My daddy always told me......

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:37
VIEWED: 5895
PAGE 10 of 11

Rue, Sig

medication time? [<--snark]

Okay, the Sanger thing might have come before you called me a liar and said that I was just making sh*t up and bullying people into taking it or something like that.

On tag teaming, it's tag teaming when the two of you, and are not the same person, but who do know each other, take a position, you back each other up, and become an argumentative unit. It's been commented on several times, like the way Citizen doesn't know when to let go, Whozit is immature, and my posts are way too long.


Me and Wulf are so much not a unit that he didn't know I was a guy. We were not forming one argument, we were just two people who happened to disagree.


Venom, you just don't know you're doing it. You spew venom on a level that the boards neocons used to. Maybe this comes from having a president in power? I don't know, I've never voted for a winner.


Okay,

Quote:

---

DT

"I thought that agreeing to disagree would work ..."

As I get it, you want to be able to rant at length and make shit up, and can't stand when other people express their opinions if they are not in line with yours. You want this to be your personal forum and are looking for other people to just shut up and go along with whatever you post.

---

That's a can of venom, in response to this fairly reasonable post:

Quote:

---

Rue,

read that one, and several others. It's still a fact, as are the transfusions. What you are seeing is Koprowski's life work, clearing his name, and getting people to help him. I researched this a lot. I'm convinced, he did it, he should own up to it.

Sig,

Population control is a fascist idea. End of story. If you believe in it, we should avoid this topic.

Quote:
has nothing to do with feminism, but more with capitalism



You're missing a very large part of the puzzle. No movement ever succeeds without power backing. Feminism is an idea, but cannot win, and neither can civil rights, or anything else, without the backing of govt. or capital. This is because there is no power to the people. The people have no power. Watch the protests marching against every war there's ever been. 99% of the population can oppose a policy, and policy marches on. It only changes when the people in power want it to.

Were there well meaning people in the women's lib movemen? Of course there were. Did they effect the change. No, they couldn't, they didn't have the power. The only powers here are the gun and the buck. The gun belongs to the govt, and the buck belongs to the federal reserve.

Kathy,

Quote:
No. What you say just isn't so.



Oh, just keep telling yourself that. It makes all the nightmares go away. Peace and bunnyrabbits. The world is made of popcorn.

---

Okay, that last line, was a snark. I thought that was obvious. Now the rest of my response was quoting and directed to Pirate News and Wulf, really on different tangents, not on what we were talking about. I was not "tag teaming" but showing a little solidarity fellow conservatives, and to point out, through that, not a joint attack, but the sort of value that you are up against when you post. I thought that it was good for perspective.

Meaning, I was reminding you that basically, the commonly held belief on this side of the aisle is that Roe v Wade killed over 50 million people. That's an opinion, based on ones perception of the nature of life.

My point of the maple seed post was to point out that the US, a major food producer, easily had space for those 50 million, in resources. That's not always the case. If it's not the case, then the issue becomes more complex. What to do with excess Chinese or Indians, move them to America? Maybe. But that's a whole other discussion.

The thing is that you need to know that position, when you are debating someone.

Sorry Wulf, I'm just using this as an example:

We all know that Wulf has an inter-racial marriage because he posted the picks. Someone came on and accused him of racism. That seems absurd. Wulf has childhood trauma of what w

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

DT, I see that you're positions are passionately held and deeply personal, but they puzzle me.

For instance, is is just abortion you're against or ALL forms of contraception? Because from a "eugenics" standpoint either mechanism will get you to the same end. (So will starvation by appropriation of goods or economic isolation. Did you know that during the potato famine, Ireland was exporting wheat, beef, milk, butter, and cheese?)

So what is the basis for your reaction? Deliberate manipulations of populations, or specifically against killing embryos? Or, perhaps, something else? Perhaps the concept of limiting the number of births as being reflective of a culture of death? Maybe you think cultures should celebrate life, and "nature" should deal death? That would be in-tune with the rest of your positions.

Quote:

---

Steinem and co are also very damaging

---

They are? How?
Not a big follower of Steinem, just trying to figure out what YOU mean by the "new" feminism, which I feel you really haven't explained.

Quote:

---

It's not populations which have influence, it's capital itself. Gold, or the equiv, and the very few people who hold it.

---

I guess this is where the nascent Marxist in me says... it's production that counts.

Quote:

---

. Not debating Roe v Wade. I don't think we ever should. It's a waste of my time and a waste of yours. Neither of us is going to move

---

That goes back to my question of... are you against contraception or just abortion?

Quote:

---

there are lots of plans older than 1500 years, but for the English-Irish dispute, just read some history.

---

There are lots of disputes that have existed for centuries, but not so many "plans". I think what survives are memes, not plans.

Quote:

---

Currently, it's population control. It's an evolution, the next step in genocide: Kill em, persecute them, persecute something that will tag them, but doesn't look like it's directed against them, move them, starve them out, rule them, keep them poor, and finally, try to influence or enforce population control on them. This is what the british have done, and they're not alone by a long stretch. There may be other more advanced, more discreet forms of genocide, they just haven't evolved yet, or haven't been recognized.

---

You can point to one example of genocide, but that doesn't mean that all forms of birth control are genocide. I just means that genocide is genocide.

Quote:

---

By most men, and many women, those who ended up childless, and those who simply don't like being told "because you are female, you must believe this."

---

I don't know ANYONE who says "you must not have children" altho I know plenty who say "you must". The way I see it, if you have the responsibility you have the authority. If you're the person who winds up raising children then YOU get to say whether or not you'll have children in the first place. It's the exact opposite of this demonic world-wide 100-year-old eugenics plan that you think is in place: it's putting the decision at the lowest level, where it belongs.

Quote:

---

So yes, I don't know a man who would marry a feminist, and I know a lot of men.

---

Am I a feminist? I'm married. My hubby is not a feminist btw.

Quote:

---

it's loved only in one place: academia, and mostly by women.

---

Amazing, a womens' movement loved by women! Did you ever here about the Benguine communities?


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm sorry if this is an unwelcome interruption, but I just read/skimmed The Case for Birth Control by Margaret Sanger, and I thought maybe I could contribute to this conversation by talking about it.

I think this might be a long post, sorry again. I try not to get carried away and keep things short out of consideration of all your time, but sometimes I can't help it.

So, she starts out pretty innocently. In fact, I'd say that most of her book is actually just a compilation of numerical stats (the parts I skimmed) and statements from doctors. And I think birth control, as the choice of the woman in the case of being unable to support any more children is not itself wrong.

I've mentioned that I live in Salt Lake City, and my extended family... Well, they're mormon. My immediate family isn't. But one of my aunts has had seven children already, and the number of pregnancies she's had has damaged her bladder. She can't have any more children without serious risk to her health, and I know my uncle wants more (but thankfully will not pursue the matter). And they can support their children, so while I think it's awful that she's basically SPENT herself, health-wise, I suppose I can't judge.

In high school, someone I knew had ten siblings. They lived in a tiny house, several people to one bedroom. The CLUTTER. The RESTROOMS AND SEWAGE. The parents could no longer raise all of their children, the older siblings had begun to take on that role. They were incredibly happy, it was all very emotionally supportive, but I really felt sorry for them, because it was a genuinely unhealthful environment, and they were all of them underfed.

And if the person is going to get one anyway, birth control is really a better alternative I believe to... You know. Not so explosively controversial. Don't think I have the stamina for an argument on that topic, so moving RIGHT along...

Back to Sanger. She founded Family Planning, supported birth control, and was trying to discourage all that. So I don't really understand why people here are calling her a murderer... Anyone want to elaborate? Is it the family planning thing, do they do the whatsits?

However, I will say, that some of the arguments Dreamtrove mentioned ARE here, and they are a bit chilling.

She talks about unfit and/or feebleminded parents begetting similarly "inferior" children. She further suggests as part of her recommended birth control program that doctors specifically target so called "inferior" parents and try to convince them to try birth control.

Nations that she also talks about being particularly advanced in the area of birth control... Well... *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

She does mention population control for society as a positive benefit or her recommended program. Better work force, labor markets, quality of life, all direct results, she claims.

She advocates the government's intervention between unfit parents and their children. Now I'm not sure how far her argument extends, she didn't elaborate much, so I don't know if that's for clear-cut cases of abuse or... I don't know. Something sinister, I guess.

And she talks about the working class women in America in those times not having access to birth control, when the wealthy women do. I seriously doubt that was the case, what with the obscenity acts preventing people from circulating any sort of literature about conception. If wealthy women weren't having more children, it's because they were wealthier women, and their husbands probably didn't pay much attention to them. Really stuffy times back then.

Anyhoo. The weird thing about that is, she's advocating birth control for the working class. She's a socialist. That doesn't make much sense to me, that would seem to interfere with her desired uprising of the working class. Was she trying to incense the working class by giving them the feeling of being denied? Or was that all part of her master socialist plan?

Second to last comment: I think, because birth control nowadays is based off of

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

And she talks about the working class women in America in those times not having access to birth control, when the wealthy women do. I seriously doubt that was the case

---

Wealthy women had access to abortions performed out of country, or by well-paid physicans within the USA. Abortions have been known since... time immemorial. That's why the Hippocratic oath injunctions it. (Babies are the property of the male. A women did not have the right to steal her husband's property. The culture at the time: May your wife be as the fuitful vine in the recesses of your home.)

Quote:

---

If wealthy women weren't having more children, it's because they were wealthier women, and their husbands probably didn't pay much attention to them. Really stuffy times back then.

---

And then there was always prostitution. Everything they do today, they did back then. And even more so. Did you hear about the latrine pits outside of the whorehouses of ancient Greece and Rome? Filled with the skeletons of newborns.

Quote:

---

Anyhoo. The weird thing about that is, she's advocating birth control for the working class. She's a socialist. That doesn't make much sense to me, that would seem to interfere with her desired uprising of the working class.

---

I can't speak for Sanger. To me she's a historical figure w/o much relevance. But my interpretation would be this: Whether thought of as workers or mothers, women who are cranking out an endless supply of babies simply don't have the time or energy to become involved in larger issues of justice, fairness etc.

Dont' mean to sound snarky, just out of time!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sig,

I'm way to sick to carry on this discussion, I'll try to read your post and make some comments, but I'm really not up for it, so this is like the 5 min warning I'm abandoning the thread, not because of the topic, though I think these can be pointless.

Quote:

---

For instance, is is just abortion you're against or ALL forms of contraception? Because from a "eugenics" standpoint either mechanism will get you to the same end. (So will starvation by appropriation of goods or economic isolation. Did you know that during the potato famine, Ireland was exporting wheat, beef, milk, butter, and cheese?)

---

1. Not discussing RTL. I'm against killing things, so, a) killing anything, b) a larger scheme that has the goal of killing, so, no, if a population has decided to limit itself because of lack of resources or whatever, then fine. But if one population is manipulating another...

2. On Ireland, a lot of people on my mom's side were in that famine. I think you'll find some others here... You're point being?

Did you know that the govt. in Dublin was, and possibly still is, an English puppet settlement? The term beyond the pale refered to "beyond the fence, outside of dublin where the irish were."

Look at African famines, they are often exporting food. The govt, or some powerbroker, is making money, and letting the locals starve, or encouraging it. In fact, this is how famines happen, in general. It's not a natural disaster, it's a man made one, and a form of genocide. I cannot think of an exception.

Quote:

---

So what is the basis for your reaction? Deliberate manipulations of populations

---

Yes. It's a prominent force in the world. What would have happened to China without the policy? China would have exported a lot of humans, probably here. Someone didn't want a lot of Chinese people roaming about. I strongly suspect that the deal was cut for "most favored nation status." We can't allow this because it's an effective way to destroy a population. This I would consider bad in itself, but consider this:

If there is a tool to remove an opposing population, then people would use it. Eugenicists and supremacists. The former would want to weed out the undesireables, like Sanger, the later might try to weed out "threats" and target educated populations, dissenting populations, while breeding a slave population. This is not about genetics, but a prime example at the moment is Israel: They would love to limit palestinian population growth. At the moment, they're using brute force, but they've hit the limit of what the world will stand for on that. Next, they might try to starve them out, and then they might just manipulate the govt. of Palestine to put in place population control, and do what the English have done.

Here's where it gets worse: Suppose the victim/target population figures it out. It won't be in a position to do the same to the dominant population controlling them, because it won't hold the keys to power. but it will have the more primitive means. So figure that this hypothetical takes place, because it will, maybe in Palestine, maybe not, but somewhere. The logical next step for a Palestinian resistance movement would be to nuke Tel Aviv.

This whole situation is really what this war is about, the one we are in. Globalists want to change the middle east to put in new govts. to a) put them a proto world world govt supranational union like EU or NAFTA, (It already exists, it's called MEFTA) and b) to control the population. It's not an overpopulated area, but it has high population growth, and it's getting to the point where it's already impossible for Israel to take on Iran, and soon it might be impossible for the US. So, if they can't genocide the population in some way, and maintain technological supremacy, they will never win, and if they don't win, they're one world dream, which I would call global domination, would fail.

Quote:

---

Perhaps the concept of limiting the number of births as being reflective of a culture of death? Maybe you think cultures should celebrate life, and "na

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME