Margaret Sanger's dream is sadly alive in New York City

[*bfine32*]

(07-28-2015, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the older sibling was not required to use his time caring for a younger sibling he could do something else to help the family.

And child labor is not the answer to escaping poverty.  The time that the mother loses with pregnancy and caring for infants is rarely regained unless the children are never allowed to go to school and are instead used as full time child labor.

Seems your second sentence kind of goes against your 1st sentence.

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 02:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: the fact your so uninformed on this is hilarious.   Go read up on the negro project.  

And yes if we were talking about slavery right now and I used states rights as a reason to continue slavery right now.  then you would have a point.  

But since we are talking about pp, abortions, minorities/undesirables, and the eugenics movement and how its tenets are still active and being supported.    you don't realize it but your making my point that this has been so ingrained into everything we do that for most its second nature to defend it and use the same lines they have been teaching us for over a century.    

This is exactly why ignoring the eugenics movement in schools is a bad thing.   

You just keep huffing and puffing without ever addressing that fact that our argument is based on a logical fallacy.

The fact is that it is a benefit for the poor to have fewer children.  It doesn't matter if that argument was used by people supporting eugenics, it is still a valid argument.

And my proof is that you do not even try to make any argument against it.  It is a fact that it is a benefit for poor people to have fewer children.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the older sibling was not required to use his time caring for a younger sibling he could do something else to help the family.

And child labor is not the answer to escaping poverty.  The time that the mother loses with pregnancy and caring for infants is rarely regained unless the children are never allowed to go to school and are instead used as full time child labor.

what needs regained?  She is doing the most important job in the family.   

and the way people escape poverty or any difficulty is by families pulling together.   

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You just keep huffing and puffing without ever addressing that fact that our argument is based on a logical fallacy.

The fact is that it is a benefit for the poor to have fewer children.  It doesn't matter if that argument was used by people supporting eugenics, it is still a valid argument.

And my proof is that you do not even try to make any argument against it.  It is a fact that it is a benefit for poor people to have fewer children.

I need to defend that the poor shouldn't be told that they should have as few children as possible?  

Who are you to decide that for them?

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 02:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I need to defend that the poor shouldn't be told that they should have as few children as possible?  

Who are you to decide that for them?

This is total gibberish.

The poor should have as few children as possible.  Kids need to be taught this in high school.  The two biggest indicators of lifelong poverty are dropping out of high school and having a child as a teenager.

And how am I or anyone else deciding how many children they should have?

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 02:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: what needs regained?  She is doing the most important job in the family.   

and the way people escape poverty or any difficulty is by families pulling together.   

More gibberish.

When a family can not support itself then the worst thing it can do is become larger by adding more babies.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-28-2015, 02:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: what needs regained?  She is doing the most important job in the family.   

and the way people escape poverty or any difficulty is by families pulling together.   

please expand on this. 

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is total gibberish.

The poor should have as few children as possible.  Kids need to be taught this in high school.  The two biggest indicators of lifelong poverty are dropping out of high school and having a child as a teenager.

And how am I or anyone else deciding how many children they should have?

Good to know.  i guess your not alone in thinking the poor should have as few children as possible.  you keep nice company. 

Quote:The word eugenics, which means well born, was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Positive eugenics was a movement that attempted to “improve” the human population by encouraging “fit” people to reproduce. Negative eugenics, conversely, attempted to “improve” the human population by discouraging “unfit” people from reproducing. The “unfit” people included the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the “feeble-minded,” the “idiots,” the “morons,” and the “insane.” And “discouragement” from reproducing included the use of force.

Sanger rejected positive eugenics, while embracing negative eugenics. She wrote, “Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.” She stressed the need to merge eugenics with birth control, adding, “Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”

Quote:In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization she attacked charity as counterproductive, and dangerous, for helping the poor to produce even more “human waste.” (Sanger’s term for the children of the poor.) She wrote, “Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease.” And, “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

Quote:And in 1939, Sanger went to work “cultivating the garden.” She initiated the Negro Project to weed out the unfit from the black population. In bringing birth control to the then largely poor (i.e. unfit) population of the South, with a few influential black ministers promoting the project as the solution to poverty, Sanger hoped to significantly reduce the black population.

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2015, 04:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good to know.  i guess your not alone in thinking the poor should have as few children as possible.  you keep nice company. 

I'm actually in favor of everyone having fewer children. But I don't really enjoy being around people very much.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 05:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm actually in favor of everyone having fewer children. But I don't really enjoy being around people very much.

Haha wise arse.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 04:31 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: please expand on this. 

Families come together in tough times. Siblings, parents, grand parents, kids, etc all pull together. The tighter the Unit the more resilient.

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 04:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good to know.  i guess your not alone in thinking the poor should have as few children as possible.  you keep nice company. 

And since you support states rights you keep company with the people who supported slavery.

BTW I think everyone but you agrees with me on this point.  So you are pretty much insulting everyone here.  I don't see anyone else here that is going to say that iot is a good thing for poor people to have more babies.  Even if they are against abortion they are going to be opposed to poor people having more babies. That does not mean the all support eugenics.

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 09:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Families come together in tough times.  Siblings, parents, grand parents, kids, etc  all pull together.   The tighter the Unit the more resilient.

Which has nothing to do with the size of the family.  

At this point maybe I should use some your crazy backwards logic and ask why all huge families are not successful

[StLucieBengal]

(07-29-2015, 12:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And since you support states rights you keep company with the people who supported slavery.

BTW I think everyone but you agrees with me on this point.  So you are pretty much insulting everyone here.  I don't see anyone else here that is going to say that iot is a good thing for poor people to have more babies.  Even if they are against abortion they are going to be opposed to poor people having more babies. That does not mean the all support eugenics.

So you actually think that everyone here but me thinks that poor people should not be allowed to choose how many children they have .... That somehow they are not capable to decide how many children are sufficient.

Lol your crazy .

And they may not know they support eugenics but they may be preaching the same lessons. You are clueless to the fact your preaching a negative eugenics way of life. The only thing your not doing is just calling it eugenics.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-29-2015, 12:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Which has nothing to do with the size of the family.  

At this point maybe I should use some your crazy backwards logic and ask why all huge families are not successful

Oh so we should just start limiting family size now for the poor. What about the handicapped? Should we sterilize them?

Maybe a 1 child minimum for all poor people. Any other children are to be aborted and harvested for sale. Eventually we will get the right mix of society .... Right

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-29-2015, 01:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Oh so we should just start limiting family size now for the poor.  What about the handicapped?  Should we sterilize them?  

Maybe a 1 child minimum for all poor people.   Any other children are to be aborted and harvested for sale.    Eventually we will get the right mix of society .... Right

Hell no... poor people need to pump out as many babies as they can!  More poor people = more dem votes!


Gotta keep those votes rolling in!

[fredtoast]

(07-29-2015, 01:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So you actually think that everyone here but me thinks that poor people should not be allowed to choose how many children they have ....  

No I never said that at all.  That is just a strawman you had to create because you can not argue with what I really said.

What I really said was that it is a bad idea for poor people to have more children

[fredtoast]

(07-29-2015, 01:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Oh so we should just start limiting family size now for the poor.  

No.  I never said that.

We should try to convince them that it is a bad isea to have more children, but we have no authority to limit the number of children they have.

Why don't you ever address what I actually say?

Wait, nevermind.  I know exactly why you never address what i actually say.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-29-2015, 01:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No I never said that at all.  That is just a strawman you had to create because you can not argue with what I really said.

What I really said was that it is a bad idea for poor people to have more children

You said everyone agreed with you. That poor people should be limited on children because they couldn't provide. And that I was the only one who didnt agree.

Now to the last bit. You may think it's a bad idea for poor people to have children but that's not your decision. You decide how many children are in the toast household. That's as far as your jurisdiction goes.... None of us have the right to tell anyone they can't or shouldn't have children. Poor people can provide a loving home. And btw who gets to decide who is poor and who isn't?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-29-2015, 01:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I never said that.

We should try to convince them that it is a bad isea to have more children, but we have no authority to limit the number of children they have.

Why don't you ever address what I actually say?

Wait, nevermind.  I know exactly why you never address what i actually say.

correct we have no authority... But what about the years of "family planning" education kids get in schools. Telling them to not have children and when you do just abort it ...... We are brain washing them at a young age to the point they are so easy with taking a life.

When a mother loses a child she is broken usually. But yet we tell them an abortion is nothing . There is no difference in an abortion or a miscarriage. Yet a miscarriage comes with loss, sorrow, grief, etc. And an abortion they walk out with a lollipop while pp sells off their baby for parts and trying to get the most money. They never are told or realize that their baby is baby enough to be used for parts.

I understand why people think they need to educate that way. And I don't think you are a Eugenicist. But I do think you and lots of other people have fallen into this brain wash we have all been mixed up and with them actually telling us that we are Better off if certain people don't have children. And we do it by our placement of pp.

I am guilty of this as well. I said the same dumb things. I am just glad I woke up.