Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Prince Philip has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace announces
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
Still don't see how that's not connected. Ideology is not static; I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. It evolves over time. The eugenics movement was a leftwing ideology, and they even called it the "progressive movement." Like I said, Hitler gave the eugenics movement a black-eye, so these ideas would have naturally revamped, but you can clearly see, as I pointed out in the previous post, very similar leftist ideology today to that of the past. Of course leftists aren't going to openly say they want to "weed out inferior stock." They're going to repackage it as a humanitarian cause in the form of public available contraception and abortion in lower income communities (heck, we all know about Margaret Sanger's involvement and what she believed) and guise it as a woman's right cause. I honestly don't see how you can deny the obvious connections, and I'm still not sure why you are.
Btw, Sanger was vehemently opposed to abortion. That was what her whole access to birth control was about.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostEugenics had a lot of support among conservatives at the time as well.
Btw, Sanger was vehemently opposed to abortion. That was what her whole access to birth control was about.
Yes, conservatives jumped on the bandwagon merely because they saw it as an effective way to cut government spending, but the main foundation was leftist ideology driven by the scientific community. It's highly debatable what Sanger believed; she had varying viewpoints, and it's not as clear cut as either political side claims it is.
But do keep defending her and throwing conservatives under the bus while your at it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
Neither verses suggest that Jesus Himself "loved his wine," a statement usually associated with those who indulge at questionable levels. The first had to do with those hostile toward him making accusations because he hung around with people of low standing -- ministering to the sick if you would. The second was supplying wine for a wedding feast.
That Jesus drank wine is something that is beyond question, claims of unfermented grape juice aside, but your use of "loved his wine" inferred something more than that.
G-Mark reports the almost exact same scene of Jesus having his meat and drink with friends, but I suppose that this will upset some even further. 'What!!? Those people were his friends?? !!!' Quadruple face palms!!
I study the historical Jesus, but because some might wish to fashion a staid serious Jesus who really didn't like eating killed creatures, or enjoying his wine, or having sinful mates, the NIV might help with that, so here is G-Mark in KJV for you, and the much 'nicer' NIV version which removes both to cater for those sensitive to drink etc
By all means focus on the NIV
I'll leave an agnostic writer to make my point clear.
Mark {2:15} And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. {2:16} And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
Mark 15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
But for myself just study what evidence there might be. And I don't mind if Jesus did like his meat and drink.
Omar says it all.....
The moving finger writes, and having writ,
Moves on, nor all threy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
Omar Khaiyam
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
Wait, are you saying bringing up certain things (like Mildred Gillars, or perhaps pointing out someone's brothers-in-law were Nazi's) might be a way to infer something without actually saying it directly?
Interesting. Perhaps there is hope for our resident erbsenzahler yet.
Everything else you have written is the result of your fertile imagination fuelled it would seem by a desire to suggest that my family members had been Nazis. To wit your early post [#16] where you wrote "How many of your ancestors WERE not just sympathizers, but card carrying members?"
That post was [a] entirely unnecessary; and [b] a canard that all Germans were Nazi sympathisers and or Party members."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
Man, do really want to die on this hill?
Yes, conservatives jumped on the bandwagon merely because they saw it as an effective way to cut government spending, but the main foundation was leftist ideology driven by the scientific community. It's highly debatable what Sanger believed; she had varying viewpoints, and it's not as clear cut as either political side claims it is.
But do keep defending her and throwing conservatives under the bus while your at it.
One of the primary reasons that she supported contraceptives being made available was to prevent abortions (which she likened to murder), as well as child abandonment and even infanticide. The flyer above announced the opening of Sanger's clinic in 1916, written in English, Italian, and Yiddish and urged women to come there and learn how to avoid abortion by using birth control.
Sadly, somewhere along the way Planned Parenthood drastically altered their view and started supporting abortion but they still acknowledge that Sanger had been opposed to it except in cases where the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother, having said
Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.
In her autobiography she explains that when they opened the clinic the patients there were informed
that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.
While other proponents of birth control at the time, such as Frederick J. Taussig and William J. Robinson, saw contraception and abortion as being inextricably linked, and were calling for legalizing abortion, Sanger steadfastly refused to join them, instead arguing that providing legal access to contraceptives remove any need for abortion, saying that
[abortions] can become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortion.
In fact, radical feminist and Professor Emerita of Women and Gender Studies at Arizona State University, Ann Hibner Koblitz, even claims that Sanger's anti-abortion stance actually helped to contribute to the stigmatization of abortion and impeded its acceptance as well as the growth of the reproductive rights movement in general.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by eider View Post
I don't much care for it myself. I just read the gospels and do my best to build an objective picture.
G-Mark reports the almost exact same scene of Jesus having his meat and drink with friends, but I suppose that this will upset some even further. 'What!!? Those people were his friends?? !!!' Quadruple face palms!!
I study the historical Jesus, but because some might wish to fashion a staid serious Jesus who really didn't like eating killed creatures, or enjoying his wine, or having sinful mates, the NIV might help with that, so here is G-Mark in KJV for you, and the much 'nicer' NIV version which removes both to cater for those sensitive to drink etc
By all means focus on the NIV
I'll leave an agnostic writer to make my point clear.
Mark {2:15} And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. {2:16} And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
Mark 15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
But for myself just study what evidence there might be. And I don't mind if Jesus did like his meat and drink.
Omar says it all.....
The moving finger writes, and having writ,
Moves on, nor all threy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
Omar Khaiyam
And Jesus may have enjoyed a cup of wine now and then. There's no reason to believe that He didn't. But when you use an expression that is generally used as a polite way of saying someone is a drunkard ("Jesus loved his wine") you pass well beyond that boundary.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
I never suggested Philip was a Nazi. I pointed out that his siblings married men who became Nazi sympathisers and/or Party members. That is a fact. His mother-in-law was also prone to racist comments [to wit her remark about the EU] even though she had married into a family of "Huns".
Everything else you have written is the result of your fertile imagination fuelled it would seem by a desire to suggest that my family members had been Nazis. To wit your early post [#16] where you wrote "How many of your ancestors WERE not just sympathizers, but card carrying members?"
That post was [a] entirely unnecessary; and [b] a canard that all Germans were Nazi sympathisers and or Party members.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
I never suggested Philip was a Nazi. I pointed out that his siblings married men who became Nazi sympathisers and/or Party members. That is a fact. His mother-in-law was also prone to racist comments [to wit her remark about the EU] even though she had married into a family of "Huns".
Everything else you have written is the result of your fertile imagination fuelled it would seem by a desire to suggest that my family members had been Nazis. To wit your early post [#16] where you wrote "How many of your ancestors WERE not just sympathizers, but card carrying members?"
That post was [a] entirely unnecessary; and [b] a canard that all Germans were Nazi sympathisers and or Party members.
So again, if someone's relatives political positions are relevant, what about yours. How many of your relatives were card carrying Nazis? I mean you yourself are a grammar nazi, but that's not really the same thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
What relevance did his siblings marrying Nazi's have to do with his political opinion? Seems "entirely unnecessary", and the only real reason to include it would be guilt by association.
So again, if someone's relatives political positions are relevant, what about yours. How many of your relatives were card carrying Nazis? I mean you yourself are a grammar nazi, but that's not really the same thing.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAs I pointed out earlier, Philip is on record saying some pretty racist things but for some unfathomable reason H_A is determined to make a connection via what in-laws and distant relatives believed. Definitely a strange choice.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThat Sanger was racist and supported eugenics is beyond question, as is her opposition to abortion:
One of the primary reasons that she supported contraceptives being made available was to prevent abortions (which she likened to murder), as well as child abandonment and even infanticide. The flyer above announced the opening of Sanger's clinic in 1916, written in English, Italian, and Yiddish and urged women to come there and learn how to avoid abortion by using birth control.
Sadly, somewhere along the way Planned Parenthood drastically altered their view and started supporting abortion but they still acknowledge that Sanger had been opposed to it except in cases where the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother, having said
Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.
In her autobiography she explains that when they opened the clinic the patients there were informed
that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.
While other proponents of birth control at the time, such as Frederick J. Taussig and William J. Robinson, saw contraception and abortion as being inextricably linked, and were calling for legalizing abortion, Sanger steadfastly refused to join them, instead arguing that providing legal access to contraceptives remove any need for abortion, saying that
[abortions] can become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortion.
In fact, radical feminist and Professor Emerita of Women and Gender Studies at Arizona State University, Ann Hibner Koblitz, even claims that Sanger's anti-abortion stance actually helped to contribute to the stigmatization of abortion and impeded its acceptance as well as the growth of the reproductive rights movement in general.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostJust how old was his mother-in-law when she was trash talking the EU?
He describes her as a "sprightly figure who bounced in and immediately began living up to her stereotypes, knocking back the gin and Dubonnet and twinkling away with rude enthusiasm". He continues that she "was a prey to precisely the kind of prejudice which had driven the conflicts the European project was designed to prevent and that "I thought what she had said was ugly and nasty".
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
I remember when, on the other forum, someone mentioned "jews in ovens" as an analogy and in a rather odd rebuttle she replied that it wasn't JUST jews that were murdered in the holocaust.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
It's funny that first you get all hung-up on Darwinism when I had never even brought up Darwinism in the discussion (which was clearly linked to the early eugenics movement btw, which is why I suspect you got all spooked and defensive), and now you're hung-up on Sanger and her view about abortion when you actually just proved my point about eugenics and its link to the modern leftist push for contraception. Okay, so she didn't support abortion, but she was very much a eugenicist and supported a means to eliminate (or control the reproduction of) "undesirables'" in a more "humanitarian" way. That was my whole point. There were other women, eugenicists, that cleverly used the feminist movement to guise their motives and did in fact support abortion. There are very clear connections, that you very oddly deny, from the eugenics movement of the 20th century to the modern progressive movement of today. THAT was my point.
I wasn't "all hung up" about evolution[1], it's just that my research came at the issue from that angle and it shows, especially when I'm doing a copy pasta from old notes.
I'm interested in the truth, nothing more. Sanger is no hero of mine. Far from it. But let's not create a straw man version of her to combat. She has enough real faults to have to bother making some up
The fact is that there just isn't any evidence linking the eugenicists of the early 20th cent. to the environmentalist extremists of today. Their philosophies aren't remotely similar and neither are their goals.
1. I've always been amused how opponents of biological evolution (i.e., the Theory of Evolution) are grimly determined to refer to it as "Darwinism." After all do we refer to gravity as "Newtonism," atomic theory as "Daltonism," geology as "Lyellism," or physics as "Kelvinism"?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment