What's red and bad for your teeth?A brick.
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Jack on August 02, 2020, 07:40:44 PMQuote from: Minister of silly walks on August 02, 2020, 06:05:21 PMJack, thanksYou're welcome. How long is that gargantuan signature going to be around?Until it starts becoming annoying. Are we there yet?
Quote from: Minister of silly walks on August 02, 2020, 06:05:21 PMJack, thanksYou're welcome. How long is that gargantuan signature going to be around?
Jack, thanks
Quote from: Minister of silly walks on August 02, 2020, 10:31:46 PMQuote from: Jack on August 02, 2020, 07:40:44 PMQuote from: Minister of silly walks on August 02, 2020, 06:05:21 PMJack, thanksYou're welcome. How long is that gargantuan signature going to be around?Until it starts becoming annoying. Are we there yet?Thinking we were there right out of the gate. Though do have the ability to block signatures, so can fix it myself without imposing if the desire is to keep it long term.
Who else is missunderstood? Hitler? Give me a fucking break. If you support this evil which then I can't respect you. What I said was a valid question: why can't she stay the fuck out of other people's affairs? Her own writing shows she is a frigid bitch. Why should she be the boss of other people's sexual health? You're never going to answer that are you you racist?
Quote from: Jack on August 02, 2020, 07:16:13 PMQuote from: Minister of silly walks on August 02, 2020, 06:05:21 PMFrom what I understand, Sanger's "eugenics" was simply the sane position that women should be able to make their own reproductive choices. Not just wealthy or privileged women. Wouldn't try to deny Sanger found some matter of alignment in eugenics due to finding certain people unfit, but those views seem clearly based in economic and intellectual fitness regardless of race. It so happened to be a racist time, and while motives might not have been racist, it doesn't appear racially motivated support for contraception was rejected. Though that sort of thing occurs with many movements, even today. One organization may not reject the support of a more extreme organization which happens to serve their own agenda, even though certain extremes aren't something they promote, engage or support.Yes, totally agree. Also racist views were mainstream at the time. So if Sanger had refused dialogue or agreement with groups who were openly racist, her audience would have been very small. Applying 21st century sensitivities to early 20th century issues and movements needs to take those sort of considerations into account.
Quote from: Minister of silly walks on August 02, 2020, 06:05:21 PMFrom what I understand, Sanger's "eugenics" was simply the sane position that women should be able to make their own reproductive choices. Not just wealthy or privileged women. Wouldn't try to deny Sanger found some matter of alignment in eugenics due to finding certain people unfit, but those views seem clearly based in economic and intellectual fitness regardless of race. It so happened to be a racist time, and while motives might not have been racist, it doesn't appear racially motivated support for contraception was rejected. Though that sort of thing occurs with many movements, even today. One organization may not reject the support of a more extreme organization which happens to serve their own agenda, even though certain extremes aren't something they promote, engage or support.
From what I understand, Sanger's "eugenics" was simply the sane position that women should be able to make their own reproductive choices. Not just wealthy or privileged women.
the abortion rate among black mothers is more than three times higher than it is for white mothers
Planned Parenthood never stopped focusing on black people.
How can you say that I haven't constructed an argument if you admit to not reading my posts? A debate with you would be futile, anyway.
