Demanding tolerance while giving none

no I am not ignoring them, I simply don't take them out of context and use them in conformation bias as you do.

The facts remains that the majority of people of that era were ignorant of birth control
The fact remains that the majority of people of that era did have superstitions concerning birth control
The fact remains that the majority of people of that era did have doubts concerning birth control

Most of the ignorance, superstition and doubts were founded and fuelled by religious organisations. The perception of the 1920s (and of some people even today) was that females who took contraceptives were “sluts,” and they were seen as promiscuous and generally immoral people.

“The Birth Control Babe” ( http://groupthink.kinja.com/birth-control-babe-1482204841) propaganda piece clearly supports the assumption that women who take birth control pills are “sluts” by using dramatistic terministic screens that utilize negative connotations in respects to birth control pill users. Burke defines “terministic screens” as select words that create and change perspectives and perceptions of how an event is interpreted by an individual. For example, the advertisement makes statements such as, “I don’t follow no square man’s rules, get it!” and “Satan’s girl!” in reference to the woman taking birth control pills. These statements suggest that women taking contraceptives on a regular basis must be dangerously rebellious, scandalous, and “immoral” members of society. The usage of these terministic screens also attempts to create a reality for its audience that women are incapable of making “moral” decisions when on birth control pills, thus dissuading them from wanting to support the idea of birth control pills being legal at all. The argument of the anti-birth control side is clear when this artifact is deconstructed; it is also made clear that the intended audience of many anti-birth control rhetorical pieces tends to be people who identify as having conservative, and inherently religious beliefs.

Again all of this information is readily available for those who want to find it, I must assume you are one of those who doesn't.

 

No I am not ignoring negative eugenics at all, and no Sanger did not intend negative eugenics for African Americans ONLY, she intended it for all people, and yet again she did not see African Americans as inferior and unfit any more than any other race . .this yet again is you assuming things to fit your confirmation bias.

Sanger discriminated against the disabled, or unfit, the poverty stricken and "inferior" of ALL races, skin colour was irrelevant and despite your numerous efforts to show otherwise you have failed utterly to do so.

I have no love for Sanger, but what I cannot stand is the dishonesty shown by certain groups and individuals who misinterpret, mis-quote, cherry pick and take out of context the things she said and wrote . .especially as she is not here to defend herself .. IMO it is the lowest of low things to do.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW you attempt to call me a liar again and I will report you.

 

I'll respond when you either provide verifiable evidence to support your assertion that "Sanger gave an address about types of eugenics to a group focused on oppressing those deemed to be unfit racial inferiors." to the women of the KKK or withdraw the accusation. Furthermore you are now venturing into the realm of moving the goalposts .. yet another fallacy to add to your ever growing list.

 

Nope Sanger did not select Gamble, he was selected to the position however there is no record to say who he was selected by, or by how many people, let alone selected by Sanger.

you continue to make accusations for which you have no proof, you have already failed at every attempt to paint Sanger as a Racist and yet you still continue to project your false assumptions as fact.

1. Sanger did not select Gamble, he was selected but there is no record of who or how many people selected him ergo your accusation that Sanger selected him is false.
2. There is or was no negative eugenics against African Americans only, apart from inside what passes as a brain for you .. again you are projecting what you desire to be true instead of what the truth actual is.

I have said before I am done, this time I mean it. Your attempts to cobble together cherry picked items, misrepresented items and pure speculation to support your false opinion is nothing more than confirmation bias .. you already made up your mind and went looking for things you could twist to confirm that preconceived result.

So far you have indulged in

1. Confirmation bias fallacy
2. Moving the goalposts fallacy
3. Guilt by association fallacy
4. Correlation equalling causation fallacy
5. Division fallacy (What is true of the whole must be also true of the parts)

You may (or will) of course reply but as from now you will talking to yourself. Come back when you have some facts to your assertions.

 

Sanger and Gamble served at the same time on the board of the organization Sanger founded. They exchanged correspondence in which Sanger wrote about "negro ignorance and superstition," not about "human ignorance and superstition." Sanger was a racist eugenicist.

- - - Updated - - -

Discretion is the better part of valor as Shakespeare wrote.

 

Circumstantial evidence can be probative as proof. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. In the case of Margaret Sanger the pieces of circumstantial evidence, taken together, lead to the presumption that Ms. Sanger was a racist.

 

Just checking in on this thread. Yep, just what. I thought. Still arguing over Sanger. Still nothing to do with the OP.

 

A person can be completely paralyzed, incapable of almost any voluntary action, and still be a homosexual or a Jew. Neither homosexuality nor Judaism is a behavior.

Tolerating who a person is, is different from tolerating what they do. Including actions like arguing the law not tolerate or treat equally people because of your strong dislike for who they are.




​

 

You still haven't apologized to the members of the forum for using a very evil word. This is your opportunity to do so. Confession unburdens the soul.

Btw, why did Sanger refer to African Americans as ignorant and superstitious? Doesn't that seem like overt racism in your opinion. If so, we are in agreement.

 

That would be forcing the gay agenda on the Church now wouldn't it?

Their house their rules - they don't have the RIGHT to walk into a church or a school and make demands anymore than I have the right to walk into an establishment and make demands...

 

race and gender discrimination is wrong... get over it

mixed race marriages and same gender marriages are both now legal.... it's done.......

 

... you should really read a post in context before responding to it.




​

 

Yea right.

You think Churches should be forced to cater to gays.... You only respect the First Amendment when it applies to gays and other progressive pet groups...

 

The greatest example of Margaret Sanger's fusion of eugenics and racism can be seen in the case of Doctor Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist who focused on African American women and the termination of their pregnancies. Dr. Gosnell was a true successor to Margaret Sanger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-gets-life-term.html?_r=0

 

You think you have the right to speak for me. You're wrong.




​

 

That is a pathetic strawman.

 

No it's not because I've seen progressives straight up make that argument - not to mention there was a poll that asked that question and 27% actually thought that Churches should be forced to merry gay couples....

So no - it is FACT there are a large majority of progressives out there that believe the Chruch doesn't have First Amendment protections...

 

You seem confused - 27% is not a large majority of anything, hence, not a "fact."

There have already been over 10,000 same sex marriages and no church has been forced to conduct any of those ceremonies - so I'm going to call pure BS on your post.

 

So anybody that disagrees with you is automatically one of these progressives?

Yes it is a strawman fallacy

 

27% is a large minority....Furthermore PROGRESSIVES WILL move forward and attempt to force Churches to marry gays, but they will fail of course for now....

This PROVES their are progressives out their that have ZERO respect for the First Amendment....

This is proof there is a gay agenda that actually believes they have the RIGHT to force others to accept them...

I'm getting sick if your fascist gay agenda..... Tolerance isn't enough for you! you want people to bend over backwards and pander to you - that is what you want and that is NEVER going to happen....

I hope gays are systematically discriminated against just because they believe they have the RIGHT to disresepct and ignore others rights not to want anything to do with them..

 

No, its not.... Disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the Bill of Rights....

You don't have the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing right to force others to adhere to your gay agenda and I hope they discriminate against you, spit at you and treat you like a tyrant because you have some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) audacity believing you have the right to force your crap on others and they should respect your extremism...

 

*snippage

 

See here we are with the strawman fallacy again. I don't want to force anybody to adhere to anything.

 

Here's a good question for you to consider about Margaret Sanger's racism.

"She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/#ixzz3ftPXB3dK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Only one response to this

- - - Updated - - -

already dealt with .. now it's just boring repetition of conformation bias on your part