It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Margaret Sanger Letter to Doctor C. J. Gamble 12-10-39

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Which frankly for me is the basic subtext of this entire thread. I wonder where else we have seen that?

And my point is that saying, "you are just as bad as us" is a dumb argument and not worth making.




posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Right. Because other nafareous motives wouldn't be possible:




[She also] appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children....Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists.[110] She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." They differed in that "eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state."[111] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[6]

en.m.wikipedia.org...



So race was one motivation, but there were several more.


edit on 11-8-2019 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: loam
Which frankly for me is the basic subtext of this entire thread. I wonder where else we have seen that?

And my point is that saying, "you are just as bad as us" is a dumb argument and not worth making.


"You are just as bad as us" is not the correct analogy.

It's more like, "you are not allowed to be as bad as us".

See the difference?



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
There is a difference in what you posted but that isn't how the OP comes off.

The fact that OP tried to spin it by saying "the left continuing her ideals and keeping PP alive and well today they are in turn furthering the agenda of real white supremacists" shows they are not even saying "you are just as bad as us" but are in fact trying to say they (the left) are worse.


(post by M5xaz removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: loam
There is a difference in what you posted but that isn't how the OP comes off.

The fact that OP tried to spin it by saying "the left continuing her ideals and keeping PP alive and well today they are in turn furthering the agenda of real white supremacists" shows they are not even saying "you are just as bad as us" but are in fact trying to say they (the left) are worse.





No.

You left out the premise of his statement: "Since we are at a time when the left uses any excuse to call those of us in the right as "racist"...", which has a direct correlation to my analogy. What immediately follows from the OP, and the portion you quote, I interpret as sarcastic mimicry of those upon whom his premise is based.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population


I'm sorry, but if that's all you got, it's not enough to convince me that she wasn't concerned about that "word" being "fake news", because birth control, which is what the Negro Project was all about, isn't an extermination tool, and no blacks were exterminated by Sanger, her clinics or through the Negro Project.




Or, maybe you can't think because you are drunk all the time.


What the hell, man?


edit on 11-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
That is your interpretation but my take stems from the OP's posting history. They are all in partisan and they always downplay/dismiss their side's "flaws" and hype the other's. They usually show good examples of bias.


edit on 11-8-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Let me lay it out for you.

1.Sanger WAS a eugenist.

2. Her "clinics" did exterminate Black babies - blacks are over-represented in abortions to this day

3. She was concerned about her eugenic agenda going out.

Cry fake new as much as you want , facts are there, Sanger was into genocide.

Your hero workship of Sanger speaks to your character, or, more so, lack of thereof....get it out of the closet and wear your KKK hood proudly...
edit on 11-8-2019 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: loam
That is your interpretation but my take stems from the OP's posting history. They are all in partisan and they always downplay/dismiss their side's "flaws" and hype the other's. They usually show good examples of bias.



Well, then at least you've distinguished your perspective from mine.

I do really try (not always successfully) to address the words that I see in each post, regardless of the poster.

Your approach in this thread is to brand the poster as an "...all in partisan...and always...bla, bla, bla".

Pretty funny in a thread where there seems to be general agreement that some useful ideas can come from less-than-ideal places.

You were saying what about bias again?




edit on 11-8-2019 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your hero workship of Sanger speaks to your character, or, more so, lack of thereof....get it out of the closet and wear your KKK hood proudly...


Well that goes too far in my opinion.

I think it's universally difficult for people to admit their heroes might have some profound flaws.

I'm willing to bet that's even true of you. So let's not go overboard.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
I do really try (not always successfully) to address the words that I see in each post, regardless of the poster.

But in this case you interpreted the words without taking into account the source of the words.


Your approach in this thread is to brand the poster as an "...all in partisan...and always...bla, bla, bla".

My approach to this thread is to take the context of the whole letter to interpret that one line that the OP is built around.


Pretty funny in a thread where there seems to be general agreement that some useful ideas can come from less-than-ideal places.

Who said nothing good came of this? Helps us identify weak arguments based on cherry picked sentences in old letters.


You were saying what about bias again?

OP has a very strong bias which is why they didn't see how lame the argument in this thread was.

The fact that I am not biased, in regards to the topic of the OP, lets me see the flaw in the logic of the argument without the need to defend the left or Sanger.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam

But you won't condemn (or even acknowledge) the evil plainly presented to you about her.

Why are you venerating the person? I get your support for those general social issues, but you can do that without defending her obvious and well documented flaws.



Did you miss this post from TerryMcguire on the previous page?



Man, you have twisted that letter all to suit I don't know what. Read it again. She says they can lay their cards on the table better with black doctors than white doctors. Their ignorance and superstitions. She does not call them ignorant and superstitous but rather recognizes that they have ignorance on subjects and have superstitions. All people have ignorance and superstitions.

You have taken what she said looking for racism and you have found it, but only at the expense of our own ability to see beyond your own biases.


Put very succinctly I thought.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




Cry fake new as much as you want , facts are there, Sanger was into genocide.


That right there is lie.

There are no facts that show that Sanger was into killing blacks or their babies. Sanger was opposed to abortion, virulently, and I've posted her quotes about abortion in this thread. The fact that her clinics evolved after her death, to take on the mantle of providing legal, safe, accessible and affordable abortions has not one thing to do with Margaret Sanger's mission to get birth control into the hands of women.

Sanger never exterminated, or oversaw the extermination of black babies, fetuses, adults.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Ok. Try to keep up.



originally posted by: daskakik

But in this case you interpreted the words without taking into account the source of the words.


For me, 'source' instructs caution and the need for additional supporting information, not a summary dismissal of anything being said because of it. The fact you keep making this point about the OP reveals some pretty heavy bias of your own.

As an aside, the greatest irony is that this OP used to relentlessly attack my positions on many threads, because like you, he painted me with a pretty broad brush simply because of our disagreement on a single narrow topic.

I certainly didn't enjoy it, but I've never held it against the OP.


My approach to this thread is to take the context of the whole letter to interpret that one line that the OP is built around.


That's pretty funny too. So in this thread you judge the poster based on your opinion of who the poster is, not just by what they said. But with Sanger, you want to limit all analysis to just her letter.



Who said nothing good came of this? Helps us identify weak arguments based on cherry picked sentences in old letters.

OP has a very strong bias which is why they didn't see how lame the argument in this thread was.

The fact that I am not biased, in regards to the topic of the OP, lets me see the flaw in the logic of the argument without the need to defend the left or Sanger.


Honestly, I'm really laughing now, and I also think that there is literally nothing I could write that would be productive with you. Let's just say that I think you have a pretty big blind spot.
edit on 11-8-2019 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
For me, 'source' instructs caution and the need for additional supporting information, not a summary dismissal of anything being said because of it. The fact you keep making this point about the OP reveals some pretty heavy bias of your own.

You have his posting history, have at it.


That's pretty funny too. So in this thread you judge the poster based on your opinion of who the poster is, not just by what they said. But with Sanger, you want to limit all analysis to just her letter.

Not my opinion but what their posting history shows about them.

ETA: Someone already fleshed out Sanger's position.


Honestly, I'm really laughing now, and I also think that there is literally nothing I could write that would be productive with you. Let's just say that I think you have a pretty big blind spot.

So you have an opinion of me, fine.

The fact is that I am not here defending the left or Sanger. I am pointing out the weakness of the argument. Can you refute that? If not then you are correct, there is nothing you can write that would be productive.
edit on 11-8-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Can you refute that?


I did. You dismissed it.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
I did. You dismissed it.

No you did not.

You gave your interpretation, which included some benefit of the doubt.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Like I said, you dismissed it.




posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Like I said, you dismissed it.

It wasn't dismissed. I pointed out, based on the OP's posting history, why your interpretation missed the mark.

Also, even if your "you are not allowed to be as bad as us" was right, what does that even mean. How is that argument any better?
edit on 11-8-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join