaigns were, nevertheless, widely supported by such black leaders as Mary McLeod Bethune, W. E. B. DuBois, and Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Influenced strongly by both the eugenics movement and the progressive welfare programs of the New Deal era, the Negro Project was, from the start, largely indifferent to the needs of the black community and constructed in terms and with perceptions that today smack of racism.

What it became was not the project Sanger had first envisioned. As she wrote in an initial fund-raising request to Albert Lasker, the wealthy advertising executive just beginning his post-business career in medical philanthropy, she simply hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there. (MS to Lasker, July 10, 1939, Mary Lasker Papers, Columbia University (to be microfilmed in a later addendum to the MSM)

By the late 1930s, the birth control activists began to focus on high birth rates and poor quality of life in the South, alerted to alarming Southern poverty by a 1938 U.S. National Resource Committee report which asserted that Southern poverty drained resources from other parts of the country. Starting in the mid-1930s, Sanger sent field workers into the rural South to establish birth control services in poor communities and conduct research. She sought to test various contraceptive jellies and foam powders to see if they could effectively be used without a diaphragm, which would be cheaper and easier for poor women to use. Physician and philanthropist Clarence Gamble (1894-1966), who was on a quest to find the best birth control for the "uneducated masses," funded and supervised several of these rural Southern projects. The birth control movement also looked to Southern states as the ideal region in which to secure funding under New Deal legislation and to establish birth control services as part of state and federal public health programs. These birth control initiatives were designed, in part, to demonstrate to government bureaucrats on the county, state and federal levels that contraceptive clinics were essential in impoverished Southern communities and could be successfully duplicated in other regions.

In 1937, North Carolina became the first state to incorporate birth control services into a statewide public health program, followed by six other southern states. However, these successes were clouded by the failure of birth controllers to overcome segregated health services and improve African-Americans' access to contraceptives. Hazel Moore, a veteran lobbyist and health administrator, ran a birth control project under Sanger's direction and found that black women in several Virginia counties were very responsive to birth control education. A 1938 trip to Tennessee further convinced Sanger of the desire of African-Americans in that region to control their fertility and the need for specific programs in birth control education aimed at the black community. (Hazel Moore, "Birth Control for the Negro," 1937, Sophia Smith Collection, Florence Rose Papers.)

In 1939 Sanger teamed with Mary Woodward Reinhardt, secretary of the newly formed BCFA, to secure a large donor to fund an educational campaign to teach African-American women in the South about contraception. Sanger, Reinhardt and Sanger's secretary, Florence Rose, drafted a report on "Birth Control and the Negro," skillfully using language that appealed both to eugenicists fearful of unchecked black fertility and progressives committed to shepherding African-Americans into middle-class culture. The report stated that "[N]egroes present the great problem of the South," as they are the group with "the greatest economic, health and social problems," and outlined a practical birth control program geared toward a population characterized as largely illiterate and that "still breed carelessly and disastrously," a line borrowed from a June 1932 Birth Control Review article by W.E.B. DuBois. Armed with this paper, Reinhardt initiated contact between Sanger and Albert Lasker (soon to be Reinhardt's husband), who pledged $20,000 starting in Nov. 1939. ("Birth Control and the Negro," July 1939, Lasker Papers)

However, once funding was secured, the project slipped from Sanger's hands. She had proposed that the money go to train "an up and doing modern minister, colored, and an up and doing modern colored medical man" at her New York clinic who would then tour "as many Southern cities and organizations and churches and medical societies as they can get before" and "preach and preach and preach!" She believed that after a year of such "educational agitation" the Federation could support a "practical campaign for supplying mothers with contraceptives." Before going in and establishing clinics, Sanger thought it critical to gain the support and involvement of the African-American community (not just its leaders) and establish a foundation of trust. Her proposal derived from the work of activists in the field, discussions with black leaders and her experience with the New York clinics. Sanger understood the concerns of some within the black community about having Northern whites intervene in the most intimate aspect of their lives. "I do not believe" she warned, "that this project should be directed or run by white medical men. The Federation should direct it with the guidance and assistance of the colored group – perhaps, particularly and specifically formed for the purpose." To succeed, she wrote, "It takes a very strong heart and an individual well entrenched in the community. . . ." (MS to Gamble, Nov. 26, 1939, and MS to Robert Seibels, Feb. 12, 1940 [MSM S17:514, 891].)

Sanger reiterated the need for black ministers to head up the project in a letter to Clarence Gamble in Dec. 1939, arguing that: "We do not 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 to any of their more rebellious members." This passage has been repeatedly extracted by Sanger's detractors as evidence that she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will. From African-American activist Angela Davis on the left to conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza on the right, this statement alone has condemned Sanger to a perpetual waltz with Hitler and the KKK. Davis quoted the incendiary passage in her 1983 Women, Race and Class, claiming that the Negro Project "confirmed the ideological victory of the racism associated with eugenic ideas." D'Souza used the quote to buttress erroneous claims that Sanger called blacks "human weeds" and a "menace to civilization" in his best-selling 1995 book The End of Racism. The argument that Sanger co-opted black clergy and community leaders to exterminate their own race not only gives Sanger unwarranted credit as a remarkably cunning manipulator, but also suggests that African-Americans were passive receptors of birth control reform, incapable of making their own decisions about family size; and that black leaders were ignorant and gullible.

In the end, Sanger's plan for an educational campaign to precede the demonstration project lost out to the white medical and public relations men running the new Federation. They were particularly swayed by Robert Seibels (1890-1955), chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association, who was chosen by the BCFA to direct a Negro demonstration project in that state. Seibels distrusted Sanger and her loyal crew of field workers, calling them "dried-up female fanatics" who had the gall to tell doctors what to do. Robert E. Seibels to Frederick C. Holden, Jan. 28, 1939, Sophia Smith Collection, Records of PPFA.) He saw no need for prerequisite education and propaganda and advised incorporating birth control services for blacks into a general public health program. The BCFA then dismissed the notion of building a community-based, black-staffed demonstration clinic that could become permanent, and instead set in motion a plan that closely resembled the vaccination and VD caravans that swept in and out of the region.

Lasker's money was used to set up demonstration projects between 1940 and 1942 in several rural South Carolina counties, under Seibels's direction, and in urban Nashville, TN under the auspices of the Nashville City Health Department. In South Carolina, the BCFA hired two African-American nurses to make house calls and meet with women in groups at schools and community centers to encourage them to visit a clinic, but contraceptives were dispensed by white doctors only. In Nashville, demonstration clinics were opened at the Bethlehem Center, a black settlement house, and later at Fisk University, and black nurses were eventually employed with some success there as well.

The Federation immediately claimed that the Negro Project had exceeded its expectations and even persuaded Life Magazine to carry a photo spread of the demonstration clinics in South Carolina in May 1940. But relatively few women, (only about 3,000) visited the demonstration clinics to receive contraceptive instruction. And among those that did, the dropout rates were high as many women would not return to white doctors for follow-up exams, though the black nurses in both Nashville and South Carolina met with greater success. In 1942 the Federation ended funding for the demonstration clinics claiming to have developed "workable procedures" for providing contraception to African-Americans in both rural and urban communities; but no other clinics appear to have opened as a result of the Project. ("Better Health for 13,000,000," PPFA Report, April 16, 1943, Rose Papers; John Overton, "A Birth Control Service Among Urban Negroes," Human Fertility, Aug. 1942, 97-101.)

However, the "Division of Negro Service," a department created at the BCFA initially to oversee the Negro Project, did implement some of the educational goals Sanger outlined. Under the direction of Florence Rose, with money raised by Sanger, and inspired by an advisory council of eminent black leaders, educators and health professionals, the Division undertook significant education projects from 1940-1943. Rose flooded every black organization in the country with planned parenthood literature, set up exhibits, instigated local and national press coverage and hired a black woman doctor, Mae McCarroll, to teach birth control techniques to black doctors and lobby medical groups. Though still stinging from the rejection of her earlier proposal for the Negro Project, Sanger wrote enthusiastically to Albert Lasker in July of 1942 about what she now framed as a pioneering effort: "I believe that the Negro question is coming definitely to the fore in America, not only because of the war, but in anticipation of the place the Negro will occupy after the peace. I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born. In other words, we're giving Negroes an opportunity to help themselves, and to rise to their own heights through education and the principles of a democracy." (MS to Lasker, July 9, 1942, MSM S21:404)

But the BCFA (which changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942) forced Florence Rose to leave in 1943 – a result of her inability to follow new bureaucratic procedures and her allegiance to Sanger, who was immersed in her own clashes with Federation staff. With Rose's departure, the Division of Negro Service floundered and soon shut down. The Federation delegated "Negro" work to other departments and eventually passed off remnants of the program to state affiliates.

Arguments persist about whether or not the Negro Project was purely a racist endeavor (search for "Sanger" "Negro Project" and "racism" on the Internet and be prepared for the onslaught). Certainly the patriarchal racism of the time that guided many of the social policies in Washington and the practices of philanthropic and charitable organizations working to "lift up" African-Americans, dictated both the Federation's and Sanger's approach to blacks and birth control. The public rationale for the Project was rooted in economics, tax-payer burden, and the social threats posed by what was perceived to be an exploding black underclass, rather than the health and sexual liberation of black women (though it should be notes that the birth control movement largely ignored the issue of women's —black or white— sexual autonomy in the interwar years). And there is no doubt that a good number of medical professionals involved in the birth control movement exhibited strong racist sentiments, some of them arguing for and even carrying out compulsory sterilization on black women considered to be of low intelligence and therefore not capable of choosing not to control their fertility, as well as on those deemed morally or behaviorally deviant. But there is no evidence that Sanger or even the Federation coerced or intended to coerce black women into using birth control. The fundamental belief, underscored at every meeting, mentioned in much of the behind-the-scenes correspondence, and evident in all the printed material put out by the Division of Negro Service, was that uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest burden to the poor, and Southern blacks were among the poorest Americans. In fact, the Negro Project did not differ very much from the earlier birth control campaigns in the rural South designed to test simpler methods on poor, uneducated and mostly white agricultural communities. Following these other efforts in the South, it would have been more racist, in Sanger's mind, to ignore African-Americans in the South than to fail at trying to raise the health and economic standards of their communities.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:51 AM

The Nazis do not have a monopoly on the ideas of eugenics, therefore their idea that eugenics should support the Nordic race does not represent the whole of the philosophy.

Many of the Jews in Europe at the time of WW2 were white converts looking to capitalize on the fact that Jews were allowed to loan with interest. This practice made lots of Jews wealthy and threatened the wealthy families of the time.

The British have believed for a long while that the Irish were an inferior race. Genocide by outbreeding and replacing an existing population has long been a part of war practices for invasions and conquerors.

As such, white populations can be as much a target for eugenics as non-white populations. There are some practices that are targeted towards poor populations that I think might be considered eugenics, the system seems conspired to make life difficult for them. Certain members of an elite upper class seem to have engineered these difficulties, and it concerns me when I hear talk of population control reducing the human race to any number.

Birth control and population control need not be related. The best contraception is one that would not have any off-med reduction in fertility or cause later illness, such as synthetic hormone cancers. Needless to say I think many of the chemical contraceptives that are available may be hazardous to health and the environment. Mechanical contraception has a pitfall that it doesn't work 100% of the time, but then again, I have no concerns about health risks associated with those.

All that said, I may not trust planned parenthood, but I also think that the proposal to cut federal funding to them is perhaps petty and pointless. As noted, federal dollars are not technically supposed to go to abortions, and while I think chemical contraceptions are dangerous, I don't stand in the way of people choosing to take other dangerous chemicals, like recreational drugs. If I inform people of the potential risks involved, I feel like that's all I can do. Meanwhile, pap smears and other women's health issues are valid, and cheap medical care is not something I can argue against, so long as people are aware of any attached strings or histories.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:18 AM

A right winger lying to demonize a group he doesn't approve of?!?! Why that's... that's.... pretty standard for them.

And the eugenics bullshit..... wow.... that's some high octane crazy.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:24 AM

Who's the right-winger?

If you mean DT, then sorry, I agree with him, I've read some of what Margaret Sanger has written about race and the "feeble-minded," and it's scary stuff. Planned Parenthood's origins I must consider suspicious with her being involved.

Unlike DT I reluctantly accept that Planned Parenthood may do some good, and I'll agree that their funding for women health issues shouldn't be cut, but that doesn't mean I'm not watching them. Should they be involved in anything unseemly overseas, as DT claims, then perhaps it's good that funding they get has restrictions on how it can be used.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Who's the right-winger?

If you mean DT, then sorry, I agree with him, I've read some of what Margaret Sanger has written about race and the "feeble-minded," and it's scary stuff. Planned Parenthood's origins I must consider suspicious with her being involved.

On the same note, I don't hold anything against the VW bug. And it's backer had more than theories against him, ya know?

Unlike DT I reluctantly accept that Planned Parenthood may do some good, and that their funding shouldn't be cut if it effects important women health issues, but that doesn't mean I'm not watching them.

I was referring to the original topic.

And Sanger has been dead for half a century. She may have been crazy... but she's long gone and I don't tend to judge groups based on the actions of a single person that odds are, very few if any involved in PP today even met.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:43 AM

I don't see how the death of a founder is relevant in the workings of an organization. Theoretically, the U.S. is supposed to work according to the framework the constitution lays out. The people who decided on a bicameral system with a judicial and executive branch died around 200 years ago, and yet there's plenty of people today who want to make sure their (flawed) ideas and specific interpretation and practice remain pure.

Her involvement in the founding of the organization inherently makes it's modern motivations suspect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:54 AM

However, I will give you that female physiology is just complete rubbish. It's awful. If I weren't so concerned about cancer risk, I'd be all over those hormone regulation supplements, and it does not escape me that for some women those cancer risks might totally be WORTH it.

I am now going to try to wash down some pain meds and hope my stomach settles. Ugh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:14 AM

Hmm. Traveler, you do make some interesting points in regards to race and Sanger.

The one where she suggests that they use black preachers to encourage congregations to seek birth control is the main quote I was familiar with. I found it sinister, heck, I still find it sinister, because even if she meant well, it still has this taste of someone in a position of trust encouraging people to do something they either might not otherwise have done or might not have wanted to do. Knowing it's in regards to contraception does make it better, but with the caveat that I know that Margaret Sanger's idea of contraception included encouraging women to squirt boric acid up their cervix into their uterus to prevent implantation. Ouch.

She might not be guilty of intentional racism, then, but she is still guilty of promoting eugenics against the "feeble-minded" and if there were associates of hers who WERE racist, and it appears there were, it still doesn't speak very highly of the principles the organization was founded on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Her involvement in the founding of the organization inherently makes it's modern motivations suspect.

And I tend to view gross generalizations as reason to question those who speak them.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:25 AM

Quote:
And I tend to view gross generalizations as reason to question those who speak them.

All I said is that the modern motivation, in other words the direction of the organization as a whole, may be suspect because of the initial direction of the organization. Just as I question the motivations of the US founders and their connection to the near religion of capitalism I see nowadays, I can question whether the practice of ideas of someone well meant, by someone perhaps even more well meaning, might suffer some cause and effect.

I did not call everyone involved in Planned Parenthood from it's conception to nowadays a eugenicist. I do not think that everyone involved in planned parenthood right now is a eugenicist, though I have concerns there may still be some eugenicist persons who may be hanging around, and I also have concerns that they might gravitate to such an organization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:54 AM

There "may" be all kinds of bad things. There "may" be a serial killer teaching college, a pedophile might be drawn to work at an elementary school - but I don't see that as a reason to be suspect of the entire institution.

If there's some reason to suspect them based on what they do, I'm all ears. But I just don't see much point in holding the group accountable for the ideas of someone who died a decade before I was born.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:41 AM

That's interesting. I see all kinds of problems with the education system, not just the possibility of hiring a pedophile, which I'd hope screening practices here and there would be sufficient to prevent. Each generation of the education system I see perpetuating such problems despite the probability that most of the people involved have the best of intentions.

Yet I see the education system as a distinctly flawed and negative practice and organization, while having nothing particularly against most of the people involved in it, and having a very real something against certain individuals that have a certain mindset and agenda I disapprove of.

Perhaps the difference here comes down to the fundamental way the both of us look at group dynamics.

Quote:
If there's some reason to suspect them based on what they do, I'm all ears.

Well, I thought I gave you one. Questionable practices if they're still around, precedence and reasoning of the past on decision making, all things that an organization could carry even after moving away from some initial ideas of a founder.

For example, in traveler's post there was some sort of effort to encourage southern black women to take contraception. This wasn't Sanger's fault, but white southern doctors took over her idea even when she was saying they should get representatives of the black community to do the work.

Again, to be fair to Sanger, if you're going to have people administering contraception, you probably want the people most likely to relate to and be sympathetic to the people of that community, and also who understand what's going on in that community. I'd like to think not every white person in the south is racist and would've abused the position, but going with blacks may have been the better idea.

So is that program still around, and if so, what were the original doctors like? What's the quality control been for doctors joining that cause? What was the outcome, other than the report that around 3,000 women used the service, but were nervous about return visits to white doctors and many of them declined? What are the doctors involved like now, if the program is still going?

See what I'm saying? Sometimes things invite questions like that, even if it seems irrelevant to the current generation of the program. It all could have a subtle or not-so-subtle impact on how the thing is managed, what it does, or why it exists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:22 PM

PR

What gives you the idea that eugenicists like white people? The movement was basically founded on the idea of exterminating slavs, who are white, and then launched into jews, who are also white. Getting around to killing blacks was an afterthought.

Check out the word and its origin. Eugenics is about protecting the noble lines of the superior genetic elite. It's not white supremacy. It's a hyper selective group, self selective.

Galton's own main worry was that the superior (britons) would mix with the inferiors and that the people would back slide into a genetically inferior gene pool like that of Poland.

Don't mistake Eugenics for Nazism, either. Eugenics is a US-UK born science. The Nazis had their uses for it, sure, but the Nazi "Aryan" thing is really a smoke screen anyway: Germans are not Aryans, and the scholarly elite of the time were completely aware of this. The main point of an Aryan nation was to ally Germany with India based on a common indo-european root. The reason for doing this was that India was a British possession, and as powerful as all of europe. Germany wanted it for an Axis power (which is also why they chose the Swastika as a symbol) It didn't work the way they wanted, but it stirred Aryan nationalism in India enough to make them useless to Britain during the war, and resulted in an Aryan nationalist revolution led by Mahatma Gandhi, and Aryan nationalist himself, and has been an Aryan nationalist govt. ever since. BTW, for the record, there were a couple of "aryan" cults in Germany, like the Theosophical society that worshiped Jiddu Krishnamurti, but these did not really evolve into Nazi Germany. Hitler stole their ideas as a way to try to win over India.

But I digress.

Anyway, if you had read anything on the subject, or ever been to Ireland or the UK, or met someone from there, or read any history on the subject, you might have noticed that the British have, for some centuries, and still do, view the Irish as the biggest threat of "inferiors" and "undesirable" to their gene pool.

Extermination plan is working just fine. There are half as many children here (and in most of the developed world) as there were when I was a kid. It's as if we all got older and filled the shoes of those above us, and then someone came along and slaughtered half the kids. Which is basically what they did.

Like with environmental destruction and tyranny, it's not a war if no one fights back. At least 1/2 the jews fought back, that's better than you can say for us. We're twice the sheep that Pirate News calls us.

Traveler,

Apologist much? Sanger unequivocally stated her intent to exterminate the black race. She also was quite clear on her feeling towards lesser white races and people with genetic flaws. You think when she wrote "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" was taken out of context? Try reading up on her earlier work "the negro threat" I have it around the house here. If you're in any doubt as to her attitudes towards "the undesirables" (lesser whites, extensible to non-whites as well) she makes it very plain in her early writings. Later, she learns to disguise it behind "women's rights." Oh, and she also came up with this idea (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly, but the intent was VERY clear): We need to sell [self-extermination] as a right. People would never accept it if it was forced on them from above, they must believe that they are exercising their freedom to choose [to remove themselves from the gene pool] (She wasn't talking about abortion here, but the greater strategy of making sure the undesirables didn't "overbreed." Best if they didn't breed at all, but it was most essential that they not be allowed to have more children than those of the ruling classes.)

Sanger's creation of shill ministers was to sell the same sort of ideas to idea she was selling to whites as right to sell to blacks as religion.

I don't have to go digging to understand her motivations, I read her book "The New Race" which was intended for mass consumption, and so is a soft sell of genocide, and several articles by her which are more internal to the eugenics community and less stealthy.

Stealth was her biggest asset as eugenicist. The eugenics community was largely too upfront about their ideas to actually pull them off. A lot of her ideas about "the plan" of how to kill off the undesirables and cleanse the gene pool were largely not unique to her, but her strategies for disguising them were ingenious, and can be admired in the same sort of way one can admire the efficacy of Nazi propaganda or the efficiency of the holocaust.

ETA: I see I was firsted by Byte on many points.

Quote:
As such, white populations can be as much a target for eugenics as non-white populations. There are some practices that are targeted towards poor populations that I think might be considered eugenics, the system seems conspired to make life difficult for them. Certain members of an elite upper class seem to have engineered these difficulties, and it concerns me when I hear talk of population control reducing the human race to any number.

Absolutely. Class warfare is what it's mainly about, its the meaning of the word, really.

About Nazis and Jews, you make a good point, but I'm not sure that Nazis at the time would have put too much stock in this distinction.

It's worth noting that Jews who showed their loyalty to the German state were spared, but that meant really their loyalty to the Nazi party. My own ancestors, though converts, and loyal to Germany, were no fans of Nazis, and so were targeted. They were pretty high profile opponents. I think that a Jew who was loyal to the Nazis would have been kind of like a Mideast Muslim who is loyal to the US. That said, lots of semitic Jews were accepted into the Nazi party, and many non-semitic ones were exterminated. I think it was the belief structure they wanted rid of in part, in part it was just a source of slave labor, like the many non-Jews they killed.

To wit, to a Nazi, a Jew was fundamentally flawed in character: Backstabbing wretched and manipulative. If he showed himself to be not this, in his service to the lunatic in chief, then this was accepted and excepted, but otherwise, it was assumed, whether he was a genetic Jew or not.

* Footnote. I find it fairly disturbing that Jewish communities in the west failed to recognize the Khazars as "Jews" because they were also converts, as were the Ashkenazim, and only nominal western efforts were made to save either.

ETA2: I feel no need to be fair to Sanger

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:34 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't see how the death of a founder is relevant in the workings of an organization. Theoretically, the U.S. is supposed to work according to the framework the constitution lays out. The people who decided on a bicameral system with a judicial and executive branch died around 200 years ago, and yet there's plenty of people today who want to make sure their (flawed) ideas and specific interpretation and practice remain pure.

Her involvement in the founding of the organization inherently makes it's modern motivations suspect.

Byte, would you be so broad in your condemnations of other entities, like Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, BMW, Rolls Royce, NASA, and a host of others? Mitsubishi? Yamaha? All have or had some frightening people involved in their early days, and some frightening projects.

Is Einstein's theory of relativity suspect because he was instrumental in the conception of the atomic bomb?

Sanger had some pretty whacked-out ideas, certainly. Saying that Planned Parenthood is still committed to her original idea is tantamount to claiming you wouldn't drive a Ford because that would support anti-Semitism.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:39 PM

Quote:
ETA2: I feel no need to be fair to Sanger

Well, at least you're honest about your dishonesty... ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:49 PM

No discussion of planned parenthood is complete without the oft neglected UK cohort of Sanger, Marie Stopes, who beat Sanger to the Planned Parenthood angle with "The Control of Parenthood." There's some debate as to who inspired who, but the two were quite close and worked to inspire each other, and as it is the movement whose character is in question, and not Ms. Sanger who I think almost all of us can readily admit to being evil, I thought I'd add a few details re: Ms. Stopes. She also sought to cleanse the population of all inferiors, but she thought that even the undesirables would be helpful if they only understood the importance of a pure master race, and they would intentionally remove themselves from the gene pool to serve the greater cause, sparing future generations their own inferiority. Not a great fan of Jews herself, in August of 1939 Stopes sent a collection of poems of love poems to Adolph Hitler.

Mike,

I think that's nonsense. Planned Parenthood exists to kill people. It's part of a movement that has killed in excess of a billion people, and is proud of that fact.

Everyone on this forum exists because they had a mother who did not think this way.

I'm of Jewish descent. Much of my family died in the Holocaust. I don't have any more issues with Henry Ford than I have with John Lee, which is to say, I disagree. On the issue of Jewish responsibility for all of the crimes of international finance, I would say, rather that the rats flee christendom, rather than that it is free of them by nature. I don't drive Fords because they have a long history of issues with the steering, but I've had several Volkswagens. An excellent car.

Planned parenthood is an excellent design for a genocidal pogrom. The holocaust is a rank amateur construct by comparison. Talk the people into exterminating themselves. It's brilliant, in the way only pure unadulterated evil can be.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
ETA2: I feel no need to be fair to Sanger

Well, at least you're honest about your dishonesty... ;)

My dishonesty?

Would you feel that a discussion of the merits of Slobodan Milosevic should be so fair and balanced?

The hazard in such a mindset is that if you would be fair to everyone all of the time, you would allow the frame of your debate to be walked to a point where we are discussing how to kill the poor rather than whether to do it, or, preferably, discarding the idea out of hand before it is ever brought to the table.

I'm watching this exact kind of "fairness" play out right now in the Fracking debate, and I have to restrain myself from going all Frem on them and showing people the Frackers for what they really are: Chemical warfare wielding terrorists, with charts with circles and arrows to prove it. But I do restrain myself because I know that the people are simply not ready for the truth.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:01 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
What gives you the idea that eugenicists like white people?

As I have no interest in eugenics and haven't studied it, I was responding to your comment about the supposed slant against black people from the planned parenthood founder, along with the mention of Nazis. I'm pale and blue-eyed and blond, which was apparently what Nazis were all about. Again, there have been other things for me to spend my time studying. And I have met many people from the UK, and I was just using Irish as an example because they are famously pale. I could also be fullblooded English or Dutch or any of the other European countries my ancestors came from. They're all pale.
If you're going to badmouth the organization, as it is today, you should talk about reality as it is today, not about a founder, as Kwicko pointed out. You also shouldn't make claims about a place if you've never been there. If anyone has any actually rational questions about the place itself, I might be able to answer them, as I've been there. Claims I've seen no evidence of are not going to make me denounce a place that's given me a lot of help as a poor young student.

Aristotle once said that the lack of a birth control system led only to poverty and crime, 2000 years before Planned Parenthood set up shop; it's an ancient idea. Saying it kills people is overblown; I don't know if you've looked around, but the planet does not lack for people. It's no bad thing if I have two kids someday when I'm able to support them, rather than five kids I can't feed. Surely you can't talk about life without mentioning the quality thereof.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:26 PM

For some of those points, actually, yeah.

I'm not overly fond of Einstein.

Eugenics is obviously harmful, and any organization that remotely might have any connection to or interest in the practice, past or present, warrants caution on my part. It probably won't surprise you, but I have some hesitance towards a number of existing governments and religions for this reason.

General relativity isn't a very weaponizable concept. Special relativity, okay, it is, and you could argue it played a role in the atomic weapons. Do organizations that've spun off from special relativity to make weapons deserve some caution? Well yeah, for damn sure.

Tech and discoveries can have negative applications, hey, I knew that. Does that mean I should support negative applications of ideas in the interest of progress? No. Should I support obviously flawed, destructive, and unethical ideas? No. Does that mean I should support people who may potentially further such ideas or their application? No. Were I a chemist, and I'm not, or interested in explosions, and I'm not, would I continue to use E=mc^2 for calculations? So long as I'm not using it for unethical ends, hey, of course. Does Eugenics have any unethical ends? Really doubt it and I wouldn't try to find or use 'em anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:42 PM

So do you view all contraception as "eugenics", then?

Are pap smears and breast exams "eugenics" programs?

Handing out condoms and giving women the pill don't strike me as strictly "eugenics" programs, but maybe I'm wrong on that...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:48 PM

I'm not anti-abortion, like some of the others around here who also believe there is still eugenicists out there.

But killing or no, there are still some potential negatives here depending on what the outcomes on a case-by-case basis are.

You do have a point about quality of life, but there's also some concern to be had if a population is so poor that they are "helped" to have no children because according to potentially arbitrary standards of a government and economy, they can't "support" them. Governments HAVE taken it upon themselves to create such arbitrary standards, this is why Native American children were taken away from their parents in a practice that probably similarly was well meaning but had only evil results. Wouldn't it be a better solution to help raise that population out of poverty so they CAN have at least SOME children, if they want them?

I'm aware that some of the arguments for planned parenthood work this way, and I am willing to grant them, though I also point out that in some places with lots of dangers and environmental stressors, children may have a high mortality anyway.

Second, I have concerns that some forms of contraception may damage reproductive capacity off meds. Or that it may cause cancers later on from the resulting unnatural hormone levels.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So do you view all contraception as "eugenics", then?

Are pap smears and breast exams "eugenics" programs?

Handing out condoms and giving women the pill don't strike me as strictly "eugenics" programs, but maybe I'm wrong on that...

Of course not. Did you not notice when I specifically called out MECHANICAL contraceptives as acceptable? And when I said that funding should not be cut for women's health issues (such as preventing CANCER)? Sanger did not invent and was not behind any of those, and neither were any of her eugenicist friends. They have not carried forward any possible unfortunate implications, and so I have no objections.

...Though the pill... Cancer concerns. As I've said. Chemical contraception there are human health issues, and I have specific knowledge about ways it damages the environment. Unless fish can still reproduce when they've all hormonally been permanently altered into females or sterilized. But oh, look, I also said something about how I don't prevent people from choosing to take dangerous DRUGS either.

My concern about eugenics in this matter, is entirely related to three things. Whether certain portions of the population are targeted more than others, if it is intentional, and why.

My only aim here is that people know their risks and know their history. It's up to them who they trust. I don't trust planned parenthood, though I recognize others do, and I would not shut them down. But I am keeping my eye on them, as I also said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:32 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Wouldn't it be a better solution to help raise that population out of poverty so they CAN have at least SOME children, if they want them?

Yes. I would argue that one of the best ways to help a population out of poverty is to allow ample time for education. Not that having children prevents education, it just makes it more difficult. Kids are expensive and time-consuming, and many parents are unable to pursue their educations, especially young parents.
Fact: I can't support children right now. That's not an arbitrary standard put on me by the government, it's a fact of my current life. I'm a student, I'm not even supporting myself. The government is actually providing the bulk of what little money I do have. They are allowing me to get an education that will raise my income level and allow me to have children when I so chose.
Fact: I'd get more financial aid if I were a mother, but not actually enough to be sufficient. There are attempts to help with income in this sort of situation, but it's not enough. It also doesn't stop kids from being time-consuming, at least it shouldn't. They should be time-consuming. Having time to devote to my hypothetical children without having to worry about whether I can feed them is pretty important to me. I never really wanted for my own parents' time, but it could get pretty rough wondering if the rent was going to get paid. A little kid shouldn't be worried about that sort of thing.
Fact: If I'd had unplanned children before now, odds are I would not be pursuing my current education. I may never have found out how much I enjoy what I'm studying, and would not have lived up to my full potential. This is a quality of life issue for me as well as for any kids I might have. I'm very glad to be childless at this moment in time. I think I have a lot to offer future children, now. In my early twenties I would not have had a lot to offer, and everyone in the situation would have suffered. I'm not speculating there, I'm basing it on where I was emotionally, with all the clarity of hindsight.
I don't lack for possible children. No woman does. We have thousands of gametes. Men have even more. It's a bit silly to imply that every unfertilized egg or unused sperm is a dead baby; everyone has far more capacity for reproduction than they could ever physically utilize.

Re: your concerns, Byte, yes there are forms of contraception that can damage reproductive capacity. I was refused an IUD because I hadn't had children and there was some small chance of damage to my uterus that they refused to risk because it would destroy reproductive ability. Many women also have trouble getting pregnant after prolonged use of the pill, but that's generally fixed with some shots of vitamin B. It's well known that the pill depletes the vitamin, which happens to be important to successfully bearing children. I've supplemented with vitamin B from early on and advise any woman on the pill to do so. I haven't heard of any fertility problems coming from other forms of contraception. Good old fashioned condoms are probably among the least risky in that area, but they are not quite as effective as contraception. Coming from a long, long line of very fertile women, I had no desire to risk using only one form of contraception, but that's me.
Cancer risks can certainly be a concern, and very young women on the pill raise their risk. I didn't start it til I was nineteen, which cuts the risk dramatically. I've heard quite a bit of debate over whether teenage girls should be on the pill, from a 'moral' standpoint. Fact is, they probably shouldn't from a biological standpoint. They shouldn't eat a lot of soy for the same reasons; the phytoestrogens can increase risk for estrogen-related cancers. There are a lot of ways to decrease one's cancer risk, though. I know I've harped on this before, but sugar consumption is a prime factor in cancer risk. I'm much more worried about it than about my pills. Fat cells also contribute to the manufacture of estrogen, and can cause more hormone-related problems than the pill. I could go on and on with the factors that I think are a larger concern, but it's getting late and I gotta stop somewhere.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:35 PM

Well, I'll drink to that. :) Cheers, PR.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:34 AM

Quote:

My concern about eugenics in this matter, is entirely related to three things. Whether certain portions of the population are targeted more than others, if it is intentional, and why.

My only aim here is that people know their risks and know their history. It's up to them who they trust. I don't trust planned parenthood, though I recognize others do, and I would not shut them down. But I am keeping my eye on them, as I also said.

And I'll drink to that!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Would you feel that a discussion of the merits of Slobodan Milosevic should be so fair and balanced?

Absolutely.

Honesty in all things, even when discussing evil people.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:48 AM

Post deleted twice? Very annoying.

Most salient point: Absence of people? Yes, extremely apparent. Across the developed world there are half as many kids as when I was a kid.

Out town recently leveled the town playground. A beautifully wooden one with castles and stuff. There were no safety concerns, the town just didn't like the comments on the decreasing number of kids in the largely windswept empty playground. Everyone remembered when there were children. They began to wonder what happened to them. Now, of course, we know: Someone has been killing them.

And yes, I've looked into it in depth. They're not relocating to the city, any more than Jews were being relocated to Israel.

Back to topic, I made no objection to contraceptives or women's health issues, by all means, if someone wants to write women's health into the budget, do it, but don't fork over money to an openly stated genocidal organization to do with as they please.

Planned Parenthood does fewer health and human services than the member organizations of Al Qaeda. If people want to vote for putting aid to Al Qaeda in the budget for whatever they choose to spend it on, then please, go ahead. (I already know how the board feels about aid to Israel.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Would you feel that a discussion of the merits of Slobodan Milosevic should be so fair and balanced?

Absolutely.

Honesty in all things, even when discussing evil people.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Story,

?!? So Milosevic's position that inferiors (Muslims and Croats) should be exterminated should be equally weighed with the idea that they shouldn't be? Where does that compromise lead? Kill half? Maybe he'd settle for "Let's kill only those who won't convert?"

The problem is if you allow your debate to be reframed endlessly than pretty soon you're debating how and who should be culled from the population rather than whether it should be done, or preferably, rejecting the idea out of hand.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Would you feel that a discussion of the merits of Slobodan Milosevic should be so fair and balanced?

Absolutely.

Honesty in all things, even when discussing evil people.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Story,

?!? So Milosevic's position that inferiors (Muslims and Croats) should be exterminated should be equally weighed with the idea that they shouldn't be?

Point out how "being honest" means any of that, and I'll respond. Otherwise, you're straw-manning as Rappy levels. And if you're gonna pull that BS, then shove it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
ETA2: I feel no need to be fair to Sanger

Well, at least you're honest about your dishonesty... ;)

My dishonesty?

Would you feel that a discussion of the merits of Slobodan Milosevic should be so fair and balanced?

The hazard in such a mindset is that if you would be fair to everyone all of the time, you would allow the frame of your debate to be walked to a point where we are discussing how to kill the poor rather than whether to do it, or, preferably, discarding the idea out of hand before it is ever brought to the table.

I'm watching this exact kind of "fairness" play out right now in the Fracking debate, and I have to restrain myself from going all Frem on them and showing people the Frackers for what they really are: Chemical warfare wielding terrorists, with charts with circles and arrows to prove it. But I do restrain myself because I know that the people are simply not ready for the truth.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

When you claim that you have no interest in being fair to someone against whom you have an obvious and admitted bias, then you've flat-out stated that you intend to be dishonest in any discussion of said person. At that point, it's assumed that you'll lie, cheat, and obfuscate as much as possible to "prove" whatever point you're trying to make. And yes, I find that dishonest.

I can be "fair" to Saddam Hussein by saying that he was a son of a bitch and a bad motherfucker. But if I go around making claims that Saddam eats babies and has Osama Bin Laden on his personal payrool, I haven't hurt his case; I've hurt mine. So you telling me right up front that you have no intention of being fair when it comes to the issue of Planned Parenthood pretty much tells me that I can expect little or no honesty from you on the subject.

I have some issues with how and why the group was founded. I have some issues with how and why computing started, too (ballistic trajectories and ICBM launch paths). But neither of those things really have a big impact in the day-to-day business of Planned Parenthood or Apple today. Jes' sayin'.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:33 PM

Mike, Story,

At this point, there's not really a reason why I should give a damn, now is there.

Fair and balanced means you give equal time, as if a story had both sides. You can say Saddam is an SOB, and then he gets to say that Bush is, and that's fair and balanced.

I'm not giving equal time to allow a debate to be framed between "don't kill the croats" and "kill the croats" as if they are two positions with equal merit, because that is a rhetorical trick which has, as its intent, the viewer settling on "kill half the croats" as an acceptable compromise.

This is not a strawman, this is the actual argument the two of you just presented. I asked the question, and you said "yes," you're giving equal time to Milosevic.. Okay.

I needn't say anything, since the people you two are defending as equally valid is absurd, and shows no understanding of debate framing as a manipulative tactic.

And that's a pretty simple one. Here's a more complex one: Ever noticed that FOX News *is* Fair and Balanced? They just give you the conservative argument first, and drag it out, knowing that 90% of the readership will give up before they reach the liberal counterargument, which to their credit they will actually present. But they've also done statistical studies to find out when people give up on an article, and know that 90% of the audience got a one sided story, but not because FOX gave one, but because the reader stopped reading, as predicted.

I was hoping we could move from "debate framing" to "the moving of a drifting debate frame" which is a more complex concept, but seriously, I feel both of you missed the most basic concept of debate.

Let me backtrack to Derrick Jensen's point on this very topic, posted by Chrisisall a couple months ago:

"What are we going to do about the jewish problem?" is not a debate that deserves a fair and balanced approach, because it is weighted with a loaded assumption that there is a jewish problem and that we need to do something about it, and that what will follow is a framed debate presenting various options. "Deport or Exterminate" was the final debate, but it got there through some clever debate frame shifting.

If you're unaware that debate framing and frame shifting is happening, then this is going to happen to you, and you will find yourselves giving equal time and value to the two positions presented, regardless of what they are. As the framer shifts the debate, you continue to walk towards his position. Then, when he posts his end position and you argue against it, he intentionally loses to his framed counterpoint which he has created, and you end up supporting.

In the case of Nazi Germany, the framed counterpoint was deportation, and they got people who were pro-jewish to support deportation through this very sort of frame shifting.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:46 PM

I think you just Godwin-ed yourself. Well done.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Where are the stirrups, Walgreens?"

Here?

I apologize - I couldn't resist.

I'll go away now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I think you just Godwin-ed yourself. Well done.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Story,

Not sure you get the point of Godwin. Nazis were topic, but I was using them to illustrate debate framing here, if I was comparing anyone to the Nazis it was Milosevic, which is hardly an unfair comparison. Ironically, Milosevic, himself a Socialist party leader and avid nationalist thought that he was "fighting" Nazis, rather than being one, but he was executing a holocaust. When someone does that, I think it's fair to compare them to the Nazis.

I gather that you neither get the concept nor want to debate anyway

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:08 AM

DT, I fully understand that you're trying to frame the debate in a light that's favorable to your position. If you start by stating something like "Given that Planned Parenthood was formed as a eugenics program aimed at the eradication of black people..." then it's really not a stretch to get pro-PP people to vote for defunding the program. In this version, you're Nazi Germany, and your aim is to get Jews to vote for deportation.

As with the "libertarian environmentalism" post, I simply don't concede your frame for the debate.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:10 AM

Mike,

*That* is a Godwin. You are comparing *me* to the Nazis. I was not comparing Story to Nazis, I was comparing Milosevic to Nazis, which is like comparing Mussolini to Hitler. It's not a Godwin because it's a fair comparison. Jon Stewart and John Oliver did a funny sketch on this, where Stewart made just this sort of logical comparison and Oliver jumped on him for Godwin's law.

I think this will shed some light on the issue

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA

They provide services.

Their reasons FOR providing such services are immaterial in comparison to your reasons for wanting those services for if they were unavailable in that venue, you would simply find them in another.

That's just like when I *choose* to help someone, at my own time and expense, sometimes even in full and blatant defiance of the law, as an act of MALICE against a system, social or otherwise, that I would like to see broken and dismantled.

To the person I am helping, MY reasons for it don't matter a whit, only that someone is helping them when they need it.

Again, the folly of all-or-nothing black/white, yes/no, on/off thinking has made fools of the lot of you.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I gather that you neither get the concept nor want to debate anyway

Oh I get it, but you've made it clear that your views are so overblown, extreme and intractable, that no, I do see no point in discussing with you.

And you compared a public service to sliding into a Nazi state. That's Godwin, no matter how much you may deny it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

*That* is a Godwin. You are comparing *me* to the Nazis. I was not comparing Story to Nazis, I was comparing Milosevic to Nazis, which is like comparing Mussolini to Hitler. It's not a Godwin because it's a fair comparison. Jon Stewart and John Oliver did a funny sketch on this, where Stewart made just this sort of logical comparison and Oliver jumped on him for Godwin's law.

Wrong. I didn't explicitly *compare* you to the Nazis; I pointed out YOUR analogy, and said that in MY analogy to your analogy, you were being put in the place of the Nazis, giving the Jews the dubious choice to vote for their own deportation as the lesser of all available evils.

If you took that as me calling you a Nazi, you were mistaken.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:03 AM