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.
See more
See less

Derail from Planned Parenthood video thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    The coal strip miners have to rebuild the land when they are done and plant new trees etc.
    Yeah, even in Texas, the coal strip mines have to be left in FAR better shape than they started off in. Sam's portrayal of coal mining is just flat out goofy.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Yeah, even in Texas, the coal strip mines have to be left in FAR better shape than they started off in. Sam's portrayal of coal mining is just flat out goofy.
      Some relatively easy reading addressing mountaintop removal, which is what I mentioned.
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
        Hey, I'm just joking around, you shouldn't take yourself so seriously there, Crystal
        How many pre schoolers have you managed to impress?

        Here's the real question: why would you and other pro-life types choose such a usage of the term baby? Well, it's obviously not for scientific reasons, and it's not for practical purposes. Oh yeah, you're doing it for ...
        Why do you insist on saying, "Baby, don't you mean fetus?" when has been demonstrated that the term 'baby' is a perfectly valid term, used by the majority of the population that includes doctors and biologist too? Oh, that's right because of emotions, so it is rather hypocritical to complain about me using emotions, while you're doing the same thing yourself unless of course, you can demonstrate otherwise. Also, what else should I call an immoral practice that is about ending lives that we have no right to end for selfish purposes of convenience? I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with mere disagreement and you should be well aware of that instead of whining about the term 'baby murder' because that is precisely what I believe you are supporting and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. If you think the above is wrong, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise or is there another reason you want to use the term 'fetus' when baby is a perfectly accepted term used by doctors and laymen alike to refer to the unborn?

        Oh boy. It's not about whether the word baby is a proper medical term (it's not though) it's about whether your using it for the purposes of this conversation is for sound reasoning. It's obvious to everybody that you're using the word for propaganda to invoke emotional reactions out of people - and to stifle rational conversation. You know that when the chips are down, you've got nothing to help your case if you can't use emotional or fearful propaganda. Like I said, you're just like a fundamentalist fanatic in the way of Ben Stein.


        And why do you say, "Baby, don't you mean fetus!" beyond trying to use emotional manipulation yourself when I have demonstrated that the term 'baby' is a perfectly valid term that has been used and is continued to be used by doctors and laymen alike? Hypocrisy is so fun, isn't it or are you the only one allowed to do it and everybody else can't? Face it, baby is a perfectly valid term to use and the only real reason you keep saying, "Baby, don't you mean fetus?" is because you want to engage in the very thing you accuse the opposition of and don't want to face your own double standards. Sorry, but the facts are there for all to see and you want the term 'baby' replaced with the term 'fetus' so you can hide behind the fact that you want to kill humans because if you can hide behind medical terms, you can control the language. Does it upset you that I will not let you control the language?



        Oh boy, here we go again. You're ignorance is one again on display. First of all, yeah no crap, genius. I already said Galton was one of the founders of the eugenics philosophy in my post to you. Second of all, yeah a lot of it's proponents had racist views that they believed were backed up science, but they wee living in the butt end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when Crick and Watson hadn't developed the double-helix of DNA for another thirty years, and an even longer gap for Darwin in company. They working thirty years away from one of the greatest achievements of man kind... you are not. So going back in time and pointing out people you don't like held ignorant views is a dishonest tactic.
        In other words, you can refute it and instead engage in name calling to make up for your lack of arguments. Nice! It's really amusing to watch you try to defend the words of racist and their kind by saying, "Oh yeah, the developed this scientific breakthrough!" as though that excuses away their racism. Sorry, but as I'll show below, the only ignorant fundy here is you. Have fun digging your way out of the hole you dug for yourself. Besides, I'm just doing what you do, what do you not like it when your opponents use your same logic? Besides, GK Chesterton saw Eugenics as supporting great evil back in the 1920s (or have you never read his work Eugenics and Other Evils), so it isn't as though refutations to eugenic thought didn't exist. Sorry, but supporting racism, in the name of science, is no different than supporting racism, in the name of social progress or politics.

        Margaret Sanger denounced Hitler's genocide over and over again. She also made clear that she never believed in the state making these decisions for people - that's why they call her a PRO-CHOICE advocate, get it? It means she wants you to have your right too, dummy. Hell, the Fascists in Italy and Spain took books on birth control...
        Was that before or after the holocaust came forward and before or after she got done praising Nazi efforts to apply eugenics to their government and their policy? Anybody can condemn an event after it happened and after they want to separate themselves from policies they supported, but did she condemn the Nazi's and their policies before or after their attempts to kill off the Jews came to light? Anybody can condemn something after the fact and scream, "I never supported that!" because that is done in politics all the time (look how the democrats keep trying to separate themselves from the Iraq War, despite the fact many of them voted in support of it back in 2003). Is it true or false that Nazi Scientist had articles published in Birth Control Review before WWII broke out? Is it true or false that eugenics supporters praised Nazi efforts to enact eugenics before the war? Do you deny that Nazi scientist and doctors published articles in their publications, before the war or that eugenics supporters were supportive of their efforts, before the war? Of course they did and just like any prudent person would do, Margaret Sanger dropped her support for their efforts after the defeated enemy was made into the very definition of evil, but the question remains James, did she and her supporters do this before the war (when it would have shown an actual condemning of Nazi eugenics efforts) or after the war (when being associated with the Nazi's would be a giant weight tied around the necks of anybody associated with them and dropping your support was the only prudent action to save yourself politically). I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words and the fact that she and her supporters were supporting Nazi efforts, before the war, and only decided to condemn them afterwords speaks volumes about them. Your inability to notice that little fact, says a lot about you too. They were for Nazi eugenics efforts before they were against them and denying this is denying the history behind them or do I need to dig up the quotes where many eugenics supporters decided to support Nazi eugenics efforts before they decided to be against Nazi eugenics efforts?

        Propaganda (SoR definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

        Here comes the fun.

        I guess you wasted six months education then. First off, dumbass, the Nazi's outlawed abortion and birth control, sweet pea.
        False, Nazi's outlawed abortion and birth control for aryans and were very supportive of efforts of abortion and birth control for non aryan women idiot. Try again and if you don't believe me sweety, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise. Nazi's awarded aryan women who had children and did lots of things to encourage these women to have lots and lots of children, but to the races they saw as inferior, they could care less what they did or didn't do (again, searching the web would before this as true). While it is cute to watch you pretending to be an historian, do yourself a favor, stop pretending. You're not an historian.

        What you didn't know that? Your simply cherry-picking the bits of history you want to use that make you look like you're right, while omitting the parts that obviously prove your case wrong. It's an historical fact the Nazi's in Germany and the fascists in both Italy and Spain banned abortion and birth control.
        What you didn't report, sweety, is that they were quite supportive of birth control and abortion efforts for the 'defective' and made it against the law for aryan men and women to use birth control or abortion (unless the baby was 'defective'). Remember, eugenics philosophy is, "More children for the fit and less children for the unfit" or are you not aware of these little facts? Oh dear. an historian you are not and you really need to stop pretending to be one. Nazi's could care less if the Jews, Slavs, etc killed their children or used birth control. They only cared if aryans did.

        Mussolini and the Roman Catholic Church worked hand in hand to increase the population in Italy by encouraging more birth and banned contraceptives. Franco was even worse on this matter so we won't get into that. Point is, if you're trying to connect the two in practice, PPH and the Fascists couldn't have been further apart - in fact they hold your positions on this matter. That you don't let people in on this little fact of history shows you're either an idiot that doesn't know the history or a completely dishonest bag of misery that just wants to spew propaganda.
        Sorry James, I have already demonstrated this is wrong and your denial of reality is quite amusing. The fascist only cared if the 'right' men and women were using abortion and birth control and could care less if the 'unfit' used birth control or are you not aware of what eugenics philosophy is and what their logic was all about? I've spent months reading on this stuff and the fact you're unaware of the facts of history and only selectively quote these things is quite amusing. I should also note that laws against birth control measures were nothing new in the world and many countries (including the US) had laws against both birth control and abortion during this era. Eugenics supporters wanted birth control (and in some cases, abortion) legal, but they only wanted some people to use them and worked on passing laws and behavior in the favor of these policies while religious people had (and many still do) issues with birth control and abortion across the board (rather these people be the 'unfit' or not). Tell me, have you actually READ the books written by eugenics supporters? My guess is no and you're just repeating things you've read others say and hoping that I'm unaware of what they taught? Sweety, I'm well aware that Margaret Sanger was against abortion and remained against it to her to her death (this can be confirmed by reading her works and books, which I have taken the time to read). However, she isn't the only supporter of eugenics out there and many of her associates thought differently, just as many American eugenics supporters (including her) were quite supportive of Nazi eugenics programs before they were against them after WWII. If this is wrong, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise. I'll be waiting or you could just yell, "PROPAGANDA!" and really hope your opposition is unaware of the history.

        If we followed your logic of applying this guilt by association garbage to PPH, then Winston Churchill is a scumbag because he supported eugenics too.
        And so was President Wilson, Roosevelt, and many other famous figures were quite supportive of eugenics efforts before WWII. What you tend to forget though James is that Planned Parenthood has done nothing to condemn their history of eugenics supporters and in fact, continued to support them throughout the years while other organizations have done differently. Ever hear of Karl Pearson? Quite an interesting historical figure that was a strong supporter of eugenics (as well as his work in mathematics) who started a journal known as 'Annals of Eugenics'. Their changed their name, in 1954, to Annals of Human Genetics. What is interesting is that USA Today wrote an article about something they did in which the journal opened up its past archives to show scientific racism and targeting of the disabled to researchers. As the article says:

        "It shouldn't be forgotten," Linares says, by e-mail. "Since the social implications of a lot of current human genetics research are enormous it seems important that in judging what human genetics is doing now we maintain awareness of the history of this discipline."
        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...-journal_N.htm

        Has Planned Parenthood condemned the racism and other elements of the leaders of the past for the things they supported and did or have they tried hiding their past associations and pretending as though these links do not exist? Sure, eugenics is a stain upon many people, groups, and entire governments, but act as though it didn't exist and that it's supporters didn't do and say they things they did isn't the path to take. I have a good deal of respect for a group of people, who have a journal associated with these racist, but have taken steps to break their associations of their tainted past. Planned Parenthood has a tainted past, you can't deny this (unless you want to deny history), but what steps has the modern organizations taken to separate itself from it's racist past? Hiding it, doesn't make it go away.

        Since Wernher Von Braun was also a Nazi and we followed your logic, the space flight program and Air Force ICBM's probably wouldn't have happened until who knows when. Robert Oppenheimer was influenced by eugenics and Nazi's too, so I guess he wouldn't have happened either - this is getting really sad just thinking back. Fact is, some the most impressive developments in physics, astronomy, engineering, aerospace, automotive, and general human advancement came from the Nazi's and Fascists whom all were eugenicists. The questionable moral compass they may have had at time does nothing to diminish the great achievements and insight, and Margaret Sanger should be no different. The only reason you apply this logic to her exclusively is due to your fanatic commitment to the anti-abortion movement that clouds your judgment and causes you to spew absolute propaganda.
        The fact the US government made deals with Nazi's (because many of these Nazi scientist were involved in forcing Jewish condemned prisoners to build rockets for them and they wanted to avoid going to trial for their crimes) is a stain upon US history and a moral failure of the US government. Unless of course, you're a supporter of the idea that anything, as long as it furthers your goals, is justified and you want to forget the ideals the US was supposedly founded upon. Sorry, but these people should be properly condemned for supporting their racist past and shouldn't be hidden away because, "They did great things for X, Y, or Z" because that excuses away their crimes or their support for the crimes that were taken with the ideals they supported. The idea that some people are less worthy of life and are better off never being born or dead is a horrible evil and you making excuses for this evil by screaming, "WAA! Propaganda!" tells me all I need to hear about how far south your moral compass points. This is no different than people trying to hide the evils slavery and Jim Crow laws (and their supporters) by saying, "Well, it helped many people do great things!" and that somehow justifies enslaving blacks and forcing them to pick your cotton? That somehow justifies polices of racism where entire generations of blacks were denied basic rights and treated as second class citizens, by their own government? Your excuses are running thin because if racism, in the name of social cohesion is immoral; racism, in the name of scientific progress, is too. Stop making excuses for eugenics and it's obvious racism and start properly condemning the evil and the horrors it brought forth.

        Honey bunny, I think you've done enough damage to your credibility on this topic and if what you say is true about reading up on this for six months, then you need to seriously reevaluate the way you learn and whom you're learning it from.
        It's so adorable to watch your excuses for people's racism and ignore the fact that those same excuses can be applied to a great deal of things and can be used to justify almost anything we want. Keep digging and remember, if making excuses for the behavior of eugenics and its supporters can be justified, slavery and Jim Crow can be too. Unless of course, you can explain how denying entire groups of people basic rights, due to their genetic heritage, is really any different than denying people their basic rights, based upon their color of their skin. Sorry, racism is racism, no matter what excuses you can dig up to support it and no matter what you try to do to excuse it away. If the slave owners can't be excused away for their ownership of slaves, the eugenics can't be excused away for their racist policies either.



        I don't know where the hell Chesterton came from but... okay.
        You mean beyond his book, based on these very topic?
        As for Stein, I have zero respect for him. Some of the most dishonest propagandists in history were speech writers, so he gets no points from me there. He has show what an idiot he is when he says things like "science leads you to killing people" and makes dishonest propaganda like Expelled that showed how educated he actually is. Above and beyond that, his foreign policy sounds like that of a mad man when he takes about impossible nuclear holocaust fantasies that have no basis in reality, and seem to based more on his phobia of Arabic cultures than anything else. He may be educated on economics but outside of that he's a clown and has earned the moron badge with flying colors. That you actually care enough to right this sad defense of a character like him speaks volumes about your level of honesty as well.
        Actually, it speaks volumes about your level of honesty because it seems that you want to ignore that Ben Stein has done a good deal of things and has made many accomplishments by trying to stain them with excuses like, "He supports crazy things like this!" and ignore your same logic can be turned around on you. Does the fact that Ben Stein is a graduate of Columbia and Yale excuses away some of the silly things he says or does? No, so why does the fact that Churchill was a great leader of the British people, that lead them though WWII, excuse away his support for a policy that is racist to the core? Why does the accomplishments of any of them men you mention above excuse away their support for the racist ideology of eugenics? Sorry James, but if the accomplishments that Ben Stein has made doesn't excuses away some of the silly things he says and the nonsense he supports, why does that same excuse fly for people you approve of? Let me guess, those excuses only work, as long as the person in question believes the right things and believes the correct stuff, huh? Go ahead and choose the horse you want to ride on either accomplishments can excuse away a persons support and associations or it doesn't. What horse do you choose to ride?

        Oh dear, you're really showing your level of education again. Animals such as the wildebeest, deer, horses, pandas, rabbits, baboons, and giraffes are herbivorous to name a few, genius. Their diet is herbivorous with the only exceptions being when their environment forces them to resort opportunistic feedings such as droughts. This is basic biology, Crystal. I know that you're aware of this and are just stating it to try and put me in a corner but this is just dishonesty, frankly. This is why people avoid debates with you.
        Sweety, do they normally live on meats? While it is cute to watch you try to say, "In desperate times, they might do this!" doesn't excuse away what they normally do or that human diets have evolved to include both (unless you want to deny this).

        Lets see here: you use words as a way to make people react emotionally, you have fabricated the history of Fascism and Eugenics to promote your propaganda, you don't know the real history of the PPH movement, your logic would have resulted in the loss of mankind's most stunning achievements, you respect Ben Stein, and you don't know the basic diets of the worlds animals kingdom. Could you have spewed more ignorance in one post? It's stunning really. You proclaim to be such a damn wiz at this stuff and yet when one scratches just a little beneath the surface, you end up sounding like a buffoon. This is basic logic and knowledge and it seems you don't want to apply it to your thoughts at all. You call myself and others fundy atheists but it appears that Christian fundamentalism is still very much alive in your critical thinking skills, and the way you argue with people.
        Irony at it's finest. What is really amusing is to watch your double standards, in action, and to watch you ignore your own logic used against you and to watch you say all sorts of silly things as I will expose below

        1. I have fabricated no history of fascism and eugenics and the fact you flat out refused to address a single thing I said, speaks volumes. The links between eugenics and Nazi philosophy is well known and well talked about in history books. The fact you're unaware of these basic links, speaks a lot about you. If that is wrong, go ahead and demonstrate what history I made up and why.
        2. You flat out ignore that the excuses you make up to support eugenics supporters can be used to excuse away almost anybody for their silly arguments and statements. Does the fact that Ben Stein accomplished many thing, excuses away the other things he said and did? No, so go ahead and explain how the fact that the men you mentioned above are somehow excused away from their support of eugenics and their questionable past (such as the case of Nazi scientist) because they accomplishment great things. I could care less about Ben Stein and was using him to trap you into your own words and you fell right into it. Have fun digging your way out of your own hole.
        3. Sorry, but my use of the term 'baby' is no different than your use of the term 'fetus' and your denial of what you are trying to do speaks volumes about you.

        Have fun digging your way out of the hole you dug for yourself because this is what happens when you underestimate the intelligence of your opponents. You end up with a lot of egg on your face if you end up doing that. Keep digging and remember, never admit to an error, right?

        Contrary to what you might think, I do not hold feelings of hatred for you. I'm just treating you the way you would have treated me or anyone else if they had said such nonsense. If you want people to be more respectful of you and handle you with kid gloves then you can just keep on wanting. You enjoy humiliating or trying to humiliate people and have defended it on multiple occasions so don't complain when it happens to you - it's really hypocritical. You knock it off and I will too.
        Demonstrate that I'm wrong James. I'll be waiting.
        Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 08-06-2015, 07:19 PM.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • I
          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
          His speech was in regard to economic policy. The tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting of social programs advocated by the Republicans are detrimental to the economy and are a hypocritical biting of the hand that feeds you. Businesses succeed because of the efforts of multiple parties, not the sole effort of an entrepreneur or CEO. Social programs and the spending of taxes on things like roads and schools allow for companies to exist at all, let alone prosper. Obama even gave a summary within his own speech: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

          The Republican party seized on this out of context quote because it allows them to swindle voters who just want their fears and opinions validated and aren't interested in fact-checking or a nuanced viewpoint. Republicans want to push the idea that if you work hard, you can become rich. As long as conservatives believe that, they will vote to benefit the rich at their own expense, because they imagine that one day they too will benefit from pro-wealthy, anti-poor policy.
          We have strayed far off topic. But...Republicans don't think you can get rich, but that with hard work you can make a decent living. I know a lady, 4 kids, different dads, could work but she doesn't, the fathers are bums, she gets money from the State. So she gets money for being irresponsible. Not only that, she got ten thousand dollars for her earned income credit last year. She lives with her mom and dad who help with the kids. This sort of thing happens all over. And I know this lady personally. I'm well aware of her situation. Republicans want to cut services for irresponsible people who do nothing.
          As for the Prez, he's a collectivist. He actually believes that If you own a business, you are obligated to pay the State back and redistribute the wealth. And where does a lot of that money go? Not to our vets. They go to people like the lady I described. Able to work but are lazy and irresponsible and we, the money makers of America, are paying for her to have kids from different men and live with her parents paying nothing but still she gets a monthly check and a huge tax return even though she pays zero taxes. Liberal logic at its best.
          Faith is not what we fall back to when reason isn't available. It's the conviction of what we have reason to believe. Greg Koukl

          The loss of objectivity in moral thought does not lead to liberation. It leads to oppression. Secular ideologies preach liberty, but they practice tyranny. — Nancy Pearcey

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post

            In other words, you can refute it and instead engage in name calling to make up for your lack of arguments. Nice! It's really amusing to watch you try to defend the words of racist and their kind by saying, "Oh yeah, the developed this scientific breakthrough!" as though that excuses away their racism. Sorry, but as I'll show below, the only ignorant fundy here is you. Have fun digging your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.
            Real nice. Accuse your opponents of supporting racist ideas and twist their words to support your claims. I never said people can be excused from their support of racism and eugenics because of scientific achievement, sweetheart. Those are your words not mine. Good job on being a dishonest, character assassinating, bucket of mud.
            Besides, I'm just doing what you do, what do you not like it when your opponents use your same logic? Besides, GK Chesterton saw Eugenics as supporting great evil back in the 1920s (or have you never read his work Eugenics and Other Evils), so it isn't as though refutations to eugenic thought didn't exist. Sorry, but supporting racism, in the name of science, is no different than supporting racism, in the name of social progress or politics.

            Moron, I never said that. I said that by your logic, some of humanities greatest achievements would have been lost, and many great political advancements would have been too. Besides, Churchill and Roosevelt supported eugenic ideas and I don't see you throwing out their ideas for government. Jefferson, Washington, and Adams owned slaves and you've yet to condemn the US constitution. It's just a unique double standard that only apply to abortion rights and nothing else.

            Was that before or after the holocaust came forward and before or after she got done praising Nazi efforts to apply eugenics to their government and their policy? Anybody can condemn an event after it happened and after they want to separate themselves from policies they supported, but did she condemn the Nazi's and their policies before or after their attempts to kill off the Jews came to light? Anybody can condemn something after the fact and scream, "I never supported that!" because that is done in politics all the time (look how the democrats keep trying to separate themselves from the Iraq War, despite the fact many of them voted in support of it back in 2003). Is it true or false that Nazi Scientist had articles published in Birth Control Review before WWII broke out? Is it true or false that eugenics supporters praised Nazi efforts to enact eugenics before the war? Do you deny that Nazi scientist and doctors published articles in their publications, before the war or that eugenics supporters were supportive of their efforts, before the war? Of course they did and just like any prudent person would do, Margaret Sanger dropped her support for their efforts after the defeated enemy was made into the very definition of evil, but the question remains James, did she and her supporters do this before the war (when it would have shown an actual condemning of Nazi eugenics efforts) or after the war (when being associated with the Nazi's would be a giant weight tied around the necks of anybody associated with them and dropping your support was the only prudent action to save yourself politically). I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words and the fact that she and her supporters were supporting Nazi efforts, before the war, and only decided to condemn them afterwords speaks volumes about them. Your inability to notice that little fact, says a lot about you too. They were for Nazi eugenics efforts before they were against them and denying this is denying the history behind them or do I need to dig up the quotes where many eugenics supporters decided to support Nazi eugenics efforts before they decided to be against Nazi eugenics efforts?
            More of your warped logic. Do you apply that standard to Roosevelt and Churchill? No, didn't think so. You only apply this criteria to one group and one group alone - which shows what your motivations here are. Fact is, lots of scientists, politicians, philosophers, and even civil rights leaders promoted eugenic ideas. Whether those ideas are valid or not has nothing to do with if these people promoted Nazism - an entirely different set of ideas. Do you deny that information about the Holocaust was difficult to come by in their day? Do you deny that Sanger and company condemned the Nazi's civil rights abuses against minority groups? Sanger was never a Nazi supporter, sweetie. She wanted nothing to do with those ideas in the beginning, and nothing to do with when they were going on, period.

            I guess we should break-up the RCC for their Fascist support in that time period. I love your logic... especially when it back fires on you.

            Propaganda (SoR definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"
            Here comes the fun.
            You tried, that's what counts.

            False, Nazi's outlawed abortion and birth control for aryans and were very supportive of efforts of abortion and birth control for non aryan women idiot. Try again and if you don't believe me sweety, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise. Nazi's awarded aryan women who had children and did lots of things to encourage these women to have lots and lots of children, but to the races they saw as inferior, they could care less what they did or didn't do (again, searching the web would before this as true). While it is cute to watch you pretending to be an historian, do yourself a favor, stop pretending. You're not an historian.
            I'm pretending to be an historian? You keep acting like some trained authoritative figure on this stuff and it's obvious you either don't know a lot of the history or you're just trying to re-write the history.

            Yup, the Nazi's did support abortion for non aryan groups but it's impossible to say how often it was ever used. Thing is, it's not right to call them pro-choice or pro-life in either sense of the words. But it is an historical fact that the Nazi's (and their counterparts around the world) believed a womans womb belonged to the state, and that it had the right to govern those kind of decisions for women. Aryan women? They got arrested for trying to get abortions and some ended up in jail for providing those services Franco and Mussolini were clear about abortion and birth control being outlawed for all, which is why the Catholic church supported their effort in The Battle of Births. Yeah, Mussolini (and Hitler) believed women had a duty to bear children and if they ever tried to kill one... jail time for you.

            Why do you talk about that element of history, Crystal? Oh right. You only want o talk about the bits that help you out.
            What you didn't report, sweety, is that they were quite supportive of birth control and abortion efforts for the 'defective' and made it against the law for aryan men and women to use birth control or abortion (unless the baby was 'defective'). Remember, eugenics philosophy is, "More children for the fit and less children for the unfit" or are you not aware of these little facts? Oh dear. an historian you are not and you really need to stop pretending to be one. Nazi's could care less if the Jews, Slavs, etc killed their children or used birth control. They only cared if aryans did.
            Translation: Yup, they were anti-abortion 99% of the time.

            blah blah blah... redundant crap.

            The fact the US government made deals with Nazi's (because many of these Nazi scientist were involved in forcing Jewish condemned prisoners to build rockets for them and they wanted to avoid going to trial for their crimes) is a stain upon US history and a moral failure of the US government. Unless of course, you're a supporter of the idea that anything, as long as it furthers your goals, is justified and you want to forget the ideals the US was supposedly founded upon. Sorry, but these people should be properly condemned for supporting their racist past and shouldn't be hidden away because, "They did great things for X, Y, or Z" because that excuses away their crimes or their support for the crimes that were taken with the ideals they supported. The idea that some people are less worthy of life and are better off never being born or dead is a horrible evil and you making excuses for this evil by screaming, "WAA! Propaganda!" tells me all I need to hear about how far south your moral compass points. This is no different than people trying to hide the evils slavery and Jim Crow laws (and their supporters) by saying, "Well, it helped many people do great things!" and that somehow justifies enslaving blacks and forcing them to pick your cotton? That somehow justifies polices of racism where entire generations of blacks were denied basic rights and treated as second class citizens, by their own government? Your excuses are running thin because if racism, in the name of social cohesion is immoral; racism, in the name of scientific progress, is too. Stop making excuses for eugenics and it's obvious racism and start properly condemning the evil and the horrors it brought forth.

            It's so adorable to watch your excuses for people's racism and ignore the fact that those same excuses can be applied to a great deal of things and can be used to justify almost anything we want. Keep digging and remember, if making excuses for the behavior of eugenics and its supporters can be justified, slavery and Jim Crow can be too. Unless of course, you can explain how denying entire groups of people basic rights, due to their genetic heritage, is really any different than denying people their basic rights, based upon their color of their skin. Sorry, racism is racism, no matter what excuses you can dig up to support it and no matter what you try to do to excuse it away. If the slave owners can't be excused away for their ownership of slaves, the eugenics can't be excused away for their racist policies either.


            Actually, it speaks volumes about your level of honesty because it seems that you want to ignore that Ben Stein has done a good deal of things and has made many accomplishments by trying to stain them with excuses like, "He supports crazy things like this!" and ignore your same logic can be turned around on you. Does the fact that Ben Stein is a graduate of Columbia and Yale excuses away some of the silly things he says or does? No, so why does the fact that Churchill was a great leader of the British people, that lead them though WWII, excuse away his support for a policy that is racist to the core? Why does the accomplishments of any of them men you mention above excuse away their support for the racist ideology of eugenics? Sorry James, but if the accomplishments that Ben Stein has made doesn't excuses away some of the silly things he says and the nonsense he supports, why does that same excuse fly for people you approve of? Let me guess, those excuses only work, as long as the person in question believes the right things and believes the correct stuff, huh? Go ahead and choose the horse you want to ride on either accomplishments can excuse away a persons support and associations or it doesn't. What horse do you choose to ride?


            This is EXACTLY why so many people hate talking to you. You either can't read or just want to distort your opponents view to something easier for you to handle. I never stated that folk like Von Braun can be excused for their crimes, that people like Sanger can be excused for their racism, or that others can be excused for different crimes. Those are your words and have nothing to do with my point. My point was that it's the ideas merit that count, not whether that person has certain character flaws or participated in certain moral repugnance. It's a genetic fallacy that has zero bearing on whether an idea is right or wrong. This very simple point evades you over and over again, and I can see it's not going to suddenly click with you.

            This is just how you argue with people. You start off with a flawed premise that when somebody presses you on, you reply with word salad posts that are a chore to deal with. You distort your opponents arguments to mud sling and character assassinate them, and complain when people insult you back. Then you throw in some logical fallacies to complete the deal and from your proverbial glass house, accuse everybody of doing exactly what you've done. Well, I don't have all the time in the world to waste it somebody that has such a warped idea of inquiry into others opinions. It's just you projecting your frustrations on to m and others, and nothing else. So go ahead and have the last word, I don't need it.

            PS: It's funny to watch you piss and moan about insults when you've been the biggest defender of them on this forum for years. You get what you give and you've had this coming for awhile. Don't like it? Look in the mirror for the cause of it.
            Sweety, do they normally live on meats? While it is cute to watch you try to say, "In desperate times, they might do this!" doesn't excuse away what they normally do or that human diets have evolved to include both (unless you want to deny this).
            And please learn what an opportunistic feeding is.
            Last edited by Sea of red; 08-07-2015, 07:11 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              Real nice. Accuse your opponents of supporting racist ideas and twist their words to support your claims. I never said people can be excused from their support of racism and eugenics because of scientific achievement, sweetheart. Those are your words not mine. Good job on being a dishonest, character assassinating, bucket of mud.
              How adorable, attempting to support eugenics and their supporters and when called on it, tries to back out. It's so funny to watch you back out of your own words and fail to understand your own logic. It's also funny to watch you excuse away your own dishonest nature, character assassinating, and buckets of mud, but who cares about those silly fact things? You got an opinion and by golly, that opinion must be true (although I find amusing how you ignoring all of your other failed arguments and attempting to latch onto this one, so I guess when this one ends up failing too, you'll find a new one to latch on to because remember, anything is better than admitting you're wrong about anything!).


              Moron, I never said that. I said that by your logic, some of humanities greatest achievements would have been lost, and many great political advancements would have been too. Besides, Churchill and Roosevelt supported eugenic ideas and I don't see you throwing out their ideas for government. Jefferson, Washington, and Adams owned slaves and you've yet to condemn the US constitution. It's just a unique double standard that only apply to abortion rights and nothing else.
              Sorry sweety, but you're sweating and showing your true double standards. I never made excuses for the racism of anybody, but you keep making excuses for people holding to eugenics and act as though their accomplishments should somehow excuse their actions. Second, watching your historical inaccuracies is quite amusing. Adam's was a lawyer from Massachusetts sweety and didn't own slaves at all. In fact, he was morally opposed to slavery. Third, I don't excuse anything Jefferson or Washington did and their slave ownership needs to be properly condemn for what they did. However; anybody with any sort of historical knowledge knows that not all of the signers of writers of the DoI or Constitution were slave owners and some were even morally opposed to slaver (or did you never hear of the 3/5ths compromise). Finally, you are only focusing on a single argument that I made and totally ignoring that I have produced several reasons to end abortion (such as the fact that it is about killing human's) that you totally ignore and pretend as though this is the only argument I presented (so much for that honestly you try to claim to have, is it very honest to ignore 85% of my arguments and pretend that this one was the only one I presented?) BTW seriously, stop pretending to be an historian, stop trying to push my logic to ultimate extremes, and stop ignoring arguments you can't answer. I'm not the one making excuses for Jefferson and Washington slave ownership like you're making excuses for people's beliefs and follower ship about eugenics and this isn't my only argument. Again, when you can't refute what your opponents say, switch up the argument and hope they don't notice. Nice!

              More of your warped logic. Do you apply that standard to Roosevelt and Churchill? No, didn't think so. You only apply this criteria to one group and one group alone - which shows what your motivations here are. Fact is, lots of scientists, politicians, philosophers, and even civil rights leaders promoted eugenic ideas. Whether those ideas are valid or not has nothing to do with if these people promoted Nazism - an entirely different set of ideas. Do you deny that information about the Holocaust was difficult to come by in their day? Do you deny that Sanger and company condemned the Nazi's civil rights abuses against minority groups? Sanger was never a Nazi supporter, sweetie. She wanted nothing to do with those ideas in the beginning, and nothing to do with when they were going on, period.
              I love your assertions and claims you can't back up, but yes I do and you'd know that if you knew a thing about me. See sweety, my parents have disabilities and I even married a man that has disabilities (with his mother, that also has disabilities). The fact that some people propose that their lives are worth less or even assume they would be better off dead is an utterly evil agenda that should be exposed for the true evil it actually is. Anybody, who supports such evil, should be held accountable for their words and actions (and yes, sterilizing thousands of people, in some cases, against their will, is a pretty despicable thing, no matter how many excuses you can dig up for it). Likewise, the fact people try to white wash this history and hide the fact that many of their hero's supported this sort of ideology is equally bad and just calls for the same mistakes of the past to be repeated. See, if people don't know that even decent and good men and women, could get caught up in such ideas, how could they earn to deal with these problems? So sorry, you're dead wrong here because I make sure that people are well aware of just how many people and how popular eugenics was and just what it lead to. Finally, it's really cute to watch you try to mindlessly defend your hero's and not condemn the actions they took part in. See sweet heart, ever read some of the articles and issues of Birth Control Review? They published articles, by Nazi scientist, in the 1930's James. I know they did because I read the articles and where they were published. Who was the editor of the magazine, throughout it's entire history? Oh yeah, Ms Sanger was. Ooops, but don't worry, I suppose you'll say, "She was against it!" Sure, everybody was against the Nazi's after the war because being associated with the Nazi's was like having a 200 lbs weight tied around your neck. The question is... did she condemn or support Nazi views and beliefs, before WWII?

              I guess we should break-up the RCC for their Fascist support in that time period. I love your logic... especially when it back fires on you.
              Considering that Mussolini was a devout atheist and how many historical errors you've made thus far; I'll have to see your source on this one. I also notice you ignoring all the arguments I made and just picking on this one because you can't refute the other ones (hummm, I wonder how much longer until you switch up to a new strawman to attack, perhaps your next post will be you trying to rip yet another sentence out of context and trying to shove yet more words down my throat in your sad excuses to ignore all the mistakes you've made). Yep, when you can't refute the arguments brought forth, attack a strawman and hope nobody notices you running away with your tail between your legs. How adorable, but I need to see your source for this after the basic historical mistakes you keep making in your quest to pretend to be an historian, but keep showing your lack of even basic historical facts (John Adam's was a slaver own, that's a pretty major error on your part. Perhaps you should spend some time reading an American History book vs searching the web for pretty little pictures and making a fool of yourself).
              You tried, that's what counts.
              And you failed Mr historical error after historical error. So are you done pretending to be an historian yet or do you need to keep getting more history lessons because it appears you slept though your history classes (I'm still laughing about your mistake on John Adams).

              I'm pretending to be an historian? You keep acting like some trained authoritative figure on this stuff and it's obvious you either don't know a lot of the history or you're just trying to re-write the history.
              Than show a singe historical error that I made and what I rewrote Mr. John Adam's owned slaves.

              Yup, the Nazi's did support abortion for non aryan groups but it's impossible to say how often it was ever used. Thing is, it's not right to call them pro-choice or pro-life in either sense of the words. But it is an historical fact that the Nazi's (and their counterparts around the world) believed a womans womb belonged to the state, and that it had the right to govern those kind of decisions for women. Aryan women? They got arrested for trying to get abortions and some ended up in jail for providing those services Franco and Mussolini were clear about abortion and birth control being outlawed for all, which is why the Catholic church supported their effort in The Battle of Births. Yeah, Mussolini (and Hitler) believed women had a duty to bear children and if they ever tried to kill one... jail time for you.
              How adorable, you keep making all of these claims, but seem to white wash away the history you don't want to hear and try to play to the rest of it (got news for you, abortion and birth control were also illegal in the US too or have you never heard of the Comstock Laws?). Sure, they thought the reproductive rights of men and women belonged to the state, but really could care less what the 'undesirables' did or didn't do (considering they rounded them up into camps and later exterminated them, I doubt they did). Besides, birth control was a hot button issue across much of the world during that era or did you forget that little historical detail?

              Why do you talk about that element of history, Crystal? Oh right. You only want o talk about the bits that help you out.
              Why don't you want to discuss the Comstock laws and that purity laws against birth control and abortion, were also adopted here in the states too (some being on the books to the 1960's)? Why don't you want to discuss the idea that Hitler didn't care what the Jews and the rest of them did, as long as they did it to each other and left his precious 'master race' alone? Do you really think that Hitler would have cared what the Jews or any other 'inferior' race was doing to each other? He might of used the laws against birth control or abortion as another excuses to round them up (although I don't see any evidence that he ever did). So again, it's cute to watch you make these little mistakes of basic logic and too wrapped up in 'proving me wrong' to really care. How adorable.

              Translation: Yup, they were anti-abortion 99% of the time.
              Along with the rest of the world of the 1930's or did you forget that little fact Mr. John Adam's own slaves? Sorry, if you make basic historical errors, such as though, why should be trusted with the rest or have you not read the books on the movement and what they taught?

              This is EXACTLY why so many people hate talking to you. You either can't read or just want to distort your opponents view to something easier for you to handle.
              Kind of like how you cut out all of my arguments, make basic historical errors, ignore arguments you were proved wrong in, and try to make me hold to logical extremes I never made? Got to love hypocrisy and double standards in the morning.

              I never stated that folk like Von Braun can be excused for their crimes, that people like Sanger can be excused for their racism, or that others can be excused for different crimes. Those are your words and have nothing to do with my point. My point was that it's the ideas merit that count, not whether that person has certain character flaws or participated in certain moral repugnance. It's a genetic fallacy that has zero bearing on whether an idea is right or wrong. This very simple point evades you over and over again, and I can see it's not going to suddenly click with you.
              And I never said that people's works should all be thrown out the window because of their past or present associations either, but you couldn't refute my actual argument so you made up a new one to refute because you're too stupid to refute the arguments I actually made. What's the problem James, don't you like it when people do the very thing you do or are you the only one that can make their opponents say thing they never said and try to make them hold to logical extremes they never held to and never supported? You're so adorable when you caught up in your mistakes and trying to pass the buck to your opponent.

              This is just how you argue with people. You start off with a flawed premise that when somebody presses you on, you reply with word salad posts that are a chore to deal with. You distort your opponents arguments to mud sling and character assassinate them, and complain when people insult you back. Then you throw in some logical fallacies to complete the deal and from your proverbial glass house, accuse everybody of doing exactly what you've done. Well, I don't have all the time in the world to waste it somebody that has such a warped idea of inquiry into others opinions. It's just you projecting your frustrations on to m and others, and nothing else. So go ahead and have the last word, I don't need it.
              You mean like you keep doing? Gosh, you just don't like when people can play your little games better than you can and can end up making you look like a fool, huh? Sorry sweety, but you're the one that said it and I'm just hold you to the extremes of your own words and you hate it that I can do it better than you can. Hey, if you want to defend the words of racist and an ideology founded on bigotry and racism, that is your choice, but if you don't want me returning the same favor to you, that you return to me, stop doing it to me. You can't do that though, so you do what you do best, try to obstruct the argument and hope your opponent is too dumb to spot your attempts and propping up strawman of their arguments. Too bad I'm not, don't worry though, I know you can't ever admit to a single error to me and will just keep digging his own grave rather than admit he's wrong about anything or anybody.

              PS: It's funny to watch you piss and moan about insults when you've been the biggest defender of them on this forum for years. You get what you give and you've had this coming for awhile. Don't like it? Look in the mirror for the cause of it.
              Too bad I use them and answer arguments while you throw them out and don't answer arguments. How adorable, you seriously think it upsets me. I'm just pointing out your own hypocrisy and double standards and you don't like it one tiny bit.

              And please learn what an opportunistic feeding is.
              Too bad that doesn't refute my argument, in any way. Poor James, so frustrated with is lack of answers and arguments, but too prideful to ever admit to a single error. I look forward to your next rant where you do the very thing you condemn me of doing and don't bat an eye at your own hypocrisy.
              Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 08-07-2015, 10:01 AM.
              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                I don't have to, I come from a farm country that had nothing but potato fields to support a living. It was a culture in collapse because there was no jobs to keep things running there. The local government tried various things to no success, because they're no jobs. I'm sure there are various cultures in the US that will have similar fates.

                Are you proposing to keep them on government life support, or to halt other projects simple for that reason?



                Coal won't disappear overnight Sparko, you're making it sound like it'll disappear over a year. However its true that no matter how you twist or turn the numbers, coal will become a minor player in the energy market by 2050, even if the only forces acting are free market forces. Its pretty much inevitable. The government can speed it up, or not, however its this communities responsibility to adapt to the future. They can ask for help to it of course, but they have a responsibility to adapt if they can.
                It doesn't need "government life support" -- it needs the government to stop trying to shut them down. It would be like a region that depended on fishing as the primary income and having the government put a complete ban on fishing, even if the fish are not endangered.

                If coal does end up as a minor player because of the market that is one thing. It is completely another for the government to shut down coal mines when there is still a demand for coal. Which is what is happening.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  Some relatively easy reading addressing mountaintop removal, which is what I mentioned.
                  They strip mined the mountain top behind my Grandfather's house back in the 1980's and they had to rebuild and replant it. Today you can't even tell where the strip mine was. They did not dump the overburden into the valley, they trucked it away while mining then replaced it when finished. Nobody's land around the mined mountain was affected in any way. In most cases the mining companies will buy the mineral rights to land but not the land itself and they have to leave it in as good or better shape than before they mined it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    They strip mined the mountain top behind my Grandfather's house back in the 1980's and they had to rebuild and replant it. Today you can't even tell where the strip mine was. They did not dump the overburden into the valley, they trucked it away while mining then replaced it when finished. Nobody's land around the mined mountain was affected in any way. In most cases the mining companies will buy the mineral rights to land but not the land itself and they have to leave it in as good or better shape than before they mined it.
                    Why do we even try to argue with Mr Know-it-all-Google-butt?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Why do we even try to argue with Mr Know-it-all-Google-butt?
                      got me. why are we discussing strip mining in a planned parenthood abortion thread?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Why do we even try to argue with Mr Know-it-all-Google-butt?
                        I agree; when all you have to counter scientific study is a cursory anecdote, one has to wonder why y'all bother. But we see the same show again and again.

                        Source: Mountaintop Mining Consequences. M. A. Palmer, et al. Science 8 January 2010: Vol. 327 no. 5962 pp. 148-14


                        Clearly, current attempts to regulate MTM/VF practices are inadequate. Mining permits are being issued despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that impacts are pervasive and irreversible and that mitigation cannot compensate for losses. Considering environmental impacts of MTM/VF, in combination with evidence that the health of people living in surface-mining regions of the central Appalachians is compromised by mining activities, we conclude that MTM/VF permits should not be granted unless new methods can be subjected to rigorous peer review and shown to remedy these problems.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          got me. why are we discussing strip mining in a planned parenthood abortion thread?
                          Because killing babies makes Mountain Man blow his stack!
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            I agree; when all you have to counter scientific study is a cursory anecdote, one has to wonder why y'all bother.
                            We don't have any mountains in Texas. I doubt you have any in your mitten shaped state, either.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              got me. why are we discussing strip mining in a planned parenthood abortion thread?
                              The sad thing is that Sam is far more worried about blowing up mountains than he is in the murder of innocent babies.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                We don't have any mountains in Texas. I doubt you have any in your mitten shaped state, either.
                                I've been in the Davis Mountains in west Texas back in the late 1970s. Was up to no good as usual.

                                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, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                284 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X